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 8102
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8102) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/14/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: VTA Next Network Final Plan & Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan Title: Approval of the Draft Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan and Direction to Staff to Pursue Funding for Local Shuttle Service Enhancements From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council review the draft Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan (Attachment A), and 1) Approve the Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan including the following recommended enhancements (contingent on funding): a) Design of a new South Palo Alto Route b) Expansion of the Crosstown and Embarcadero Routes c) Rebranding and marketing strategy 2) Direct Staff to seek Measure B and other available funding for the proposed service enhancements. Executive Summary The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is implementing reductions in bus service in Palo Alto at the same time that Palo Alto has been exploring potential expansions in local shuttle service. Any expansion of local shuttle service is contingent on funding. This evening’s agenda item allows for a discussion of VTA’s service reductions (which is currently scheduled to be effective in December 2017) and possible local shuttle service enhancements which can only be implemented if the City is successful at securing funding from County Measure B and other sources. (VTA has for now rejected the idea of providing funds to backfill bus service reductions with local shuttle service.) City staff is also requesting direction to pursue funds for a new branding and marketing strategy for the Palo Alto Free Shuttle. Expanded transit service is one of many strategies that the City is pursuing to address parking demand and traffic in the City. Other strategies include transportation demand management City of Palo Alto Page 2 (TDM) strategies such as establishment and support for a new Transportation Management Association, parking management programs, and additional parking supplies. Background The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1998, identified “Goal T-2: A Convenient, Efficient, Public Transit System that Provides a Viable Alternative to Driving.” This goal led to the establishment of the Palo Alto Free Shuttle in 1999. The City of Palo Alto has historically provided free public transit service via a shuttle program that included two routes: the Crosstown and the Embarcadero. In 2014, the Palo Alto Free Shuttle Program introduced a new shuttle route in partnership with the City of East Palo Alto, bringing the total number of shuttle routes in the program to three. However, this third route was discontinued by the City of East Palo Alto on September 30, 2016. The Palo Alto Free Shuttle service complements transit services provided by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), as well as shuttle services provided by Stanford University, private companies, and other transit operators. The Crosstown Shuttle provides a north-south connection from the Palo Alto Transit Center to Crescent Park, Midtown, the Charleston Road area, and several community centers, libraries, senior centers, neighborhoods, and schools in between. The north-south connection is also supported by the VTA route 21, which follows Middlefield Road from the Palo Alto Transit Center to the Mountain View city limits, continuing on to downtown Mountain View. The Crosstown Shuttle route is funded 100% by the City’s General Fund and operates Monday through Friday during the daytime period, excluding some holidays. The Embarcadero Shuttle provides an east-west connection from the Palo Alto Transit Center to the businesses located in the Baylands at the east end of Embarcadero Road. The City currently contracts with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) to operate the Embarcadero Shuttle, which is a part of the Caltrain peak-hour commuter shuttle program and subsidized 46.5% by the PCJPB in Fiscal Year 2017. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2018, the PCJPB will subsidize 44%. The remaining 56% is funded by the City of Palo Alto General Fund. The shuttle operates Monday through Friday during peak periods only, excluding some holidays. Table 1, below, provides time of day ridership figures for the Crosstown Shuttle Route taken from two weekdays in March 2017. As this data suggests, and as indicated in the attached report, a large percentage of the ridership consists of students using the shuttle to get to and from school, but it also shows fairly consistent use throughout the day. Table 1: Crosstown Shuttle Ridership by Hour (Average taken from two weekdays in March 2017) City of Palo Alto Page 3 Source: Planning and Community Environment Department, July 2017 Table 2 below compares the Palo Alto Free Shuttle operation to peer operators; both the Emery Go Round in Emeryville and the Irvine iShuttle operate similar free shuttles. The table also compares the Palo Alto Free Shuttle to both VTA (at current service levels) and SamTrans systemwide service. Table 2: Peer Operator Comparisons Boardings/Revenue Hour Boardings/Revenue Mile Palo Alto Free Shuttle: Crosstown 33 2.8 Embarcadero 21 1.4 Emery Go Round: Hollis 47 3.7 Shellmound/Powell 70 5.5 Watergate 65 3.4 Irvine iShuttle: A 14 0.9 B 16 1 C 46 2.6 D 12 1.1 VTA: Systemwide 26 2.2 SamTrans: Systemwide 22 2 Source: Planning and Community Environment Department, July 2017 City of Palo Alto Page 4 In 2015, with the vision of expanding mobility options for Palo Alto residents, employee and visitors of all ages and abilities, staff retained Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. to develop the Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan (Attachment A). In January 2017, VTA released its Next Network Initiative Draft Plan. The Final Transit Plan was approved by the VTA Board on May 4, 2017 and is included as Attachment B.. VTA’s draft plan proposed the elimination of several transit routes in Palo Alto and addressing gaps which would result from these service changes was a key consideration in the development of transit route concepts in the Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan. The City also requested that VTA provides funding to backfill planned reductions in bus service with local shuttle service. The VTA Board of Directors approved the Final Transit Plan on May 4, 2017, and did not indicate their support for shuttle funding. Instead, the Board requested that VTA staff work on a “framework for working with cities.” VTA staff believes that this framework will focus on uses of the Transit Operations category of Measure B funding. Thus it appears that Palo Alto’s next opportunity for funding from VTA will be through a competitive process for Measure B funding when it becomes available. More discussion of VTA’s final plan is included below. Discussion In 2015, Staff engaged Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. to develop the Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan. This study was intended to move the vision of a citywide fare-free transit network forward by developing an expanded system concept for consideration by elected officials and residents alike. The plan is intended to serve as a blueprint for implementing new transit services within Palo Alto that connect residential areas to key employment, shopping, recreation, and school destinations. The vision outlined within the plan also seeks to improve regional connectivity with linkages to Caltrain and other transit providers (e.g. VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit), and take appropriate measures to address and fill gaps which may be presented by the elimination or modification of some VTA transit service in Palo Alto. This Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan was developed in close consultation with current shuttle users, residents, commuters and visitors. The planning process included the following phases: Community Engagement and Market Analysis (October 2015 to January 2016) - market demand analysis, community survey and community meeting Route Concept Development (January 2016 to March 2016) - development of universe of route concepts derived from community goals and objectives, community meeting, and high-level operational analysis Route Concept Screening and Service Plan Development (February 2016 to March 2016) - screening of universe of route concepts against goals and service criteria and development of a five-year service plan including phased implementation of additional service Monitoring VTA Next Network Initiative (April 2016 to January 2017) – study paused City of Palo Alto Page 5 while Staff engaged in advocacy and coordination around the proposed route restructuring by VTA Route Concept Development Phase 2 (January 2017 to March 2017) – route concepts refined based on VTA Next Network Initiative draft plan and pre-release discussions around the final plan VTA Next Network Initiative Update In January 2017, VTA released the Next Network Initiative Draft Plan, which focused on a reduction in coverage-based transit service in order to provide more robust and frequent service to higher ridership routes within the VTA service area. This draft plan included a service concept that was 90% focused on high-ridership routes and 10% oriented toward providing service coverage to other areas. In early April, VTA released the Next Network Initiative final plan, which proposed 83% of operating funding be used to improve higher ridership routes and 17% of funding for routes serving coverage goals. The VTA Board of Directors approved the Next Network Initiative Plan calling it the “Final Transit Plan” on May 4, 2017 which included modification to fixed-route service in Palo Alto as described in Table 3 below: Table 3: VTA Next Network Initiative Final Plan - Projected Impacts to Palo Alto Route Number Description of Change Routing Change Frequency Change 21 (New) The existing routes 35 and 32 would become route 21 and connect the Palo Alto Transit Center with San Antonio Shopping Center, San Antonio Caltrain Station, Downtown Mountain View, Downtown Sunnyvale and the Santa Clara Caltrain Station. NO NO 22 The route will remain but the frequency will be reduced. NO YES 35 Current route 35 will be discontinued and replaced with new Route 21. YES YES 88/288 (New) Current routes 88, 88L and 88M will be replaced with three new routes 288, 288A and 288B that will only run once in the morning and twice in the afternoon. One bus on each of the three routes will travel to Gunn High School and the VA Medical Center in the morning and one bus on each of the three routes will depart the school at dismissal time. One bus on one route will depart at a later time to be determined jointly by the school administration, PTA, greater school community, City and VTA. YES YES 89 Route 89 will continue to operate as is between the California Avenue Caltrain Station, Stanford Research Park and VA Medical Center. NO NO 102/103/10 No changes to express routes proposed at this time. NO NO City of Palo Alto Page 6 4/182 Subject to change pending outcome of the upcoming VTA Express Bus study. 522 The route will remain with increased frequency proposed to begin in April 2017. VTA has agreed to analyze the addition of more stops within Palo Alto. NO YES Paratransit Service Paratransit service area will contract with the reduction in fixed-route service, increasing the fare for paratransit service for residents along the west side of the US 101 freeway on the east side of Palo Alto. The elimination of the all-day route 88 service will move these residents from the standard paratransit area to the extended paratransit service area. These residents could see their paratransit fare increase from $4.00 to $16.00 per trip. YES NO Source: Planning and Community Environment Department, July 2017 March 2017 At the January 24, 2017 City Council meeting, VTA staff presented the Next Network Initiative Draft Plan and received feedback from the Councilmembers. Subsequent to the meeting, both the Mayor and City Manager drafted letters to the VTA Chair and Executive Director, respectively. The City received a response dated June 22, 2017. All of these letters are included as Attachment C. Throughout the last phase of the development of the Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan, Staff has worked to identify solutions to the proposed reduction in fixed-route transit service for Palo Alto residents. In order to address this, the plan identifies specific expansion opportunities for the Palo Alto Free Shuttle Program. Currently, 74% of Palo Alto residents are within walking distance (1/4 mile) of fixed-route transit service. Under the Next Network Initiative Final Plan, it is anticipated that this would be reduced to 61% of Palo Alto residents (Note: this amount increased slightly between the draft and final plans). With the implementation of the recommendations of the Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan, 77% of Palo Alto residents would be within walking distance (1/4 mile) of fixed-route transit service. This exceeds the mobility goal of 75% within the draft Sustainability and Climate Action Plan. Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan Recommended Shuttle Route Modifications and Extensions Based on current transit coverage in Palo Alto and gaps in coverage identified through the transit walkshed analysis, proposed changes to the VTA network, and community needs as expressed through the outreach process, a full set of route concepts were developed and screened as part of the visioning process. From this information, the Consultant and Staff developed proposed route modifications to the Crosstown and Embarcadero routes, as well a new South Palo Alto route. The recommended route modifications and extensions seek to enhance coverage, frequency, and span within the Palo Alto Free Shuttle Program while addressing the VTA reduction in fixed-route and paratransit services. City of Palo Alto Page 7 South Palo Alto Shuttle [Potential New Route] The Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan identifies a new route: the South Palo Alto Shuttle (Attachment A, pages 43-44). The South Palo Alto Shuttle would begin at the California Avenue Caltrain Station and terminate at the VA Medical center, serving schools and other destinations along Colorado Avenue, Louis Road, Fabian Way, East Charleston Road, West Charleston Road, Arastradero Road, and Miranda Avenue along the way. A special school run in the morning and afternoon would extend from the California Avenue Caltrain Station to Palo Alto High School, connecting the small sliver of the school’s attendance zone south of Oregon Expressway to the school. This route would provide replacement service for the areas currently served by VTA Route 88, with much more direct and seamless connections to local services and the regional transit network. Implementation of this route in coordination with the new VTA route 288/288L/288M could enable residents, employees and students along the route to depend much more regularly on transit, and increase overall transit utilization along the corridor. Staff was hoping this route could be implemented through a financial partnership with the VTA at the same time the Next Network Initiative route changes take effect, but the VTA Board has not shown an interest in doing so, instead asking VTA staff to develop a “framework” for collaborating with local jurisdictions like Palo Alto. Staff estimates that this new Route could provide 156,000 passenger trips annually. Crosstown Shuttle Modification Options There are two options to be considered for extension of the Crosstown Shuttle, Variant A and Variant B. Staff estimates that the enhanced Crosstown Route could provide an additional 266,079 annual passenger trips. Crosstown Variant B (Attachment A, pages 39-40), which would run primarily on Middlefield Road. This overlaps the current (and Final transit Plan’s) VTA Route 21 within Palo Alto and, with coordination, could result in 15-minute headways all day long along Middlefield Road. Coupled with the high-frequency service along El Camino Real, this would put a large number of Palo Alto residents and employees within walking distance of high-frequency fixed-route transit service. As part of the concept service plan, the Crosstown Shuttle is targeted for significant increases in frequency and service span. Implementation of this variant in coordination with the new VTA Route 21 could enable residents and employees along the Middlefield Road corridor to depend much more regularly on transit, and increase overall transit utilization along the corridor. The other Crosstown Shuttle alternative, Crosstown Variant A, would generally follow the Middlefield Road corridor, but deviate to serve libraries, community centers and schools, providing greater coverage but resulting in significantly less frequency along Middlefield Road. This variant, along with Crosstown Variant B, includes an extension to the Stanford Shopping Center, San Antonio Caltrain Station and San Antonio Shopping Center. These key destinations City of Palo Alto Page 8 were identified during our community engagement process and would likely lead to an increase in ridership. In its letter dated June 22, 2017, VTA requested that Variant A be Palo Alto’s preferred option, as VTA is concerned that the duplication of service from the Crosstown Variant B with Route 21 would negatively impact ridership on Route 21. Embarcadero Shuttle Extension Staff recommends modifying the Embarcadero Shuttle (Attachment A, pages 41-42) by extending the current route to serve municipal service buildings and other businesses along West Bayshore Road and East Bayshore Road, as well as the portion of San Antonio Road nearest to US 101, which includes the Oshman Family Jewish Community Center and other important trip generators. The segment along West Bayshore Road would provide new fixed- route transit access to several existing multi-family housing communities, as well as the Palo Alto residents who would see their VTA paratransit access reduced under the Next Network Initiative final plan. This modification could allow for the expansion of the City’s Caltrain Go Pass program to employees that work at the Municipal Service Center and on Elwell Court. Currently, the Embarcadero Shuttle is managed and operated by Caltrain, but 53.5% of the service's funding comes from the City of Palo Alto. When the route began, the City of Palo Alto only funded 25%, but this has increased as Caltrain and transportation grant funds have tapered off. With the change in funding allocation, staff recommends that the City of Palo Alto initiate discussions with Caltrain on taking ownership of the management and operation of the service (subject to available funding), which can allow for the synergy of marketing, branding, and provide a unified customer service experience across City-funded shuttle services. Several other variations of the Embarcadero Shuttle were brought into the Route Concept Screening and Service Plan Development phase but were not moved forward. These are included in Appendix C of the Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan. Staff estimates that the enhanced Embarcadero Route could provide an additional 55,214 annual passenger trips. Funding and Operational Challenges As discussed further in the Resource Impact section below, the proposed shuttle service enhancements presented in this staff report can only be implemented if additional funding is identified. The current Palo Alto Free Shuttle routes are funded via the City’s General Fund (approximately $436,000) and Caltrain (approximately $117,000). The City contracts with a private company for the Crosstown service and has an agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain), which contracts with the same private company for the Embarcadero Route. City of Palo Alto Page 9 To increase the visibility of the shuttle program, maintain service coverage for Palo Alto residents, increase ridership, and reduce local auto trips, the Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan suggests that the City expand service and rebrand the system as explained in this report. Possible funding sources include VTA, County Measure B, future parking revenues, and other public or private sources. Policy Implications The following Goals, Policies and Programs from the Comprehensive Plan are directly related to this discussion: • Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles • Policy T-2: Consider economic, environmental, and social cost issues in local transportation decisions. • Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels. • Goal T-2: A Convenient, Efficient, Public Transit System that Provides a Viable Alternative to Driving • Policy T-4: Provide local transit in Palo Alto. • Policy T-5: Support continued development and improvement of the University Avenue and California Avenue Multi-modal Transit Stations, and the San Antonio Road Station as important transportation nodes for the City. • Policy T-6: Improve public transit access to regional destinations, including those within Palo Alto. • Policy T-7: Support plans for a quiet, fast rail system that encircles the Bay, and for intra- county and transbay transit systems that link Palo Alto to the rest of Santa Clara County and adjoining counties. • Policy T-9: Work towards integrating public school commuting into the local transit system. • Policy T-11: Support efforts to integrate train, bus, and shuttle schedules at multi-modal transit stations to make public transit use more time-efficient. • Policy T-43: Provide and/or promote demand-responsive paratransit service. Resource Impact The recommended action suggests that the City pursue funding for local shuttle service enhancements aimed at backfilling reductions in bus service and increasing ridership. Currently, no funding for these additional services is recommended or identified in this report. It is staff’s intent to develop a funding plan that would provide ongoing annual funding and minimize the financial impacts on the General Fund. VTA staff believes that the next opportunity for this type of funding would be from the competitive Transit Operations category of Measure B funding. The Measure B Transit Operations Program is expected to receive $500 million of funding over the 30 years of the sales tax. Per the sales tax measure resolution City of Palo Alto Page 10 adopted by the VTA Board, Transit Operations will be allocated within four categories: 1. Expand mobility options & fares for most vulnerable population 2. Enhance frequent core network 3. Improve bus stop amenities 4. First/last mile connections As shown in Table 4, below, the estimated additional cost for The South Palo Alto Route with 30-minute frequency is $625,107 annually. The estimated additional costs for expanded Crosstown Route with 30-minute frequency is $864,118 and the expanded Embarcadero Route with 30-minute frequency is $376,902. The total estimate for these three enhancements is $1,866,127. (Increased frequencies would cost more.) If the Council agrees with the proposed service enhancements and adopts the recommended action, staff will seek funding from Measure B and will seek any other funding sources that become available. Staff will develop an implementation plan consistent with funding options and will seek to leverage the existing annual General Fund expenditures on the Palo Alto Free Shuttle System and the Caltrain contributions to the operations of the Embarcadero Shuttle. A new Transportation Impact Fee, for which a nexus study is being prepared, may provide funding for capital infrastructure required to operate the Palo Alto Free Shuttle, but not operational costs. Planning-level cost estimates shown in Table 4 will be refined in the implementation plan, which will return to the Council for approval. The implementation plan will also include a schedule for rebidding the current contract for operation of the Crosstown shuttle route, which is currently operated by MV Transportation. Table 4: Planning-level Cost Estimates for Recommended Shuttle Route Expansions and Modifications Menu of Proposed Service Options Current Annual Operating Costs Estimated Enhanced Service Level Annual Operating Costs Coverage Benefit Ridership Benefit Current Crosstown (FY2018) $ 302,976** -- NA NA Expanded Crosstown (30-minute frequency) -- $864,118 Medium High Current Embarcadero Route (FY2018) $ 228,800* -- NA NA Expanded Embarcadero (30-minute frequency) -- $376,902** Medium Medium South Palo Alto Route (30-minute frequency) -- $625,107 High Medium Totals $531,776 $1,866,127 City of Palo Alto Page 11 *In Fiscal Year 2018, the City pays 56% of costs, and the JPB pays 44% (up to $100,600). $135,100 was the amount the City paid in FY17. In FY18, the City will pay $128,200 (Staff Report 8322). **Does not include the cost of shuttle service for special events. Estimates Source: Nelson/Nygaard, March 2017 Timeline The current schedule of actions related to the VTA Final Transit Plan is detailed below: May 4, 2017 - Final Transit Plan was approved by VTA Board of Directors August 14, 2017 – City’s agreement with Caltrain for funding the Embarcadero Route proposed for renewal (on the City Council Consent agenda) December 2017 (dependent on date of BART Berryessa Extension opening) – Implementation of fixed-route service changes identified in VTA’s Final Transit Plan January 2018 – VTA’s estimated timeframe for the competitive process for the Transit Operations category of Measure B funding June 30, 2019 – City’s current contract with MV Transportation for operating the Crosstown Route expires, which would be the ideal time to enter into a new contract for expanded service (contingent on available funding) A new branding and marketing strategy for the Palo Alto Free Shuttle Program would be presented to Council concurrently with any roll-out of shuttle route expansions and modifications when funding is identified. All recommended actions are contingent on funding. Environmental Review On August 2, 1999, when creating the Palo Alto Free Shuttle Program, the City of Palo Alto City Council approved a Negative Declaration finding that the operation of the Palo Alto Free Shuttle Program would not result in any significant environmental impact under the California Environmental Quality Act. The service expansions that are proposed in this report are minor expansions of existing routes and a new route that would replace existing service that is currently provided by VTA. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. This program is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the acceptance of this plan or the Palo Alto Free Shuttle service changes may have a significant effect on the environment. Attachments: Attachment A - Palo Alto Transit Vision (PDF) Attchment B - VTA Final Transit Plan (PDF) Attachment C Letters from City to VTA - VTA to City (PDF) PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION DRAFT March 2017 PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i Table of Contents Page 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1 Purpose of The Plan ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Palo Alto Shuttle System Goals ........................................................................................................................ 1 Plan Development Process ................................................................................................................................. 2 2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6 Purpose of The Plan ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Overview of the Palo Alto Shuttle ................................................................................................................... 6 Other Transit Services in Palo Alto .................................................................................................................. 7 Integration with VTA Next Network ................................................................................................................ 8 Report Organization .......................................................................................................................................... 8 3 Current Transit Conditions ................................................................................................ 10 Palo Alto Shuttle Routes ................................................................................................................................... 10 Other Operators Within Palo Alto ................................................................................................................ 12 Transit Access Within Palo Alto ...................................................................................................................... 20 4 VTA Next Network............................................................................................................ 22 Transit Access with VTA Next Network ......................................................................................................... 25 5 Palo Alto Transit Vision .................................................................................................... 27 Proposed Route Modifications ........................................................................................................................ 36 Service Plan and Implementation ................................................................................................................... 45 6 For Further Consideration ................................................................................................. 49 Other Service Delivery Models ...................................................................................................................... 49 Appendix A Community Profile ............................................................................................. 52 Appendix B Concept List and Screening Process ................................................................... 55 Appendix C Other Route Variants Considered ...................................................................... 66 Embarcadero Route Variants .......................................................................................................................... 66 South Palo Alto Route Variants ...................................................................................................................... 70 Southwest Route ................................................................................................................................................. 74 Table of Figures Page Figure 1 Concept Service Plan ............................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Service Implementation Summary .......................................................................................... 4 Figure 3 Sample Route Package and Associated Operating Costs ............................................... 5 Figure 4 Overview of Current Palo Alto Shuttles ............................................................................. 11 Figure 5 VTA Ridership .......................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 6 SamTrans Ridership ................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 7 Other Existing Transit Serving Palo Alto ............................................................................ 14 Figure 8 Access to Transit within a Quarter-Mile in Palo Alto ....................................................... 21 Figure 9 VTA Transit Route in Palo Alto ............................................................................................. 22 Figure 10 Current VTA Network Coverage (left) and Proposed VTA Network Coverage (right) in Palo Alto ................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 11 Proposed Route 88 Changes ................................................................................................ 25 PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ii Figure 12 Transit Accessibility Walkshed Incorporating VTA Network Changes ......................... 26 Figure 13 Survey Response: What is your affiliation with Palo Alto? ............................................ 29 Figure 14 Survey Response: How often do you use the shuttle? ...................................................... 30 Figure 15 Survey Response: Why don’t you use the shuttle? ............................................................ 30 Figure 16 Survey Response: What would motivate you to use the shuttle more often? ............. 31 Figure 17 Survey Responses: Key Destinations .................................................................................... 31 Figure 18 Survey Responses: Key Destinations of Survey Respondents ......................................... 32 Figure 19 Survey Comment Analysis ..................................................................................................... 33 Figure 20 Crosstown Route Variant A ................................................................................................... 38 Figure 21 Crosstown Route Variant B .................................................................................................... 40 Figure 22 Embarcadero Route Modification ........................................................................................ 42 Figure 23 South Palo Alto ........................................................................................................................ 44 Figure 24 Service Implementation Summary ........................................................................................ 45 Figure 25 Sample Route Package and Associated Operating Costs ............................................. 46 Figure 26 Transit Access Walkshed Analysis – Sample Route Package ........................................ 47 Figure 27 Bus Stop Amenity Guidelines ................................................................................................ 48 Figure 28 TNC partnership Model Pros and Cons .............................................................................. 49 Figure 29 Point Deviation/Anchored Flex Service Model Pros and Cons ...................................... 50 Figure 30 Dynamically Routed Flex Service Model Pros and Cons ................................................ 51 Figure 31 Population Density in Palo Alto ............................................................................................ 52 Figure 32 Employment Density in Palo Alto ......................................................................................... 53 Figure 33 Transportation Goals of the Current Comprehensive Plan ............................................. 54 Figure 34 Palo Alto Shuttle Improvement Concepts – Initial List ...................................................... 56 Figure 35 Shuttle Improvement Concept Screening Criteria ............................................................. 59 Figure 36 Shuttle Concept Screening Process and Assigned Scores ............................................... 61 Figure 37 Embarcadero Route Variant A ............................................................................................. 67 Figure 38 Embarcadero Route Variant B ............................................................................................. 69 Figure 39 South Palo Alto – Variant B .................................................................................................. 71 Figure 40 South Palo Alto – Variant C ................................................................................................. 73 Figure 41 Southwest Route ...................................................................................................................... 75 PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY With increasing interest in expanding mobility options for residents and workers of all ages, the City of Palo Alto is seeking to develop and implement a citywide fare-free transit system that focuses on innovation, usefulness, and sustainability to maximize car-free mobility and provides convenient accessibility to key destinations and regional connections. The City of Palo Alto also seeks to evaluate and address gaps in transit service which may result from the route modifications or eliminations included in the Draft VTA Next Network. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN This study helps move the vision of a citywide fare-free transit system forward by developing an expanded system concept for consideration by elected officials and residents alike. The plan serves as a blueprint for implementing new transit services within the City of Palo Alto that connect residential areas to key employment, shopping, recreation, school destinations. The vision outlined within this plan also seeks to improve regional connectivity with linkages to Caltrain and countywide transit providers (e.g. VTA, SamTrans) and take appropriate measures to address and fill gaps which may be presented by the elimination of some VTA transit service in Palo Alto. Responding to Draft VTA Next Network Changes In January 2017, VTA released its Draft Next Network plan, which included modifications and proposed elimination of several transit routes in Palo Alto. Addressing gaps which would result from the VTA Next Network changes in Palo Alto was a key consideration in the development of transit route concepts in this study. VTA is expected to release their Final Next Network plan in April 2017 and may include changes to the proposal for VTA service in Palo Alto. Any changes will be reflected in a new iteration of the Palo Alto Transit Vision. PALO ALTO SHUTTLE SYSTEM GOALS To guide development of a transit vision for Palo Alto, three simple yet highly descriptive goals for the system were developed along with specific objectives. These goals help guide the service concept development process and their related objectives allow for further definition and refinement of service characteristics. 1. Convenient and Accessible – With all transit trips beginning or ending with a walk trip, all residents and businesses should be within a reasonable walking distance of a transit stop along a route providing frequent, all day service. 2. Frequent and Reliable – All transit routes and services within the City should provide frequent and reliable all day service in order to serve the wide variety of trip types that compose overall travel need. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2 3. Visibility and Ease of Use – The system should be convenient to use and serve all important destinations while having friendly and exciting branding that generates awareness. PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS This transit vision was developed in close consultation with City of Palo Alto staff, as well as the community of residents and visitors to Palo Alto. The planning process included the following phases: Community Engagement and Market Analysis (October 2015-January 2016), based on market demand data and the results of a community survey. Concept Development (January-March 2016), including the development of full list of route concepts using established goals and objectives, findings from community outreach, and market analysis. Concept Screening and Service Plan Development (February-March 2016), including screening of concepts against goals and service criteria and development of a five-year service plan including phased implementation of additional service. See Appendix B for more on this process. Concept Development Phase 2 (January-February 2017), which is the basis for this version of the transit vision in which concepts are refined in light of release of draft VTA Next Network. Service Plan Expansion of the Palo Alto Shuttle system, with consideration of, and adherence to, the stated system goals of vastly improving coverage and frequency, will require a substantial investment well above today’s expenditure on shuttle operation. The service plan presented below is considered illustrative and conceptual. Figure 1 describes the preferred variants of current or new routes, developed through the screening of initial concepts and feedback from the community, including the public survey and meetings. These concepts also take into consideration the proposed changes to the VTA transit network in Palo Alto, discussed further in Chapter 4. Additional variants on these routes were considered by staff and can be found in Appendix C. Figure 1 Concept Service Plan Route Current/New Route Key Destinations Crosstown A Current Stanford Medical Center, Stanford Shopping Center, Palo Alto Transit Center, downtown Palo Alto, Lytton Gardens, Rinconada library, Jordan Middle School, Midtown, JLS Middle School, Mitchell Park and Library, Cubberley, senior residences/centers, San Antonio Caltrain, San Antonio Shopping Center Crosstown B (VTA 21 Supplemental) Current Stanford Shopping Center, Palo Alto Transit Center, downtown Palo Alto, Jordan Middle School, Midtown, JLS Middle School, Mitchell Park and Library, Cubberley, senior residences/centers, San Antonio Caltrain, San Antonio Shopping Center Embarcadero Current Palo Alto Transit Center, downtown Palo Alto, Town & Country Village, Paly High School, Lytton Gardens, Rinconada library, Greer Park, Girls’ Middle PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3 School, Bayshore/Fabian employers, senior residences/centers including Moldaw, Palo Alto Animal Services and Municipal Services South Palo Alto New California Avenue Caltrain, Midtown and Palo Verde neighborhoods, Mitchell Park and Library, Senior residences/centers (i.e. Moldaw Residences), Terman Middle School, Gunn High School, VA Hospital Service Implementation Concepts Annual service hour costs are presented for each route concept at two service levels – initial and full. Initial service levels are typically all-day service at 30-minute frequencies without weekend service. Full service indicates all-day service, into the evenings, at 15-minute peak frequencies and the introduction of weekend service at 40-60 minute frequencies. Full buildout of the system, including 15-minute peak, 30-minute midday, and 30-60 minute evening/weekend service on two existing modified routes and one new route would dramatically increase the total number of revenue hours needed to operate the system. A summary of the concept service changes is provided in Figure 2. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4 Figure 2 Service Implementation Summary Light Level of Service Full Level of Service Route Name Description of Service Annual Service Hours Annual Cost1 Description of Service Annual Service Hours Annual Cost Crosstown Route – Variant A 7 AM to 7 PM weekday service; 30-minute frequency all day, 40 minute in evenings, no weekend service 11,985 $864,118 7 AM to 9 PM weekday service; 15-minute peak frequency, 30-minute midday and 40-minute evening; 8 AM to 8 PM weekend service with 40-minute frequency 21,705 $1,564,930 Crosstown Route – Variant B 6 AM to 10 PM weekday service with 30-minute frequency all day; 8 AM to 8 PM weekend service with 45-minute frequency 14,640 $1,055,544 6 AM to 10 PM weekday service with 30-minute frequency all day; 8 AM to 8 PM weekend service with 45-minute frequency2 14,640 $1,055,544 Embarcadero Route 6:50 AM to 7 PM weekday service with 20 minute frequency during peak, no midday service, 40-minute evening; no weekend service 5,228 $376,902 7 AM to 9 PM weekday service with 15-minute frequency in peak, 30-minute frequency in midday and evening; 8 AM to 8 PM service on weekends with 60-minute frequency 11,400 $821,940 South Palo Alto 7 AM to 7 PM weekday service with 30-minute frequency all day and 60-minute evening frequency; no weekend service 8,670 $625,107 7 AM to 9 PM weekday service with 15-minute frequency in peak, 30-minute midday, 60-minute evening; 8 AM to 8 PM weekend service with 60-minute frequency 14,240 $1,026,704 A sample route package incorporating Crosstown Route Variant A, the modified Embarcadero Route, and South Palo Alto Variant A has been produced in Figure 3. This comparison shows the 1 Assuming service hour cost of $72.10 2 Based on proposed service specifications on VTA Route 21 PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5 operating cost differences between the estimated annual operating costs of the existing shuttle network and both an initial and full service implementation of this sample package. Figure 3 Sample Route Package and Associated Operating Costs Route and Variant Current Annual Operating Costs Annual Costs – Enhanced Service Level Annual Costs – Full Service Level Crosstown A $281,911 $864,119 $1,564,931 Embarcadero $252,400 $376,903 $821,940 South Palo Alto -- $625,107 $1,026,704 TOTAL $534,311 $1,866,129 $3,413,575 Note: The Embarcadero shuttle is funded in partnership with the Joint Powers Board (JPB). The JPB currently pays 46.5% of the operating cost (up to $117,300 per year). The breakdown of current operating costs is $135,100 per year from the City of Palo Alto and $117,300 from the JPB per year. As the above table shows, the investment in an expanded shuttle system will require significantly more funding on an annual basis; however, with the elimination of multiple existing VTA routes, expansion of the Palo Alto Shuttle system is important to maintaining strong transit coverage and access for Palo Alto residents and visitors. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6 2 INTRODUCTION Palo Alto has had its own shuttle system for many years, providing fare-free “last mile” connections to and from Caltrain and “community shuttle” routes for use by students, seniors, and other riders interested in accessing destinations along the routes. With only three routes currently in operation, not all residents and workers are served by the shuttle, and most trips that are not close enough for walking are made by car, other transit providers, and bike, in that typical order of magnitude. With increasing interest in expanding mobility options for residents and workers of all ages, the City of Palo Alto is seeking to develop and implement a citywide fare-free transit system that focuses on innovation, usefulness, and sustainability to maximize car-free mobility and provides convenient accessibility to key destinations and regional connections. This study report helps move this vision forward by developing an expanded system concept for consideration by elected officials and residents alike. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN The primary purpose of the Palo Alto Transit Vision is to better serve the mobility needs of Palo Alto residents (who live and/or work in the City) and workers. It is also a response to — and was largely informed by — the comments and preferences communicated by the Palo Alto community members who responded to the Palo Alto Shuttle community survey in 2015. The plan serves as a blueprint for implementing new transit services within the City of Palo Alto that connect residential areas to key employment, shopping, recreation, school destinations as well as improve regional connectivity with linkages to Caltrain and countywide transit providers (VTA, SamTrans). Further, it provides a framework for ongoing guidance of future service change efforts through proposed system goals and objectives, service design guidelines, and performance standards. All service concepts presented in this plan are currently unfunded and would require substantial investment on behalf of the City to realize new routes or expansion of service hours on existing routes. A two-phase implementation strategy is presented as part of this plan to help frame the effort and cost needed to achieve a citywide fare-free transit system. OVERVIEW OF THE PALO ALTO SHUTTLE The Palo Alto Shuttle Program began in 1999 and has historically provided free service that included two routes: Crosstown Shuttle Route and Embarcadero Shuttle Route. In 2014, the Phase One expansion of the Palo Alto Shuttle Program introduced a new shuttle route in partnership with the City of East Palo Alto, bringing the total number of shuttle routes in the program to three. However, the East Palo Alto route was discontinued by the City of East Palo Alto in 2016 with some portions replaced by SamTrans route 280. In 2015, the City increased PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 7 midday service frequency on the Crosstown Shuttle route to improve the service to local schools and community facilities. The City of Palo Alto currently operates the following two shuttle routes: The Crosstown Shuttle provides a north-south transit connection from Charleston Road to the Palo Alto Transit Center (University Avenue) via Middlefield Road and several community neighborhoods. This route is funded 100% by the City and operates Monday through Friday during the daytime period, excluding some holidays. Average daily ridership on the Crosstown route in February 2016 was 276 boardings per day. This represents a cost of $3.49 per boarding. The Crosstown route had an average 81% on-time performance in fall 2015. Estimated annual cost to operate the existing Crosstown shuttle route is about $282,000. The Embarcadero Shuttle connects the business parks on the east side of the City along Embarcadero Road to the University Avenue Caltrain Station. The City currently contracts with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) for the Embarcadero Shuttle, which is a part of the Caltrain peak hour commuter shuttle program and subsidized 46.5% by the JPB (including BAAQMD funding). The remaining 53.5 is subsidized by the Palo Alto Shuttle Program. This route operates Monday through Friday. Average daily ridership on the Embarcadero route in October 2015 was 268 boardings per day. The cost per boarding and on-time performance statistics are unknown as the City of Palo Alto does not hold the contract or pay the full price of the service. The estimated cost to operate the Embarcadero shuttle is $245,000 per year. The City contracts the operation of the Crosstown shuttle to MV Transportation. The City’s current contract with MV Transportation extends through June 30, 2017. The Caltrain Commuter Shuttle Program operates the Embarcadero Shuttle. OTHER TRANSIT SERVICES IN PALO ALTO The Palo Alto Shuttle does not operate within a vacuum within the City, and the other transit agencies and the services they provide must be accounted for when considering expanded shuttle service. The City is also well served by regional transit agencies including Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), SamTrans, Caltrain, and Dumbarton Express (operated by AC Transit). Further, Stanford University operates a robust campus transit program and there are many private shuttles (typically from large tech companies) that also operate in the City, primarily serving Caltrain stations and residential areas. VTA provides bus, light rail, and paratransit services throughout Santa Clara County and participates as a funding partner in regional rail service including Caltrain, Capital Corridor, and the Altamont Corridor Express. Within Palo Alto, VTA provides Rapid Bus, local bus, community circulator, and commuter express services. See Chapter 4 for discussion of proposed VTA network changes in Palo Alto. SamTrans operates 76 bus routes throughout San Mateo County and into parts of San Francisco and Palo Alto. Within Palo Alto, SamTrans provides local bus, community PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 8 circulator, and first/last mile shuttle services. SamTrans also provides transit service to East Palo Alto in lieu of the recently-eliminated East Palo Alto shuttle route. Caltrain provides commuter rail service along the San Francisco Peninsula, through the South Bay to San Jose and Gilroy. Palo Alto is served by two stations: Palo Alto Station (downtown) and California Avenue Station. The Palo Alto Station is the second busiest in the Caltrain system. Dumbarton Express is a weekday-only transbay bus service operating between Palo Alto, Stanford and Caltrain and Union City BART. This service is operated by AC Transit and consists of two routes, DB and DB2. The Stanford Marguerite shuttle operates numerous routes offering first/last mile service to Caltrain, residential areas in the City, areas with high concentrations of ancillary Stanford employment, and local shopping destinations. The Stanford Marguerite shuttles are free to ride and open to anyone. Private employers located in Palo Alto and surrounding communities are increasingly providing private commuter buses to their employees. This includes employers such as Google, Facebook, Box, VM Ware, some of which operate on Foothill Expressway and Page Mill Road in Palo Alto. INTEGRATION WITH VTA NEXT NETWORK Over the past several years, the City of Palo Alto has looked closely at expansion of the Palo Alto Shuttle as one way to expand mobility and access for residents and workers of all ages. The ultimate vision is a citywide fare-free transit system that focuses on innovation, usefulness, and sustainability to maximize car-free mobility and provides convenient accessibility to key destinations and regional connections. During the shuttle route concept development process, the express intent was to minimize duplication and overlap with other transit agencies/routes. The first phase of concept development, which took place in spring 2016, was conducted with the best available information at the time. VTA, as part of their Transit Ridership Improvement Program, was still developing and had not yet published their Next Network concepts (Network 70, Network 80, and Network 90). In January 2017, VTA released a draft plan which focused on an 85/15 resource split, with the largest portion going toward higher ridership routes to increase frequency and the smaller portion funding routes serving coverage goals. As a result, some routes in Palo Alto are proposed for elimination and/or modification. Thus, the purpose of this study effort is to revisit and update the draft 5-year service plan to be responsive to and complement the adopted Next Network. In order to meet the City’s own coverage and frequency goals for transit access and mobility, new and/or modified routes have been explored and developed, and are outlined in the transit vision Chapter 5. Staff expect that a revised VTA Next Network Plan will be released in Spring 2017 which will include revisions reflecting an 83/17 split in allocated resources. A future iteration of this plan will react to any major changes in service provision in Palo Alto. REPORT ORGANIZATION The Palo Alto Transit Vision consists of six chapters, which are summarized below. Chapter 1 provides an executive summary of the report. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 9 Chapter 2 presents an introduction to the context, goals, and processes used in development of this plan. Chapter 3 reviews existing transit services within the City of Palo Alto in more depth and offers an analysis of peer systems. Chapter 4 summarizes the Draft VTA Next Network plan and the implications of the network changes in Palo Alto. Chapter 5 presents the shuttle system’s guiding goals and objectives and presents proposed performance standards. Chapter 6 describes the next steps, as well as consideration of an additional route and other service models the City could consider instead of providing fixed-route shuttle service Appendix A offers insight on the community profile of Palo Alto. Appendix B describes the process of developing and screening initial service improvement concepts during phase one of this effort in Spring 2016. Appendix C includes maps and specifications of additional route variants considered by staff for the Embarcadero and South Palo Alto routes. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 10 3 CURRENT TRANSIT CONDITIONS Public transit in Palo Alto is provided by a wide variety of operators and many service types, including fixed route, long distance commuter shuttle, first/last mile shuttle, community circulator, and school service. Palo Alto is also served by two Caltrain (commuter rail) stations. The Palo Alto Station (downtown) is an exceptionally important multimodal transit hub, generating the second highest commuter rail ridership in the Caltrain system while connecting with Palo Alto Shuttle, Stanford Marguerite, VTA, SamTrans, Dumbarton Express, and private employer shuttles. This chapter reviews existing services within the City. PALO ALTO SHUTTLE ROUTES The Crosstown Shuttle provides a north-south transit connection from Charleston Road to the Palo Alto (University Avenue) Caltrain station along Middlefield Road and several community neighborhoods. This route serves both JLS and Jordan middle schools during the morning and afternoon bell schedules. Crosstown Route currently operates on one-hour headway during most of the day, except for the morning and mid-afternoon school bell schedule period when there is additional service to support school activity. This route is funded 100% by the City’s General Fund and operates Monday through Friday, excluding some holidays, from 7:40AM- 5:30PM. Average daily ridership on the Crosstown route in February 2016 was 276 boardings per day. This represents a cost of $3.49 per boarding. The Crosstown route had an average 81% on-time performance in fall 2015. The stimated annual cost to operate the existing Crosstown shuttle route is about $282,000. The Embarcadero Shuttle connects the business parks on the east side of the City along Embarcadero Road to the Palo Alto (University Avenue) Caltrain Station. The City currently contracts with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) for the Embarcadero Shuttle, which is a part of the Caltrain peak hour commuter shuttle program and subsidized 46.5% (up to $117,300) by the JPB. The remainder 53.5% is subsidized by Palo Alto (the General Fund). The shuttle operates on 15- minute headway Monday through Friday from 6:50AM-9:50AM and 3:10PM-6:50PM, excluding some holidays. The Embarcadero Shuttle includes a special run to Jordan Middle School to supplement the Crosstown Shuttle service to/from the school. Average daily ridership on the Embarcadero route in October 2015 was 268 boardings per day. The cost per boarding and on-time performance statistics are unknown as the City of Palo Alto does not hold the contract or pay the full price of the service. The estimated cost to operate the Embarcadero shuttle is $245,000 per year. Recently Discontinued The East Palo Alto Shuttle began operation on July 1, 2014 and linked the University Avenue Caltrain Station with Woodland Avenue community in East Palo Alto. This route was funded by the City of East Palo Alto but managed by the City of Palo Alto. It operated on 30-minute headways, seven days per week, excluding some holidays, from approximately 6:00AM to 10:00AM and 4:00PM-9:00PM. At the request of East Palo Alto, the route was discontinued in September 2016. SamTrans Route 280 was modified to address coverage gaps left by the elimination of the East Palo Alto shuttle route. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 11 Figure 4 Overview of Current Palo Alto Shuttles Route Name Route Operator Managed By Funded By Headways and Service Days Ridership Service Hours Estimated Annual Cost Points of Interest Crosstown Shuttle University Ave/Downtown - South Palo Alto @ Charleston Road, via Middlefield MV Transportation City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto 60 min Weekdays, except holidays 276 boardings per day (February 2016) Weekdays: 7:40 AM – 5:20 PM Weekends: no service $282,000 Palo Alto Transit Center, Avenidas, Lytton Gardens, Channing House, Main Library, Palo Alto Art Center, Jordan Middle School, Midtown Shopping District, JLS Middle School, Mitchell Park Community Center + Library, Stevenson House Embarcadero Shuttle University Ave. Caltrain - Baylands Business Park, via Embarcadero Caltrain Commuter Shuttle Program Caltrain Commuter Shuttle Program BAAQMAD, Peninsula Joint Powers, City of Palo Alto 15-20 min Weekday peak, except holidays 268 boardings per day (October 2015) Weekdays: 6:51-9:34 AM & 3:10-6:28 PM Weekends: no service $245,000 E. Bayshore, Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto High School, Jordan Middle School, Palo Alto Medical Foundation PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 12 OTHER OPERATORS WITHIN PALO ALTO The City is also served by regional transit agencies including Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), SamTrans, Caltrain, and Dumbarton Express (operated by AC Transit). Further, Stanford University operates a robust campus transit program and there are many private shuttles (typically from large tech companies) that also operate in the City, primarily serving Caltrain stations and residential areas, including Google, Facebook, Box, VMware, and others. Figure 7 lists the universe of routes that serve Palo Alto operated by other agencies. The following section details ridership and productivity of routes serving Palo Alto, in order to gain additional understanding into the current usage and potential of the transit market to, from, and within the City. Based on availability, data ridership is summarized at the route level. Many routes provided by other operators travel on significant portions of roadway outside the City proper. VTA VTA reports ridership and productivity in their annual transit service plan, most recently for FY 2016 – FY 2017. Standards are based on the average productivity of each route service type – core, local, community, and express. Routes operating below the standard are typically an indicator or need for improvement, but is not a hard cut off. Instead, VTA operates with a minimum productivity standard of 15 boardings per revenue hour for all routes. Figure 5 VTA Ridership Route Serving Palo Alto Weekday Ridership Boardings per Revenue Hour 22 12,929 32.2 35 1,068 16.5 88/88L/88M 207 12.5 89 130 23.5 101 77 19.3 102 314 22.4 103 198 24.8 104 90 22.5 182 28 14.0 522 5,228 21.5 Source: Transit Service Plan FY 2016- FY 2017, VTA Service & Operations Planning, May 2015 VTA released a proposed re-imagination of its network in January 2017 called the VTA Next Network. The Next Network proposes elimination or modification of a number of existing VTA routes in Palo Alto. See chapter 4 for detailed discussion of the implications of the Next Network changes in Palo Alto. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 13 SamTrans SamTrans has seen some declines in ridership related to the local economy in San Mateo County and recovery from the Great Recession, but those declines have now leveled off. Overall the system averages 26.1 boardings per revenue hour. Figure 6 SamTrans Ridership Route Serving Palo Alto Weekday Ridership Boardings per Revenue Hour 280 226 10.6 281 790 12.4 297 58 11.5 397 210 42.1 ECR 12,460 37.3 Source: San Mateo County Transit District Short Range Transit Plan Fy2014 - Fy2023, SamTrans, December 2014 Dumbarton Express In February 2014, average weekday ridership on Dumbarton Express was roughly 1,300 boardings, split nearly evenly between the two routes DB and DB1.3 No other detailed productivity information was available at time of this study. Caltrain Caltrain ridership has been steadily increasing since the introduction of the Baby Bullet (2004), with only a slight blip during the Great Recession. The Palo Alto Station and California Avenue Station rank number 2 and 12 in the system, in terms of weekday ridership, respectively. Almost 7,200 boardings were recorded at the Palo Alto Station while the California Avenue Station saw over 1,500 on a daily basis. These riders are primarily last mile, meaning they arrive at each station and require a last mile shuttle (Embarcadero, Marguerite, etc.) to reach their destination. For riders leaving one of these stations as their first trip, station parking is provided, but first mile shuttle service is also highly valued by providing car free mobility to this regional high-capacity transit connection. Stanford Marguerite Stanford University operates an extensive transit network within Palo Alto and nearby communities called the “Marguerite”. These routes are free for use by University affiliates and the public alike. The full list of routes, as well as recent ridership data, is shown in Figure 7. Ridership on all Marguerite routes in 2016 included about 3.2 million boardings. Average ridership on all routes was 272,421 boardings per month in 2016. 3 Dumbarton Express Operations Update, AC Transit, March 2014. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 14 Figure 7 Other Existing Transit Serving Palo Alto Route Name Route Operator Managed By Funded By Headways Service Days Service Hours - Weekdays Service Hours - Weekends Ridership (Boardings Per Revenue Hour) Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)4 22 Palo Alto Transit Center to Eastridge Transit Center via El Camino VTA VTA VTA 10-15 min (daytime) Daily 24 hours 24 hours 32.2 35 Downtown Mountain View to Stanford Shopping Center VTA VTA VTA 30-60 min Daily 5:42 AM – 10:46 PM 8:23 AM – 8:59 PM 16.5 88 Palo Alto Veteran’s Hospital to Middlefield & Colorado VTA VTA VTA 60 min Weekdays 6:32 AM – 6:39 PM None 12.5 88L Palo Alto Veteran’s Hospital to Middlefield & Colorado (School Days Only) VTA VTA VTA None School Day Peaks 7:38-8:06 AM & 2:29-4:12 PM None 12.5 88M Palo Alto Veteran’s Hospital to Middlefield & Colorado (School Days Only) VTA VTA VTA None School Day Peaks 7:43-8:06 AM & 2:29-4:08 PM None 12.5 89 California Avenue Caltrain to Palo Alto Veterans Hospital (via Stanford Research Park) VTA VTA VTA 30 min Weekdays 6:36 AM – 6:38 PM None 23.5 101 Camden & Highway 85 to Palo Alto VTA VTA VTA 60 min Weekday Peaks 6:16-8:20 AM & 4:10-6:42 PM None 19.3 4 Note proposed VTA network changes released in January 2017. See Chapter 4 for explanation of implications on VTA routes serving Palo Alto. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 15 Route Name Route Operator Managed Funding Headways Service Days Service Hours - Weekdays Service Hours - Weekends Ridership (Boardings per Revenue Hour) 102 South San Jose to Palo Alto VTA VTA VTA 8-30 min Weekday Peaks 5:50-9:01 AM & 3:25-6:51 PM None 22.4 103 Eastridge Transit Center to Palo Alto VTA VTA VTA 30-60 min Weekday Peaks 5:08-8:23 AM & 2:41-6:29 PM None 24.8 104 Penitenicia Creek Transit Center to Palo Alto VTA VTA VTA 30-45 min Weekday Peaks 5:54-7:55 AM & 4:00-6:05 PM None 22.5 182 Palo Alto to IBM/Bailey Ave VTA VTA VTA None Weekday Peaks 7:29-8:33 AM & 5:05-6:14 PM None 14.0 Rapid 522 Palo Alto Transit Center to Eastridge Transit Center VTA VTA VTA 15-30 min Daily 4:37 AM – 11:16 PM 7:50 AM – 11:09 PM 21.5 Dumbarton Bridge Regional Operations Consortium DB Dumbarton Express AC Transit (MV Transportation) Dumbarton Bridge Regional Operations Consortium (DBROC): AC Transit, BART, SamTrans, Union City Transit, VTA Regional Measure 2 30-60 min Weekdays, except holidays 5:22 AM – 8:51 None 1,300 (average weekday ridership in February 2014 on both DB and DB1) PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 16 Route Name Route Operator Managed Funding Headways Service Days Service Hours - Weekdays Service Hours - Weekends Ridership (Boardings per Revenue Hour) DB1 Dumbarton Express AC Transit (MV Transportation) Dumbarton Bridge Regional Operations Consortium (DBROC): AC Transit, BART, SamTrans, Union City Transit, VTA Regional Measure 2 20-60 min Weekday peaks, except holidays 5:26-9:45 AM & 1:35-8:43 PM None 1,300 (average weekday ridership in February 2014 on both DB and DB1) SamTrans 280 Purdue / Fordham – Stanford Mall SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District San Mateo County Transit District 60 min Daily 5:20 AM – 10:24 PM 7:38 AM – 7:57 PM 10.6 281 Onetta Harris Center – Stanford Mall SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District San Mateo County Transit District 15-30 min Daily 6:00 AM – 10:32 PM 8:03 AM – 7:58 PM 12.4 297 Redwood City Transit Center –Palo Alto Transit Center SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District San Mateo County Transit District 60 min Nightly 10:43 PM – 5:21 AM 6:45 PM – 9:22 AM 11.5 397 San Francisco – Palo Alto Transit Center SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District San Mateo County Transit District 60 min Nightly 12:48 AM – 6:22 AM 12:48 AM – 6:22 AM 42.1 ECR Daly City BART – Palo Alto Transit Center SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District San Mateo County Transit District 10-30 min Daily 3:56 AM – 2:21 AM 4:47 AM – 2:21 AM 37.3 PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 17 Route Name Route Operator Managed Funding Headways Service Days Service Hours - Weekdays Service Hours - Weekends Ridership (Yearly Total – 2016) Stanford Marguerite Routes 1050 A Medical School Office Building –Arastradero Road Stanford University Stanford University Stanford University and numerous contributors 20 min Weekdays, except holidays 7:05 AM – 6:45 PM None 87,412 BOH Menlo Park Caltain – Bohannon Stanford University Stanford University Stanford University and numerous contributors 30 min Weekdays, except holidays 7:01 AM – 6:33 PM None 66,061 C Vi! – Serra Mall – Escondido Village Stanford University Stanford University Stanford University and numerous contributors 30 min Weekdays, except holidays 5:40 AM – 9:17 PM None 131,988 HD Hoover Pavilion Shuttle Stanford University Stanford University Stanford University and numerous contributors 7 min Weekdays 4:06 AM – 1:38 AM None 410,028 MC (MCH) Palo Alto Transit Center –Stanford Hospital Fountain Stanford University Stanford University Stanford University and numerous contributors 15-20 min Weekdays 5:05 AM – 9:04 PM None 191,550 (MC) 8,384 (MCH) N Campus – Downtown Palo Alto (Counter-Clockwise) Stanford University Stanford University Stanford University and numerous contributors 40 min Nightly, except holidays and Summer 8:10 PM – 1:38 AM 8:10 PM – 1:38 AM 7,257 O Campus – Downtown Palo Alto (Clockwise) Stanford University Stanford University Stanford University and numerous contributors 40 min Nightly, except holidays and Summer 8:25 PM – 1:57 AM 8:25 PM – 1:57 AM 7,089 PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 18 Route Name Route Operator Managed Funding Headways Service Days Service Hours - Weekdays Service Hours - Weekends Ridership (Yearly Total – 2016) OCA Tresidder Union – Oak Creek Apartments Stanford University Stanford University Stanford University and numerous contributors 20 min Nightly, except holidays and summer 9:00 PM – 2:10 AM 9:00 PM – 2:10 AM 3,198 P Palo Alto Transit Center – Stanford Oval Stanford University Stanford University Stanford University and numerous contributors 10-20 min Weekdays, except holidays 6:08 AM – 8:10 PM None 266,555 R California Avenue – Stanford Research Park Stanford University Stanford University Stanford University and numerous contributors 25 min Weekdays, except holidays 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM None 1,365 RP Palo Alto Transit Center – Research Park Stanford University Stanford University Stanford University and numerous contributors 10-40 min Weekday peaks 6:28-10:12 AM & 3:30-7:33 PM None 131,008 S Palo Alto Transit Center – Stanford West Apartments – Oak Creek Apartments – Rosewood Hotel Stanford University Stanford University Stanford University and numerous contributors 45 min Weekday peaks, except holidays 6:20-9:07 AM & 4:34-6:47 PM None 16,342 SE Palo Alto Shopping Center – Campus – San Antonio Shopping Center Stanford University Stanford University Stanford University and numerous contributors 35-60 min Daily, except holidays and Summer 3:00 PM – 10:25 PM 9:35 AM – 11:08 PM 90,297 SLAC SLAC – Hoover Tower Stanford University Stanford University Stanford University and numerous contributors 20-60 min Weekdays, except holidays 7:00 AM – 9:26 PM None 73,351 TECH Palo Alto Transit Center – Embarcadero Road – Palo Alto Technology Center Stanford University Stanford University Stanford University and numerous contributors 10-30 min Weekday peaks 6:30-10:20 AM & 2:40-7:25 PM None 41,408 PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 19 Route Name Route Operator Managed Funding Headways Service Days Service Hours - Weekdays Service Hours - Weekends Ridership (Yearly Total – 2016) VA Stanford Hospital – Campus – California Avenue Caltrain Station – Palo Alto VA Hospital Stanford University Stanford University Stanford University and numerous contributors 25-45 min Weekdays 6:30 AM – 9:37 PM None 27,981 X Palo Alto Transit Center –Stanford Shopping Center –Campus (Counter-Clockwise) Stanford University Stanford University Stanford University and numerous contributors 15-20 min Weekdays, except holidays 5:51 AM – 8:59 PM None 508,160 Y Palo Alto Transit Center –Stanford Shopping Center –Campus (Clockwise) Stanford University Stanford University Stanford University and numerous contributors 15-20 min Weekdays, except holidays 6:08 AM – 8:59 PM None 521,472 AE-F/U Fremont BART – Stanford Oval –Stanford Shopping Center Stanford University / AC Transit Stanford University / AC Transit Stanford University / AC Transit 30-60 min Weekday Peaks 6:00-9:26 AM & 2:45-7:03 PM None 139,443 Caltrain Deer Creek Shuttle Palo Alto Transit Center –California Ave Caltrain Station –Deer Creek Caltrain Caltrain Bay Area Air Quality Management District Transportation Fund for Clean Air, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, Hewlett-Packard 20-60 min Weekday Peaks 7:33-10:01 AM & 3:38-7:01 PM None About 7,200 daily boardings at Palo Alto station About 1,500 daily boardings at California Avenue station PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 20 TRANSIT ACCESS WITHIN PALO ALTO In addition to the Palo Alto Shuttle, five other transit operators provide service in Palo Alto — SamTrans, VTA, Dumbarton Express, and Stanford’s Marguerite Shuttle (which is also free to the community). Given the presence of many operators, an analysis of access to existing transit service found that 74% of Palo Alto residents are within a quarter-mile walk of a bus stop in Palo Alto (Figure 8) along routes that provide intracity (within Palo Alto) service. Gaps identified as part of this exercise, and shown in the below figure, informed the goals and the subsequent route development process of the Palo Alto Transit Vision. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 21 Figure 8 Access to Transit within a Quarter-Mile in Palo Alto PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 22 4 VTA N EXT NETWORK When developing new or modified route concepts for the Palo Alto Shuttle network, the initial intent was to minimize duplication and overlap with other transit agencies/routes and expand coverage into areas of the City currently without transit service. During an initial concept development process conducted in spring 2016, VTA was still developing internally their Next Network concepts as part of their Transit Ridership Improvement Program (TRIP). Fast forwarding to January 2017, VTA has now released its Draft Next Network Plan, which focuses on a reduction in coverage-based transit service in order to provide more robust and frequent service to higher ridership routes within the VTA service area.5 This is proposed through introduction of an 85/15 approach to funding allocation, with 85% of operating funds being used to improve higher ridership routes and 15% funding routes serving coverage goals. The implications of the proposed transit network modifications for Palo Alto include elimination of multiple local transit routes, as described in Figure 9.6 Transit provided by VTA in Palo Alto today, as well as the Next Network proposed changes, are shown in Figure 10. As shown below, the first iteration of the Next Network proposal identified VTA Route 89 for discontinuation. However, through subsequent conversations with VTA staff, Route 89 is expected to be retained in future proposals. Figure 9 VTA Transit Route in Palo Alto Route Number Description of Change Routing Change Frequency Change 21 New Route 21 would connect Downtown Palo Alto with San Antonio Shopping Center, Downtown Mountain View, Downtown Sunnyvale and Santa Clara Caltrain station. New Route 21 would replace current Routes 32 and 35. N/A N/A 22 Route will remain but frequency will be reduced. X 35 Current Route 35 will be discontinued and replaced with new Route 21. X 88 Current Route 88 will become new Route 288A/B and will provide school trips only (2 AM & 3 PM), with service to Gunn High School, Terman Middle School, Kehillah Jewish High School, Palo Verde Elementary School, Hoover X 5 The VTA Draft Next Network Plan can be accessed at: http://nextnetwork.vta.org/ 6 This figure represents proposed changes released by VTA in January 2017. A revised Next Network is expected to be released by VTA in Spring 2017 and may include changes to the proposal for VTA service in Palo Alto. Any changes will be reflected in a new iteration of this plan. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 23 Elementary School, Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School. 89 Current Route 89 will be discontinued due to low ridership.7 X 102/103/104/1828 No changes proposed. Limited run commute-only route. Subject to change pending outcome of upcoming study. X 288 New Route 288 proposed to provide service to schools in lieu of proposed discontinuation of current Route 88. X 522 Route will remain with increased frequency proposed to begin in April 2017. X 7 VTA Route 89 was slated for discontinuation in the January 2017 proposal. However, through subsequent conversations with VTA staff, Route 89 is expected to be retained in future proposals. 8 Route 104 will serve Milpitas BART station upon opening. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 24 Figure 10 Current VTA Network Coverage (left) and Proposed VTA Network Coverage (right) in Palo Alto PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 25 Palo Alto will retain the following service from VTA: Three all-day routes, primarily along Middlefield Road (new Route 21) and El Camino Real (current Routes 22 and 522 Rapid) Two school tripper routes (288A and 288B) with service between portions of Palo Verde, Charleston Meadow, Greenmeadow, Fairmeadow, and Saint Claire Gardens neighborhoods and Gunn High School and others surrounding schools via Charleston and Arastradero Road Four express routes with limited trips during commute hours, primarily serving Page Mill Road business complexes, including current Routes 102, 103, 104, and 182 Figure 11 Proposed Route 88 Changes TRANSIT ACCESS WITH VTA NEXT NETWORK The existing access to transit analysis revealed that with the current VTA network and Palo Alto shuttle routes, 74% of Palo Alto residents are within a quarter-mile walk of bus service or a half- mile walk of rail (i.e. Caltrain). This walkshed map and associated discussion is presented in Chapter 3. However, when the walkshed analysis is re-run with the Draft VTA Next Network, transit access within the same walking radius described above drops to 61% of residents in Palo Alto. This amounts to a 17.5% decrease in transit accessibility citywide. As shown in Figure 12 below, residents and businesses in the following areas will have significantly reduced VTA service due to elimination of current Routes 88 and 89: Adjacent to Louis Road, Meadow Drive and Charleston Road in Palo Verde, Fairmeadow, Meadow Park and Charleston Gardens neighborhoods Evergreen Park and Green Acres neighborhoods and adjacent to Page Mill Road, Hoover Street, Arastradero Road and Foothill Expressway PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 26 Figure 12 Transit Accessibility Walkshed Incorporating VTA Network Changes PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 27 5 PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION Goals The following goals were developed based on current operating characteristics, community priorities, and the markets for transit services. The objectives to support each goal are, in most cases, actions that can be taken by the City to help move toward realization of these goals. The service concepts and preferred service alternative presented in the succeeding chapters seek to meet these goals and objectives with service design. Convenient & Accessible – With all transit trips beginning or ending with a walk trip, all residents and businesses should be within a reasonable walking distance of a transit stop along a route providing frequent, all day service. o Locate routes within ¼ mile walk of major health, recreational, education, employment, cultural and social services facilities. o Once the first accessibility objective is met, increase citywide coverage by providing all residents accessibility to routes within a ¼ mile walk, starting first at higher density locations (e.g. multi-family housing) Frequent & Reliable – All transit routes and services within the City should provide frequent and reliable all day service in order to serve the wide variety of trip types that compose overall travel need. o Achieve headway benchmarks defined as 10-15 minute weekday peak, 30 minute midday, and 30-60 min weekday evening/weekends. o Operate reliably by meeting on-time performance standards as agreed upon with operator. Visibility and Ease of Use o Implement friendly, exciting and encouraging new branding. o Strive for convenience - superior coverage and frequent service should go where people want to go and offer real and practical alternatives to driving. o The system should be easy to understand and easy to ride for all users. Markets “Who should the shuttle serve?” was a fundamental question explored as part of this study process. While full build-out of a fare-free citywide transit system that serves all residents, employees, and visitors to the greatest extent possible is the ultimate vision, it cannot be fully achieved without complementary policy, behavioral, and built environment changes. For example, a Palo Alto resident with full access to a private vehicle will likely drive to downtown, Town & Country Village, California Avenue, etc. for a shopping or dining trip even with accessible PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 28 shuttle service because parking is free. For a choice rider, a very low marginal cost of driving begets driving. Thus, a fare-free citywide transit system will need to be implemented incrementally and should serve the populations and physical areas of the City with the highest transit propensity and need first. As part of the process in developing system goals and objectives, identification and prioritization of these service markets further determines how service planning decisions and incremental investments in service improvements can be made. First, priority is given to the mobility and accessibility needs of residents, employees, and visitors who are without access to a private vehicle, who choose not to drive, or cannot drive, including seniors, students, and persons with special needs or disabilities. The following service markets are identified in descending order of need, and form the basis of the service planning efforts: 1. Seniors – Ensure origins and destinations are served well with frequent service and a one seat ride, provide more amenities at stops that enhance customer experience, and ensure language needs are addressed. 2. Students – More trips during peak hour to relieve overcrowding; better serve high and middle schools; coordinate with schools to consider schedules for alternate days off. 3. Employees Last Mile – Serve all major employment generators with Caltrain-based shuttles and meet all peak period commuter trains at Palo Alto and California Avenue stations or provide service at high enough frequencies that meeting specific trains is less important. 4. Employees First Mile – Enhance first mile connectivity for Palo Alto residents with express service from dense residential areas to Caltrain. 5. Employees Intracity – Ensure that Palo Alto residents who also work in Palo Alto can access their place of employment car-free. 6. Residents – Focus on evening and weekend trip making to entertainment, dining and shopping (note: this is the hardest group to serve without complementary policy changes, such as introduction of parking charges to disincentivize auto use). Community Outreach / Feedback The goals, concepts, and recommendations included in this service plan were informed by an engagement process comprised of a community survey, a set of community meetings, other informal public engagement activities including social media interactions, and community engagement as part of the City of Palo Alto General Plan update. The methodology and findings for these community engagement efforts are outlined further in the below sections. Community Survey A comprehensive community survey was developed and distributed in the fall of 2015. Running for nearly four months from September through December 2015, the survey was housed on online survey platform SurveyMonkey. The survey was also distributed in paper form at senior centers around Palo Alto, including Avenidas and Sheridan House, to ensure the senior population had the opportunity to comment and contribute their views to the survey. The survey garnered 1,981 responses in the nearly four-month period, representing a strong interest in the shuttle program and in making improvements to ensure the shuttle is a viable PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 29 transportation option. Of all respondents, 67% live in Palo Alto, 47% work in Palo Alto and 12% go to school in Palo Alto, indicating a mix of affiliations with Palo Alto. For visitors to Palo Alto, the most common reasons reported on the survey were for medical purposes, followed by entertainment and visiting family and friends. Figure 13 Survey Response: What is your affiliation with Palo Alto? About half of respondents were members of a one or two-person household, while the other half lived with two or more people. More than half of respondents have more than one private vehicle available in their household (55%) while 11% have no car available. This alone demonstrates a challenge to encouraging widespread use of the shuttle within Palo Alto. Shuttle Usage Of all respondents, the vast majority (67%) said they had personally never used the shuttle (see Figure 14). However, more than 20% of respondents said that someone in their household had used the shuttle in the past three months. 67% 47% 12% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% Live in Palo Alto Work in Palo Alto Go to school in Palo Alto PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 30 Figure 14 Survey Response: How often do you use the shuttle? Shuttle Improvements The most popular response regarding why respondents do not use the shuttle pertained to insufficient locations served by the shuttle (37%), followed by a lack of awareness of the shuttle in general or how to use it (30%) (see Figure 15). Figure 15 Survey Response: Why don’t you use the shuttle? When asked what would entice respondents to use the shuttle more often, the most common improvements included more frequent shuttle service (53%), service to additional destinations (51%), service close to home (47%), better information on the service (38%), and longer service hours (36%) (see Figure 16). 4%3%6% 9% 11% 67% Daily on weekdays Weekly A few times a month I used to ride but don't currently Less than once a month I've never used it 6% 8% 19% 30% 37% 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40% "It doesn't run frequently enough" "It doesn't run when I need it" "I'd like to use it but I don't know how" "I didn't know about it" "It doesn't go where I need to go" PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 31 Figure 16 Survey Response: What would motivate you to use the shuttle more often? More than 1,000 pieces of destination data were collected as part of the survey. With this data, a map of “key destinations” was produced to include the work, school and other destinations, such as shopping and medical appointments, of the shuttle survey respondents. While not exhaustive or assumed to be reflective of the entire Palo Alto population, the most common destinations indicated on the community survey are shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18. Figure 17 Survey Responses: Key Destinations Destination Category Number of Responses SAP Employer 154 City of Palo Alto Employer 73 Jazz Pharmaceuticals Employer 66 Stanford University Employer 52 Palantir Technologies Employer 42 Palo Alto High School School/Employer 100 Gunn High School School/Employer 69 Fairmeadows/Hoover/JLS Schools 69 Ohlone Elementary School/Employer 18 Barron Park Other destination 28 California Avenue corridor Other destination 18 Town and Country Shopping Center Other destination 10 Stanford Shopping Center Other destination 8 Cubberley Community Center Other destination 6 35% 36% 38% 47% 51% 53% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% Real time tracking on mobile Longer service hours Better schedule information Bus routes closer to home Bus routes closer to my destination Buses that come more often PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 32 Figure 18 Survey Responses: Key Destinations of Survey Respondents PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 33 Open-Ended Comment Analysis Additionally, more than 1,000 0pen-ended comments were received on the shuttle survey, as well as 19 comments on the City of Palo Alto Facebook page. Responses to the final survey question, which collected open-ended and general comments regarding the shuttle service, were coded and categorized into 1,307 pieces of response data. See Figure 19 for a breakdown of these comments and an overview of key themes discussed in that category of responses. Open-ended responses related to location of shuttle service, such as requests for new service areas, as well as communication-related comments, including requests for better shuttle informational materials both paper and online, topped the list of common themes. This analysis reinforced the findings in previous survey questions that service to additional locations, as well as improved communications and frequency, are the key concerns and requests by survey-takers. The fact that school service was also a common theme in open-ended responses highlighted the important role the Palo Alto Shuttle plays, and has the opportunity to play, in school transportation. Figure 19 Survey Comment Analysis Category Number of Responses Key Themes in the Category Location 366 New service areas, neighborhoods and destinations; general requests for additional service Communication (COMM) 233 Better service marketing and expanded awareness; improvements to the branding and bus wraps, improved website and schedule materials; introduction of real-time tracking and an app for the service Frequency (FREQ) 164 Requests for more frequent service (every 5-15 min) or more buses Service hours (HRS) 137 Requests for midday hours on all shuttle routes, service hours later into the evenings (to allow for dinner out or to match the evening commute) and weekend service School Service (SCHOOL) 105 Requests for service to additional PA schools, for shuttle schedules that link up to school schedules and related to capacity issues when school is in session and on routes serving schools Reliability 73 Comments that the bus is frequently operating far off its published schedule which deters use of the service; requests that the shuttle better aligns with other transit in the city (Marguerite, VTA) Caltrain 59 Better service linking to Caltrain stations and with Caltrain schedules Amenities (AMEN) 53 Benches and signage at stops, senior accessibility such as low step boarding, pull cords on-board the shuttles, bike facilities and stroller facilities on-board Door to Door 31 Suggestion for paratransit or door-to-door service in addition to or in lieu of the shuttle; partnerships with Uber, TNCs, etc. Travel Time 28 Requests to reduce shuttle travel time, suggestions for express service/routes with fewer stops PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 34 Key Findings and Conclusions Key findings from the community survey demonstrate opportunities to expand the shuttle’s reach into new ridership areas and markets. Opportunity areas for improvements should facilitate mobility for: Seniors — through ADA accessibility, helpful drivers, and service to senior centers and shopping centers Students — parents request reliable, timed links to schools with enough capacity Caltrain commuters — timed and reliable service to/from Caltrain stations, particularly Palo Alto station where bullet trains stop and during hours which allow for use in the evening commute Employees at Palo Alto businesses — opportunity to provide first mile/last mile service to employers along Page Mill Road and one-seat ride to people who work at Stanford and in downtown business corridors Travelers during more hours of the day — opportunities for travel during the midday, evenings and on weekends was requested Residents of more neighborhoods — such as the Southwest part of Palo Alto, including Ventura, Barron Park and Evergreen Park neighborhoods, among other areas Everyone — a robust communications and awareness campaigns, as well as efforts to improve the usability of the website and other informational materials, would benefit all current and potential future users of the shuttle. Community Meetings Two community meetings were held on March 10, 2016 to share an overview of the findings of the community survey and discuss five initial shuttle service concepts, which included three new routes and two modifications or extensions to existing shuttle routes. Attendees were notified that all potential new shuttle routes are currently unfunded. An afternoon meeting was held at the Palo Alto Main Library to ensure the senior population and others were able to come to the meeting via the existing Crosstown shuttle service. The evening meeting was held at the Lucie Stern Community Center to allow those who work normal business hours to attend. The afternoon meeting was attended by about 40 people and the evening meeting by about 20. The afternoon meeting was particularly well-attended by residents of the Moldaw Residences. Overall, attendees were happy with the proposal to expand the shuttle routes and about the locations served by the proposed new and modified routes. Depending on the specific home locations and destinations of attendees, participants expressed interest and approval of different routes. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 35 Comments received at the meetings included requests to: Ensure safe boarding and waiting areas at all stops for new routes, including benches, closest to senior centers and other destinations Extend hours on Crosstown route to evenings and weekends Improve frequency on all routes Serve Palo Alto Caltrain station on both sides of station Strive for easy transfer opportunities between Palo Alto shuttle routes and other transit services Consider extending Barron Park and/or Southwest routes to Mitchell Park and to intersect with the Crosstown route Serve additional key destinations including the JCC, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Update current bus branding and decorations to represent all rider groups; install cords on the buses to indicate when riders want to exit the bus Consider the impacts of the shuttle expansion and downtown parking pricing on nearby residential neighborhoods Ensure shuttles are always ADA accessible for those in wheelchairs and scooters Consider whether a quarter-mile walkshed is realistic for seniors and people with disabilities Consider travel time on new and existing routes – does it take too long to be worth it? Advertise the Shuttle in the Weekly newspaper, include in transit planning apps Impact of reduced Stanford Marguerite service during the summer months Consider how a potential flex, on-demand service could work for seniors or low income residents without smart phones Each of these comments either reinforced the need for a certain goal or improvement already in discussion for future implementation or was regarded as an important consideration for future steps of this work. The latter type of comment includes those related to choosing specific stop locations, building in transfer opportunities, and development of a branding and communications campaign. Other Engagement Activities Targeted in-person engagement was conducted at senior residence and activity centers in Palo Alto in December 2015 in conjunction with the survey. In addition to bringing more responses to the survey, this effort offered the opportunity to engage with potential and current shuttle users in person. Additional comments were fielded through social media including on the City of Palo Alto Facebook page. These comments were incorporated into the survey analysis described earlier in this chapter. Relevant comments from the ongoing community involvement process for Our Palo Alto 2030, including a Summit in May 2015 with more than 350 participants, were reviewed and considered in development of shuttle plans. Notes from the summit include multiple calls for improvements to the existing shuttle services, including9: 9 http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Palo_Alto-Summit_Q4_results.pdf PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 36 “Expand Palo Alto Shuttle geographically and in frequency (i.e. West of El Camino).” “Improved citywide shuttle service with collaboration with local employers.” “More geographically distributed bus/shuttle service – within a 10 min walk of each home.” Enact shuttle improvements to routes and schedules to meet the needs of both commuters and residents; expand into neighborhoods Improve communication of services via websites, apps, signage On-demand shuttles PROPOSED ROUTE MODIFICATIONS Based on current transit coverage in Palo Alto and gaps in coverage identified through the transit walkshed analysis, proposed changes to the VTA network, and community needs as expressed through the outreach process, a full set of route concepts were developed and screened as part of the visioning process. See Appendix B for full list of initial concepts and the screening process methodology. What is shown below is the outcome of the visioning and screening process: proposed route modifications to Crosstown and Embarcadero routes, as well as a new Palo Alto Shuttle route, “South Palo Alto.” Additional variants not shown in this chapter were considered by staff and can be found in Appendix C. These proposals seek to achieve enhanced coverage, frequency, and span within the Palo Alto Shuttle network while addressing the reduction in VTA service included as part of the Draft Next Network Plan. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 37 Crosstown Two variants for a revised Crosstown shuttle route are presented and are still under consideration by the City. Crosstown Variant A improves upon the original Crosstown route by adding new routing on both ends: North End - Extension from Palo Alto Caltrain Station to the Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Medical Center South End – Extension from Middlefield Road to San Antonio Road and El Camino Real. This extension adds access to the Moldaw Residences, as well as San Antonio Caltrain and San Antonio Shopping Center. Crosstown Variant A Specifications Primary Route Type Community Circulator Round-Trip Route Length 20.2 miles Round-Trip Cycle Time 105 minutes Vehicle Requirements 7 vehicles for 15-minute service 4 vehicles for 30-minute service 3 vehicles for 40-minute service Destinations (* indicate key destinations identified in the community survey and shown in Figure 18) Stanford Medical Center* Stanford Shopping Center* Palo Alto Caltrain* Downtown Palo Alto* Lytton Gardens Rinconada library Jordan Middle School Midtown JLS Middle School / Hoover Elementary / Fairmeadow Elementary* Mitchell Park and Library* Cubberley Community Center* Senior residences/centers* San Antonio Caltrain San Antonio Shopping Center* PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 38 Figure 20 Crosstown Route Variant A PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 39 Crosstown Variant B provides coverage redundancy for the new VTA Route 21 in an effort to offer increased frequency, up to 15-minute headway. As part of the concept service plan, Crosstown is targeted for significant increases in frequency and service span. Initially, peak weekday frequencies would be improved and span of service extended to provide additional utility in the early AM and evening periods. Over time, service frequencies would be improved to 15 minutes during peak periods and service would be introduced on weekends. Crosstown Variant B Specifications Primary Route Type Community Circulator Round-Trip Route Length 15.7 miles Round-Trip Cycle Time 90 minutes Vehicle Requirements 3 vehicles for 30-minute service 2 vehicles for 45-minute service Destinations (* indicate key destinations identified in the community survey and shown in Figure 18) Stanford Medical Center* Stanford Shopping Center* Palo Alto Caltrain* Downtown Palo Alto* Lytton Gardens Rinconada library Jordan Middle School Midtown JLS Middle / Hoover Elementary / Fairmeadow Elementary* Mitchell Park and Library* Cubberley Community Center* Senior residences/centers* San Antonio Caltrain San Antonio Shopping Center* PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 40 Figure 21 Crosstown Route Modification – Variant B PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 41 Embarcadero As a first/last mile shuttle, the current route structure is designed to serve the Palo Tech Center employers east of US 101. A modification of the Embarcadero route is presented with the goal of addressing coverage gaps presented in the Greer Park/Midtown areas with the elimination of VTA routes and expanding Palo Alto Shuttle coverage to areas along both East and West Bayshore. With match funding ending and a duplicate service to the Palo Tech Center provided by the Stanford Marguerite Tech route, the modified Embarcadero presented here extends the current Embarcadero route to serve municipal service buildings and other businesses along West and East Bayshore Drives, as well as the portion of San Antonio Road nearest to U.S. 101. Embarcadero Modified Route Specifications Primary Route Type First/Last Mile and Community Circulator Round-Trip Route Length 10.8 miles Round-Trip Cycle Time 50 minutes Vehicle Requirements 4 vehicles for 15-minute service 2 vehicles for 30-minute service 2 vehicles for 60 minute service Destinations (* indicate key destinations identified in the community survey and shown in Figure 18) Palo Alto Caltrain* Downtown Palo Alto* Town & Country Village* Paly High School* Lytton Gardens Rinconada library Palo Alto Municipal Service Center10 Palo Alto Animal Services Businesses near San Antonio Road/E Charleston Road Senior residences/centers* Greer Park Staff considered additional variants on the Embarcadero route, which can be viewed in Appendix C. 10 Expanding the Palo Alto Shuttle to the Municipal Service Center allows the City of Palo Alto to expand its employee Caltrain GoPass program to employees outside of the City Hall. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 42 Figure 22 Embarcadero Route Modification PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 43 South Palo Alto Most routes, whether Palo Alto Shuttle or operated by other agencies, serve downtown Palo Alto, including the Palo Alto Transit Center. South Palo Alto terminates at the VA hospital and the California Ave Caltrain Center, serving schools and other destinations along Arastradero, Charleston, Louis, and Colorado along the way. This South Palo Alto route concept provides connections to Caltrain by terminating near the California Avenue Caltrain station. Variant A also includes a Paly school tripper extension serving the residential areas south of Oregon Expressway. South Palo Alto Specifications Route Type Community Circulator Round-Trip Route Length 13.4 miles Round-Trip Cycle Time 75 minutes (60 minutes evening/weekend) Vehicles Requirement 5 vehicles for 15-minute service 3 vehicles for 30-minute service 1 vehicle for 40-60 minute service Destinations (* indicate key destinations identified in the community survey and shown in Figure 18) California Avenue* California Avenue Caltrain* Midtown Palo Verde neighborhood Mitchell Park and Library* Senior residences/centers* Terman Middle School* Gunn High School* VA Hospital Two additional variants on the South Palo Alto route were considered by staff and can be viewed in Appendix C. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 44 Figure 23 South Palo Alto PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 45 SERVICE PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION Annual service hours and costs are presented for each route (including two variants for the Crosstown route) in Figure 24. For each route/variant, a description and estimated annual costs are provided for both an enhanced (initial) service level and a full (meets frequent and reliable goal) service level. The City of Palo Alto may select a phased introduction of new or modified shuttle routes, or may choose to introduce a full service level from the beginning, acknowledging the loss of VTA service. Figure 24 Service Implementation Summary Enhanced Service Level Full Service Level Route Name Description of Service Annual Service Hours Annual Cost11 Description of Service Annual Service Hours Annual Cost Crosstown – Variant A 7 AM to 7 PM weekday service; 30-minute frequency all day, 40 minute in evenings, no weekend service 11,985 $864,118 7 AM to 9 PM weekday service; 15-minute peak frequency, 30-minute midday and 40-minute evening; 8 AM to 8 PM weekend service with 40-minute frequency 21,705 $1,564,930 – Variant B12 6 AM to 10 PM weekday service with 30-minute frequency all day; 8 AM to 8 PM weekend service with 45-minute frequency 14,640 $1,055,544 6 AM to 10 PM weekday service with 30-minute frequency all day; 8 AM to 8 PM weekend service with 45-minute frequency13 14,640 $1,055,544 Embarcadero 6:50 AM to 7 PM weekday service with 20-minute frequency during peak, no midday service, 40-minute evening; no weekend service 5,228 $376,902 7 AM to 9 PM weekday service with 15-minute frequency in peak, 30-minute frequency in midday and evening; 8 AM to 8 PM service on weekends with 60-minute frequency 11,400 $821,940 11 Assumes service hour cost of $72.10. 12 Crosstown Variant B duplicates much of VTA Route 21’s route. 30-minute service on Crosstown Variant B would be scheduled as to offer 15-minute frequency to passengers when combined with VTA Route 21’s 30-minute service. 13 Based on proposed service specifications on VTA Route 21. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 46 South Palo Alto (To be coordinated with VTA Routes 288 and 89) 7 AM to 7 PM weekday service with 30-minute frequency all day and 60-minute evening frequency; no weekend service 8,670 $625,107 7 AM to 9 PM weekday service with 15-minute frequency in peak, 30-minute midday, 60-minute evening; 8 AM to 8 PM weekend service with 60-minute frequency 14,240 $1,026,704 Sample Route Package A sample route package incorporating Crosstown Route Variant A, the modified Embarcadero Route, and South Palo Alto Variant A has been produced in Figure 25. This comparison shows the operating cost differences between the annual operating costs of the existing shuttle network and both an initial and full service implementation of this sample package. Figure 25 Sample Route Package and Associated Operating Costs Route and Variant Current Annual Operating Costs Annual Costs – Enhanced Service Level Annual Costs – Full Service Level Crosstown A $281,911 $864,119 $1,564,931 Embarcadero $252,400 $376,903 $821,940 South Palo Alto -- $625,107 $1,026,704 TOTAL $534,311 $1,866,129 $3,413,575 Note: The Embarcadero shuttle is funded in partnership with the Joint Powers Board (JPB). The JPB currently pays 46.5% of the operating cost (up to $117,300 per year). The breakdown of current operating costs is $135,100 per year from the City of Palo Alto and $117,300 from the JPB per year. As the above table shows, the investment in an expanded shuttle system will require significantly more funding on an annual basis; however, with the elimination of multiple existing VTA routes, expansion of the Palo Alto Shuttle system is important to maintaining strong transit coverage and access for Palo Alto residents and visitors. As shown in Figure 26, this sample package results in transit access for 77% of Palo Alto residents within a quarter-mile walk of a bus stop or half-mile walk of a train station. This is an increase from the 61% identified when incorporating the loss of the VTA routes proposed in the draft Next Network (Figure 12). It also represents an improvement in transit access from the 74% of residents who are currently within a quarter mile of bus transit with the existing transit service (Figure 8). PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 47 Figure 26 Transit Access Walkshed Analysis – Sample Route Package PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 48 Capital Improvements Because Palo Alto contracts operation of its shuttle routes to a private transportation provider (currently MV Transportation), it does not own buses or maintenance facilities, and thus primary capital needs are bus stop improvements and ongoing design and printing of new informational materials and schedules. The following section outlines guidelines and costs for bus stops and amenities. Follow on service planning will determine stop locations for new or modified routes, as well as any upgrades needed to existing stop locations. Bus Stops Stop siting/placement will be part of detailed route planning for modified or new routes. All stops should be fully accessible with a concrete landing and access to a sidewalk or pathway. ADA accessibility standards require that each bus stop include a landing pad with a minimum width of 60 inches and minimum depth of 96 inches. Bus stops should also connect to adjacent sidewalks or pedestrian paths. Many systems go beyond ADA minimums and provide a landing pad for the rear door of the bus. The addition of landing pads, connecting sidewalks, and amenities such as seating and shelter enhance the customer experience and are especially important for seniors and other persons with disabilities. Signage and Amenities Well-designed bus stop signage has the opportunity to provide useful customer information while simultaneously marketing transit service. Route signage should be limited to one design to minimize inventory and materials costs. The unit cost of bus stop poles and signage is approximately $250 per stop. Bus stop amenities enhance the customer experience by increasing comfort and perceived safety and reducing perceived waiting times. Bus stop amenities also influence the community’s perception of transit service. The approximate cost of bus shelters with seating and trash receptacles is $10,000 per stop. Figure 27 Bus Stop Amenity Guidelines Amenity Description Pole and sign Installed at stops with fewer than 5 average daily boardings Pole, sign, and seating Installed at stops with 10-20 average daily boardings and at key senior destinations Pole, sign, seating, and shelter Installed at stops with 20 or more average daily boardings and at schools and senior centers The provision of amenities is typically based on ridership. Circumstances that might preclude installation of shelters or seating at particular stop meeting specific thresholds are: Amenities would compromise pedestrian or operational safety Adequate right-of-way is not available Regulations enforced by City, County, State, or Federal government Installation costs are excessive Plans are in place to relocate or close the stops PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 49 6 FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OTHER SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS With transportation network companies and technology applications adding new options for customers to more directly control when, where and how they travel, the City wants to explore the potential for and impacts of converting all or some of its services into real-time e-hailing flex services. There are several ways to accomplish this objective. At a high level, these include: Partnering with transportation network companies (TNCs) through a contract or MOU Developing/acquiring applications for e-hailing, dynamic trip-booking, vehicle assignment, and electronic payment functionality to apply to services operated in-house or via contract Converting all or some of existing fixed route to a blended flex service and apply a combination of advanced booking and real-time e-hailing, scheduling, and fare payment system functionality The analysis of existing services coupled with the community survey results suggests the predominant improvements that would encourage potential riders to use the shuttle were corrective actions to the perceived service deficiencies concerning the desire for more frequent service, better service coverage, more information, longer service span, etc. The perceived service gaps reinforce the City’s interest in exploring whether an alternative service delivery approach might yield higher ridership. Essentially, these data suggest that potential riders want a service that operates when they wish to travel and where they wish to travel. This service delivery philosophy correlates to flexible services with real-time responsiveness (similar to OmniLink Flex-Route – a point deviation service) as well as real-time dynamically routed services (similar to the FlexBus concept and the VTA Flex pilot). Flex Service Types Partnering with a TNC – one obvious service model for the City to consider is partnering with Transportation Network Companies like Uber and Lyft. TNC’s offer an easy bridge to extend existing services to currently unserved and underserved areas and markets via a memorandum of understanding, service parameters and standards, and a financial agreement. Figure 28 presents a snapshot of pros and cons of the TNC partnership model. Figure 28 TNC partnership Model Pros and Cons TNC Partnership Pros Cons Start-up process Easy to set up; Quickly expands mobility to a wide market MOU must address legal, financial, risk, performance considerations PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 50 Financial Low initial investment; Reasonable investment for modest expansion of mobility Subsidy on a per trip basis, unless there is a counteracting requirement for a high level of shared trips, will increase overall costs, especially at a cost/trip basis Access to Service Quickly expands to cover the general public TNC market Requires concerted effort to facilitate access to service and service accessibility to low income, and disabled population Managing Service The customer arranges transport directly with the TNC The City has limited control over service quality and the amount of service provided which can have fiscal impacts E-hailing Flex Services – The City may also consider converting the shuttles to point deviation and/or anchored flex services and deploying e-hailing and electronic fare payment applications. Figure 29 presents a snapshot of pros and cons of the point deviation and anchored flex service models. Point deviation Flex services include a generalized transit route created by a series of designated stop locations with the ability of the service to deviate between stops on request to make off-route pick-up and drop-offs. Anchored Flex services operate more like dial-a ride without specified routes and stops except for one, in some cases 2-3, where the vehicle is always scheduled to be at a particular location and time, generally each hour of half hour. At the anchor stop, the vehicle connects with a regional rail or transit service. Otherwise, the anchored flex service is free to pick up and drop off passengers based on requests. Figure 29 Point Deviation/Anchored Flex Service Model Pros and Cons Point Deviation / Anchored Flex Services Pros Cons Start-up process Modify existing services into point deviation and/or anchored Flex services can be done with a service change Requires customer awareness; Retrain drivers; Acquire and deploy technology systems Financial Point deviation productivity can be high; Improved service cost-effectiveness Requires initial investment in technology; Technology deployment takes time; Access to Service Improved customer awareness, service access, service information; Increase ridership Point deviation and anchored dial-a-ride services can be a challenge to some customers Managing Service Technology applications will enhance customer experience, operations management, data collection, reporting The City is responsible for operations, service quality PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 51 Dynamic Point-to-Point Flex Services – The next option for the City to consider is a real- time dynamically routed point-to-point Flex service. This is essentially a service without routes or schedules. This service model was initially designed for Central Florida as the FlexBus concept and is currently being implemented on the LYNX NeighborLink service in a slightly modified zonal service model. VTA Flex service in Milpitas is another example. Figure 30 presents a snapshot of pros and cons of the point deviation and anchored flex service models. Figure 30 Dynamically Routed Flex Service Model Pros and Cons Dynamically Routed Flex Services Pros Cons Start-up process Modify existing services; Rebrand existing services; Leverage ridership base Retrain customers and drivers; Acquire and deploy technology; More vehicles Financial Productivity can be high; High cost-effectiveness; Low subsidy per trip Requires initial investment in technology; Technology deployment takes time; Access to Service High customer awareness & service access, Real-time service; Real-time status Service concept needs to be explained; Non-tech savvy and certain populations may require support Managing Service Enhanced customer service, operations management, data and reporting The City is responsible for operations, service quality Next Steps Based on this brief analysis of a range of Flex service models currently operating and/or emerging in the industry, there seems to be evidence for the City to further investigate new and emerging service delivery models such as TNC-partnerships, dynamic Flex service models, and point deviation service models as a replacement for or in addition to local fixed-route circulator service. The intent of these service delivery types is to offer new ways to deliver mobility in lower-density and lower-productivity environments. Their primary advantage is in providing more cost-effective service that can minimize the tradeoff between frequent service and good coverage through partnerships or deviations. This initial assessment just scratches at the surface of what alternate service delivery could look like in Palo Alto. A detailed planning and implementation study should follow to further develop and refine these concepts into a feasible pilot program. At time of writing, several formal partnerships have formed and are currently being piloted here in the Bay Area, and best practices/lessons learned from these programs provide a logical, convenient, and accessible starting point for the City as it seeks to explore emerging mobility options for its residents, employees, and visitors. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION | DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 52 APPENDIX A COMMUNITY PROFILE The City of Palo Alto is located about 30 miles south of San Francisco and 20 miles north of San Jose in Santa Clara County, California. Palo Alto maintained a relatively stable population from 1970 to 2000 with 4.7% growth but has been growing significantly faster since 2000. The 2010 US Census found a population of about 64,000 residents. However, the city’s population is projected to increase 25.1% between 2000 and 2030, reaching more than 73,000 residents by the year 2030.14 Figure 31 shows the density of residential population throughout Palo Alto. The highest density areas include the University Avenue and California Avenue areas, as well as Barron Park and some census tracts east of Middlefield and south of Oregon Expressway. Other areas of relative high density are in East Palo Alto and near the San Antonio Caltrain station on the border with Mountain View. Figure 31 Population Density in Palo Alto 14 Our Palo Alto 2030, Draft Existing Conditions Report: Population, Housing and Employment (2014), 10-5, 10-6 PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION |DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 53 Residents age 65 and older constitute 17.1% of Palo Alto’s population. This is a larger portion than the share for Santa Clara County as a whole, which is 11%. Palo Alto’s population is also aging; the median age in 2010 was 41.9 years old, compared to 31.6 in 1970. Between today and 2030, the number of residents older than 65, the average age, and the share of children are all expected to continue to increase. The ethnic make-up of Palo Alto’s population is shifting, with a decrease in persons identifying themselves as Caucasian and an increase in the proportion of people who self-identify as Asian. In 2000, 72.8% of the population identified themselves as white, compared to 60.6% in 2010. Conversely, 17.2% of Palo Alto residents identified as Asian in 2000; this increased to 27% in 2010. These trends are expected to continue both in Palo Alto and throughout the Bay Area. Income in Palo Alto is consistently higher than for surrounding communities in Santa Clara County. Palo Alto’s median household income increased to $122,482 in 2012, compared to $90,747 in Santa Clara County overall. Palo Alto boasts consistent job growth and low unemployment rates. More than 110,000 jobs are projected in Palo Alto by 2030, a 24% increase from the number of jobs in 2010. Employment density in Palo Alto (Figure 32) is concentrated in the University Avenue and California Avenue areas, the Page Mill Road corridor including the Stanford Research Park, and in the southeast part of the city near Fabian Way and San Antonio Road. Figure 32 Employment Density in Palo Alto PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION |DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 54 Figure 33 Transportation Goals of the Current Comprehensive Plan15 Transportation Goals Goal T-1 Less reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles Goal T-2 A convenient, efficient public transit system that provides a viable alternative to driving Goal T-3 Facilities, services, and programs that encourage and promote walking and biking Goal T-4 An efficient roadway network for all users Goal T-5 A transportation system with minimal impacts on residential neighborhoods Goal T-6 A high level of safety for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists Goal T-7 Mobility for people with special needs Goal T-8 Attractive, convenient public and private parking facilities Goal T-9 An influential role in shaping and implementing regional transportation decisions Goal T-10 A local airport with minimal off-site impacts 15 Our Palo Alto 2030, Draft Existing Conditions Report: Transportation and Traffic (2014), 12-7 PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION |DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 55 APPENDIX B CONCEPT LIST AND SCREENING PROCESS This concept development and screening process took place in Winter/Spring 2016 during the initial development of concepts, prior to the concept refinement in consideration of the draft VTA Next Network. Concept Development Using the established goals and objectives, the findings from the community survey, and analysis conducted regarding existing transit service, a set of more than 20 initial concept ideas were developed to improve the Palo Alto Shuttle system. These concepts were classified as either new routes, modified routes, or other service improvements. Other service improvements included concepts not directly related to expanded or modified coverage, such as increased frequency, increased service hours, improved reliability, and a campaign to expand awareness and improve the user experience of the shuttle. The full list of initial concepts is included as Figure 34. This initial concept list was developed with the following market factors and planning parameters in mind: Walkshed analysis and existing transit access gaps Population and employment densities Key activity generators and destinations as identified on the survey Ridership trends on existing shuttle services School catchment areas (see figures below) Residential locations of key user groups (e.g. seniors) PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 56 Figure 34 Palo Alto Shuttle Improvement Concepts – Initial List Concept Type Description Alignment with Goals Service Characteristics Key Destinations Served Southwest Shuttle New Route Community Circulator; FM/LM New route with service from Stanford Shopping Center/Apartments to PA Caltrain, Cal Ave Caltrain, Stanford Research Park (Page Mill), VA Hospital, Gunn HS Convenient and Accessible Either peak only (to only serve Gunn and commuters) or 7:30am-7:30pm route; consider later service Friday PM (to 10 pm) Frequency: 15 min Stanford Shopping Center, Palo Alto Caltrain, Cal Ave Caltrain and business district, Page Mill Rd employers, Stanford Research Park, VA Hospital, Gunn High School/Terman Middle Midtown-San Antonio Circulator + Paly School Tripper New Route Community Circulator; School Tripper New route with service between California Ave and San Antonio Shopping Center via Palo Verde and San Antonio transit hub Continues to El Camino and Embarcadero Road for school trips Convenient and Accessible Frequent and Reliable Frequency: 15 min peak Additional trip(s) to Paly in accordance with bell schedule Cal Ave shopping district, Cal Ave Caltrain, Mitchell Park, San Antonio Caltrain, San Antonio Shopping Center Central PA New Route Community Circulator New loop route with service from Stanford Shopping Center/Downtown PA to Fairmeadow via Alma/Bryant Convenient and Accessible Frequency: 15 min (perhaps 30 min headway if combined or offered as alternative route to Southwest) Stanford Shopping Center University Avenue PA and Cal Ave Caltrain stations Barron Park New Route Community Circulator New route with service from within Barron Park neighborhood to downtown PA, Convenient and Accessible Frequency: 15 min (perhaps 30 min headway if combined or offered as alternative route to Southwest) PA Caltrain, PAMF, Town and Country Shopping Center, Barron Park West Shuttle New Route Community Circulator; School Tripper Connects connect South Palo Alto, California Avenue, Paly High School, Town and County Village, the Palo Alto Medical Center, Palo Alto Transit Center, University Avenue, and Stanford Shopping Center via El Camino Real and East Meadow Drive Convenient and Accessible Sample schedule includes 20 weekday runs and approximately 24 vehicle revenue hours with two buses in operation. Palo Alto Caltrain University Avenue Connections to Marguerite Stanford Shopping Center Palo Alto Medical Foundation California Avenue Palo Alto Commons Stevenson House Moldaw Residences Winter Shopping Trolley New Route Community Circulator Connects the University Avenue Downtown Business District with the Stanford Shopping Center Convenient and Accessible Pilot project: December park-once shuttle for holiday shopping Stanford Shopping Center University Avenue PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 57 Concept Type Description Alignment with Goals Service Characteristics Key Destinations Served Summer Lunchtime Trolley New Route Community Circulator Connects the University Avenue Downtown Business District with the Stanford Shopping Center Convenient and Accessible Pilot project: Summer lunchtime trolley for access to dining destinations in Stanford Shopping Center and downtown Requires high frequency (<10 min to be successful) Stanford Shopping Center University Avenue Paly School Tripper (North Palo Alto) New Route School Tripper Serves Paly students living in downtown North and downtown neighborhoods. Convenient and Accessible Extra AM/PM run timed with school schedule Paly High School North and Old Palo Alto residential neighborhoods Gunn/Terman School Tripper New Route School Tripper Serves Gunn/Terman students living in Stanford housing and in neighborhoods near Stanford Convenient and Accessible Extra AM/PM run timed with school schedule Gunn/Terman schools Stanford University housing Paly School Tripper (SW Palo Alto) New Route School Tripper Serves Paly students living in College Terrace and Evergreen Park neighborhoods. Convenient and Accessible Extra AM/PM run timed with school schedule Paly High School College Terrace and Evergreen Park neighborhoods Flex Routes New Route Community Circulator Serves lower demand areas either spatially or temporally that are not served with fixed route transit Convenient and Accessible Frequent and Reliable Potential to serve lower demand residential areas with point to point or point to downtown service TBD based on extents of service area Crosstown: Stanford Shopping Center, PAMF Extension + Cubberley Extension Modified Route Community Circulator Extends Crosstown route west to Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Shopping Center and PAMF; east to loop serving Cubberley Community Center Convenient and Accessible Extension to encircle Stanford Shopping Center via Sand Hill, Arboretum, Galvez, El Camino; loop around Middlefield, San Antonio and E Charleston Existing plus Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Shopping Center, PAMF; Cubberley Community Center, Greenmeadow neighborhood, Moldaw Residences Embarcadero: Bayshore Service Modified Route - Route and Hours Community Circulator; FM/LM Diverts Embarcadero route along East/West Bayshore to Fabian Way/San Antonio Road Convenient and Accessible Frequent and Reliable Modified route to serve Bayshore, southeast PA All day service at 15 minute headway in peak, perhaps more in off-peak Greer Park, Fabian Way and W Bayshore businesses, existing Embarcadero shuttle destinations PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 58 Concept Type Description Alignment with Goals Service Characteristics Key Destinations Served East Palo Alto: Stanford Shopping Center, PAMF Extension Modified Route Community Circulator Extends EPA route west to Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Shopping Center and PAMF Convenient and Accessible Extension to encircle Stanford Shopping Center via Sand Hill, Arboretum, Galvez, El Camino Existing plus Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Shopping Center, PAMF East Palo Alto: 101 Extension Modified Route Extend EPA route across US 101 and further into East Palo Alto Convenient and Accessible Could either be a new additional route, or could be alternated with existing route for 1 hr headway vs 30 min headway East Palo Alto, Palo Alto Caltrain, downtown PA Crosstown: Hours Extension - Weekends Other Service Improvement - Weekend Service Implement weekend service for shopping, dining opportunities as well as access to Main Library, Mitchell Park, and other community centers Frequent and Reliable Options exist for all day service or just evening service Same as existing route Crosstown: Hours Extension - Evenings Other Service Improvement - Extend Weekday Operating Hours Extend Crosstown service into the evening to facilitate evening commute use and car free access to downtown dining and shopping Frequent and Reliable Extend Crosstown route hours to 7:30 pm M-Th; to 10 pm Fri Same as existing route Crosstown: Frequency Increase Other Service Improvement - Weekday Peak Period Frequency Increase all day frequency on Crosstown route to 15 min headways; currently 30 min headway in non peak, hourly in peak One additional Jordan Middle route run in AM and PM Frequent and Reliable 15 min headway or better; schedule designed to meet Caltrain arrivals/departures True first mile/last mile would require as many runs as Embarcadero Shuttle Same as existing route East Palo Alto: Hours Extension Other Service Improvement - Midday Service Extend EPA route hours in midday weekday and weekend Frequent and Reliable Closing gap on midday service from EPA to downtown Same as existing route Marketing and Communications Campaign Other Service Improvement Develop and implement marketing and communication improvements for existing shuttle services Visibility and Ease of Use Existing Shuttle Reliability Study Other Service Improvement Invest in study of reliability issues for existing shuttle routes Frequent and Reliable Schedule and Operations Review Other Service Improvement Invest in review of existing schedules, opportunities for coordination and transfer between Palo Alto shuttle and other operators Visibility and Ease of Use PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 59 The concepts were screened against known operational constraints including street design and roadway configurations (e.g. one-way streets and designated bike boulevards) in addition to the criteria listed below: Ridership Potential: does the route serve multiple activity generators or key destinations in Palo Alto? Ability to Serves Target User Groups: does the route serve multiple user groups, including seniors, students, employees and residents? Expand Transit Access: does the route expand the transit service area in Palo Alto and avoid overlap with existing services? Address Survey Requests: does the route address requests we heard in the survey? Level of Resources Required: does the route require significant resources or is it easily-implementable? Points were assigned in each criteria category corresponding to a low, medium or high score. Characteristics for each score category are outlined in Figure 35. Figure 35 Shuttle Improvement Concept Screening Criteria Criteria Low – 1 Point Medium – 2 points High – 3 points Ridership Potential < 5 activity generators on route 6-10 activity generators on route 11+ activity generators on route Low employment and population density Moderate population and employment density Significant high population and employment density Ability to Serve Target User Groups One user group reached Two user groups reached 3-5 user groups reached Expands Transit Access Significant overlap with existing service Some new corridors/streets served Mostly new corridors/streets served Nearby population already has transit within quarter mile Provides some new quarter-mile transit access Addresses many gaps in transit access Addresses Survey Requests Does not address key destinations/categories of survey responses Addresses one key destination/category of survey responses Addresses multiple key destinations/categories of survey responses Level of Resources Required Anticipated to be very resource intensive Moderate level of resources required Requires reasonable level of financial/staff resources to implement Following the screening and scoring exercise, the concepts were placed into Tiers 1 through 3, with Tier 1 concepts most closely aligning with the goals (as described in Chapter 5) and practical constraints of the shuttle program. Concepts were also separated into near-term concepts (primarily modified routes and other service improvements, such as frequency and hours of operation) and mid to long-term concepts (primarily new routes). PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 60 Figure 36 outlines the scoring process and shows the scores assigned to each initial concept, as well as the tiered outcomes. Tier 1 concepts, including new routes and modified routes, were further refined and shared at the community meetings in March 2016. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 61 Figure 36 Shuttle Concept Screening Process and Assigned Scores Palo Alto Shuttle Initial Concepts Concept Screening High - 3 points, Medium - 2 points, Low - 1 point * Inverse weighting Tier Concept Ridership Potential Serves Target User Groups Expands Transit Access Addresses Survey Requests Level of Resources Required* Total Points Ranking Notes Tier 1 Southwest Shuttle 3 Low to Moderate population density; high employment density; about 12 activity generators 3 Seniors, students, employees FM/LM to research park, residents 2 2 1 11 Tier 1 because of potential new ridership, multiple user groups served and addressing survey requests Tier 1 Midtown-San Antonio Circulator + Paly School Tripper 2 Moderate to high population density; low to moderate employment density; about 7 activity generators 3 Seniors, students, PA employees, residents 2 2 1 10 Tier 1 because of gaps filled in transit access, number of target user groups served and addressing survey comments. Tier 1 Embarcadero: Bayshore Service 2 Moderate population density; moderate employment density; about 6 activity generators 2 Seniors, residents, PA employees 3 2 2 11 Tier 1 because of significant closure of transit access gaps, multiple target user groups served and moderate resources required Tier 1 Crosstown: Stanford Shopping Center, PAMF Extension + Cubberley Extension 2 Moderate population density; moderate employment density; about three activity generators 2 Seniors, residents, PA employees 2 3 3 12 Tier 1 because low anticipated resources required, addresses frequent survey requests and while there is some existing transit overlap, it serves senior population where one seat ride is important PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 62 Palo Alto Shuttle Initial Concepts Concept Screening High - 3 points, Medium - 2 points, Low - 1 point *Inverse weighting Tier Concept Ridership Potential Serves Target User Groups Expands Transit Access Addresses Survey Requests Level of Resources Required* Total Points Ranking Notes Tier 1 Crosstown: Hours Extension - Evenings 3 Same ridership potential as Crosstown, plus evening commuters 2 Seniors, PA employees, residents 1 3 2 11 Tier 1 because of additional ridership potential, addressing frequent survey comments and moderate level of resources required Tier 1 Crosstown: Frequency Increase 3 Same ridership potential as Crosstown, plus evening commuters 2 Seniors, PA employees, residents 1 3 2 11 Tier 1 because of potential to increase ridership, address survey requests and moderate level of resources required Tier 2 Central PA 2 Moderate population density; moderate employment density; about 6 activity generators 2 Seniors, PA employees, residents 3 1 1 9 Tier 2 due to infeasibility of route due to non-thru streets other than bike blvd Bryant, car thoroughfare Alma Tier 2 Barron Park 2 Low to moderate population density; moderate employment density; about 6 activity generators 2 Seniors, PA employees, residents 2 2 1 9 Tier 2 due to high survey response but low density neighborhood. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 63 Palo Alto Shuttle Initial Concepts Concept Screening High - 3 points, Medium - 2 points, Low - 1 point *Inverse weighting Tier Concept Ridership Potential Serves Target User Groups Expands Transit Access Addresses Survey Requests Level of Resources Required* Total Points Ranking Notes Tier 2 West Shuttle 2 Moderate population density; moderate employment density; about 5 activity generators 2 Seniors, PA employees, residents 1 2 1 8 Tier 2 due to transit overlap but moderate population and employment density in the area. Tier 2 Winter Shopping Trolley 2 Moderate population density, high employment density; about 4 activity generators 2 Seniors, residents 1 1 2 8 Tier 2 due to transit overlap but moderate population and employment density in the area. Tier 2 Summer Lunchtime Trolley 2 Moderate population density, high employment density; about 4 activity generators 2 Seniors, residents, PA employees 1 1 2 8 Tier 2 due to transit overlap but moderate population and employment density in the area. Tier 2 East Palo Alto: Stanford Shopping Center, PAMF Extension 2 Moderate population density; moderate employment density; about three activity generators 2 Seniors, residents, PA and EPA employees 1 2 1 8 Tier 2 due to resources and coordination required but moderate population density and transit access expansion. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 64 Palo Alto Shuttle Initial Concepts Concept Screening High - 3 points, Medium - 2 points, Low - 1 point *Inverse weighting Tier Concept Ridership Potential Serves Target User Groups Expands Transit Access Addresses Survey Requests Level of Resources Required* Total Points Ranking Notes Tier 2 Crosstown: Hours Extension - Weekends 2 Same ridership potential as Crosstown 2 Seniors, PA employees, residents 1 2 2 9 Tier 2 due to unclear market demand Tier 3 Paly School Tripper (North Palo Alto) 2 Includes catchment area but depends on student enrollment 1 Students 2 2 2 7 Tier 3 because of unknowns related to ridership potential Tier 3 Gunn/Terman School Tripper 2 Includes catchment area but depends on student enrollment 1 Students 2 2 2 7 Tier 3 because of unknowns related to ridership potential Tier 3 Paly School Tripper (SW Palo Alto) 2 Includes catchment area but depends on student enrollment 1 Students 1 2 2 6 Tier 3 because of unknowns related to ridership potential Tier 3 Flex Routes Dependent on geographic extents Dependent on geographic extents Dependent on geographic extents Dependent on geographic extents 1 Tier 3 because of unknowns related to ridership potential, cost and operating plans PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 65 Palo Alto Shuttle Initial Concepts Concept Screening High - 3 points, Medium - 2 points, Low - 1 point *Inverse weighting Tier Concept Ridership Potential Serves Target User Groups Expands Transit Access Addresses Survey Requests Level of Resources Required* Total Points Ranking Notes Tier 3 East Palo Alto: 101 Extension 2 Moderate to high population density; moderate employment density; about three activity generators 2 Seniors, residents, PA and EPA employees 1 1 1 7 Tier 3 because of transit overlap, low response rate on survey and coordination required. Tier 3 East Palo Alto: Hours Extension 2 Same geographic extents as current EPA 2 Seniors, PA and EPA employees, residents 1 1 1 7 Tier 3 because of coordination required and low response rate on survey. Tier 1 Marketing and Communications Campaign Recommended to address 200+ survey comments related to lack of awareness and potential increase ridership with relatively small investment. Tier 2 Schedule and Operations Review Could benefit legibility and cost-effectiveness of existing and future routes. Tier 3 Existing Shuttle Reliability Study Reliability becomes less important with significant frequency increases. Yellow highlighting indicates variables with significant unknown details. PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 66 APPENDIX C OTHER ROUTE VARIANTS CONSIDERED EMBARCADERO ROUTE VARIANTS Embarcadero Route Variant A retains the current Embarcadero route, extending it beyond Palo Alto Technology Center along East Bayshore before turning around at Charleston/Fabian to a return trip via Embarcadero Road to Palo Alto Caltrain. Embarcadero Modification Variant A Specifications Primary Route Type First/Last Mile and Community Circulator Round-Trip Route Length 13.4 miles Round-Trip Cycle Time 60 minutes Vehicle Requirements 4 vehicles for 15-minute service 2 vehicles for 30-minute service 1 vehicle for 60 minute service Destinations (* indicate key destinations identified in the community survey and shown in Figure 18) Palo Alto Caltrain* Downtown Palo Alto* Town & Country Village* Paly High School* Lytton Gardens Rinconada library Palo Alto Technology Center Palo Alto Municipal Service Center Palo Alto Animal Services Businesses near San Antonio Road/E Charleston Road Senior residences/centers* PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 67 Figure 37 Embarcadero Route Variant A PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 68 Embarcadero Route Variant B removes service to Palo Alto Technology Center and areas east of Highway 101 in favor of providing service along West Bayshore Road with a loop at Fabian/Charleston. Embarcadero Variant B aims to fill existing service gaps in the Greer Park/Midtown neighborhood and serve senior residences and employment centers. Embarcadero Variant B Specifications Route Type Community Circulator Round-Trip Route Length 10.6 miles Round-Trip Cycle Time 50 minutes Vehicles Requirement 4 vehicles for 15-minute service 2 vehicles for 30-minute service 1 vehicle for 40-60 minute service Destinations (* indicate key destinations identified in the community survey and shown in Figure 18) Palo Alto Caltrain* Downtown Palo Alto* Town & Country Village* Paly High School* Lytton Gardens Rinconada library Greer Park Businesses near San Antonio Road/E Charleston Road/Fabian Way Senior residences/centers* PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 69 Figure 38 Embarcadero Route Variant B PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 70 SOUTH PALO ALTO ROUTE VARIANTS South Palo Alto Variant B provides all-day duplication of proposed VTA routes 288A and 288B which would provide only school bell service (3 AM and 3 PM trips). This route loops through Midtown neighborhood via Louis Road, Colorado Avenue, and Middlefield Road. South Palo Alto Variant B Specifications Route Type Community Circulator Round-Trip Route Length 10.4 miles Round-Trip Cycle Time 60 minutes Vehicles Requirement 4 vehicles for 15-minute service 2 vehicles for 30-minute service 1 vehicle for 40-60 minute service Destinations (* indicate key destinations identified in the community survey and shown in Figure 18) Midtown Palo Verde neighborhood Mitchell Park and Library* Senior residences/centers* Terman Middle School* Gunn High School* VA Hospital PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 71 Figure 39 South Palo Alto – Variant B PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 72 South Palo Alto Variant C terminates at Midtown Shopping Center and California Avenue Caltrain station. This nearly circular route travels along Louis, Fabian, E Charleston, Arastradero, Foothill Expressway, and Page Mill Road. The routes includes a school tripper extension from Midtown Shopping Center to Palo Alto High School (3 AM and 3 PM trips). South Palo Alto Variant C Specifications Route Type Community Circulator Round-Trip Route Length 16.5 miles Round-Trip Cycle Time 75 minutes Vehicles Requirement 7 vehicles for 15-minute service 4 vehicles for 30-minute service 2 vehicles for 40-60 minute service Destinations (* indicate key destinations identified in the community survey and shown in Figure 18) Midtown Shopping Center Midtown neighborhood Palo Verde neighborhood Mitchell Park and Library* Senior residences/centers* Terman Middle School* Gunn High School* VA Hospital Stanford Technology Center* California Ave Caltrain* PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 73 Figure 40 South Palo Alto – Variant C PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 74 SOUTHWEST ROUTE Lastly, the Southwest route would provide service from downtown Palo Alto and the Stanford Medical Center/Shopping Center area to Old Palo Alto (currently unserved or underserved by transit), California Avenue, College Terrace, and along Page Mill Boulevard to serve Stanford Research Park and then south to the VA Hospital and Gunn High School/Terman Middle School. With the proposed elimination of VTA route 89, the Southwest Route may present as an important opportunity for future expansion of the system. This route would also provide a one- seat fare free ride between downtown Palo Alto and California Avenue shopping districts, as well as being able to serve portions of Old Palo Alto that today do not have transit within a quarter- mile walk. Initially the route would operate during weekday peak periods to serve employees and students. Over time, service would be added midday and extended further into the evening as well as on weekends. Southwest Route Specifications Route Type Community Circulator Round-Trip Route Length 18.1 miles Round-Trip Cycle Time 60 minutes Vehicle Requirements 4 vehicles for 15-minute service 2 vehicles for 30-minute service 1 vehicle for 60 minute service Destinations (* indicate key destinations identified in the community survey and shown in Figure 18) Stanford Medical Center* Stanford Shopping Center* Palo Alto Caltrain* Downtown Palo Alto* Old Palo Alto neighborhood California Avenue* California Avenue Caltrain* College Terrace Stanford Research Park* VA Palo Alto Gunn High School* Terman Middle School* PALO ALTO TRANSIT VISION| DRAFT City of Palo Alto Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 75 Figure 41 Southwest Route Date: April 27, 2017 Current Meeting: May 4, 2017 Board Meeting: May 4, 2017 BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez FROM: Interim Director - Planning & Program Development, Carolyn M. Gonot SUBJECT: Next Network Final Plan Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Final VTA Transit Service Plan. BACKGROUND: VTA updates its transit service plan every two years, typically making small adjustments based on rider input and performance data. For the FY18-19 transit service plan, VTA is completely redesigning its transit network in order to connect to BART at Milpitas and Berryessa Stations, increase overall ridership and improve cost-effectiveness. Due to the enormity of the redesign, VTA initiated a community-based planning process, known as Next Network, in early 2016. Overview of Next Network Process The Next Network process framed the redesign to balance the competing goals of ridership and coverage that transit agencies are asked to achieve. A five-month long community engagement process in the summer of 2016 yielded over 5,000 points of input and a general desire by the public for VTA to place more emphasis on the ridership goal and less emphasis on the coverage goal for the FY18-19 transit service plan. In November 2016, the Board of Directors affirmed the community’s input and directed staff to develop a service plan that increased the portion of operating funds spent on ridership-purposed services from 70 to 85 percent and decreased coverage-purposed spending from 30 to 15 percent. At the January 2017 Board Meeting, the Board approved the release of an 85/15 Draft Transit Service Plan. VTA staff then undertook a new round of extensive community engagement in January and February of 2017 to receive input from the community and stakeholders. 7.3 Page 2 of 16 After reviewing over 3,000 public comments on the Draft Transit Service Plan, staff developed a Final Transit Service Plan that made 34 changes to the Draft Transit Service Plan, including retaining service to some areas where discontinuances had been proposed such as Almaden Valley, Palo Alto, Cupertino, Saratoga and Campbell, among others. The Final Transit Service Plan employs an 83/17 ridership/coverage balance. What follows is a more in-depth discussion of the process staff engaged in to arrive at the 83/17 recommendation. Next Network Foundation To assist with the Next Network process, VTA hired Jarrett Walker and Associates (JWA), an internationally-respected transit network design firm, to lead a community conversation about how to improve Santa Clara County’s transit system. In February of 2016, JWA produced an independent assessment of VTA’s transit service called the Transit Choices Report (which can be found at nextnetwork.vta.org). The Transit Choices Report recommended changes to VTA’s network design philosophy, service classes, branding and fare structure. The Transit Choices Report outlined a strategy for increasing ridership: operating frequent, all-day transit service in areas that follow patterns of density, walkability, linearity and proximity. The Transit Choices Report also noted that increasing transit ridership requires multi-agency collaboration as the two largest drivers of ridership-land use and the design of the street network-are within the authority of municipal governments. In June 2016, JWA produced a Transit Alternatives Report (which can be found at nextnetwork.vta.org) that framed the design of VTA’s transit network in terms of the two goals that transit agencies are asked to achieve: ridership and coverage. The ridership goal compels transit agencies to think like a business and invest service hours in places that have high transit demand and transit-supportive characteristics like density and walkability. Ridership-oriented networks tend to have fewer routes, but many that are frequent while coverage-oriented networks have many routes, but few that are frequent. The coverage goal compels transit agencies to think like a government service and locate transit routes in as many places as possible to maximize access to public transit. While increasing ridership and coverage are both important goals, they compete for the same funding. Doing more of one means doing less of the other and transit agencies must decide how much of their funding should be spent toward each. VTA currently spends 70 percent of its transit operating funding on ridership-purposed routes and 30 percent on coverage-purposed routes (as shown in Attachment A). Given the goal of increasing ridership, the Transit Alternatives Report asked if VTA should change its ridership/coverage balance and, if so, by how much? To assist with this community conversation, the Transit Alternatives Report featured three network concepts that employed different ridership/coverage balances, 70/30, 80/20 and 90/10. Each showed the tradeoff between increased frequency and decreased access. All three concepts were designed in a budget-neutral context, where each would cost the same for VTA to operate. Phase I Outreach and Board Direction In the summer of 2016, VTA undertook a community engagement effort consisting of 12 community meetings, four four-hour community leader workshops, surveys and online outreach. This effort asked the public to weigh in on the three network concepts and cast a vote for their preferred ridership/coverage balance along a spectrum that ranged from 70/30 to 90/10. Over 7.3 Page 3 of 16 2,000 votes were cast yielding an 80/20 average. At the community leader workshops, the average result of the ridership/coverage balance survey was 85/15. VTA also asked if the public would welcome a more-ridership oriented network if it meant walking farther to access faster or more frequent transit and if making transfers between more frequent buses and/or trains in order to arrive at one’s destination sooner would be preferred over making one-seat trips. Though some members of the public preferred shorter walks and one-seat trips, the majority favored walking farther and making transfers. The community leader workshop attendees included elected officials, neighborhood and civic leaders, and representatives of community groups whose constituents rely on transit to get around. Due to these leaders’ closeness to the topic of public transit, additional consideration was given to their input, resulting in a staff recommendation for an 85/15 ridership/coverage balance for the Draft Transit Service Plan. At their November 18, 2016 Board Workshop, VTA’s Board of Directors endorsed the staff recommendation. A Draft Transit Service Plan that employed an 85/15 ridership/coverage balance was released for public review at the January 5, 2017 Board of Directors Meeting. DISCUSSION: Draft Transit Service Plan The Draft Transit Service Plan proposed several fundamental changes to the design of VTA’s transit network, including the following: Reallocating transit service from low-ridership areas to high-ridership areas Increasing frequency Increasing Light Rail Service More Rapid Routes Increasing midday and weekend service levels and expanding hours of service Transitioning toward a grid network Stronger connections to regional transportation Expanding potential rider base, improving service for current riders The December 22, 2016 memorandum presented to the Board of Directors on January 5, 2017 includes a detailed discussion of these features and the Draft Transit Service Plan that was released for public review. A copy of this memorandum can be found at nextnetwork.vta.org. 7.3 Page 4 of 16 Phase II Outreach Campaign and Feedback Following the release of the Draft Transit Service Plan, VTA staff undertook a public engagement effort to collect input on how VTA could improve the Draft Transit Service Plan. This effort included: 86 staff presentations including community meetings, guest presentations, committee and Board agendized items, and city staff and council presentations An information campaign including brochures, take-one cards, advertisements and an aggressive social media campaign in multiple languages A print and broadcast media campaign that recorded 27 instances of local coverage An online video campaign that achieved 111 live viewers, over 4,300 total views and 26,000 minutes of watch-time including webinars, two live-streamed public meetings and eight videos focused on transit changes around colleges A multi-lingual project microsite (nextnetwork.vta.org) that recorded 355,000 unique visits and 1.4 million page views A multi-lingual street team that engaged with riders at 14 different transit centers totaling 3,287 interactions with transit riders A full documentation of community outreach can be found in Attachment B. The outreach effort for the Draft Transit Service Plan yielded over 3,000 comments about the components of the Draft Transit Service Plan. These comments were often specific and detailed and focused on several themes: Consensus that VTA’s ridership and farebox metrics were compelling reasons to make changes in the design of the transit network. Endorsement of the idea that increasing access of residents and jobs to frequent (15- minute or better, all-day) service would make transit a more viable travel option for more Santa Clara County travelers. Endorsement of more Rapid routes, particularly Rapid 523 in Sunnyvale and Cupertino. Support for the Core Connectivity Project, which seeks to identify new ways of providing mobility in areas that are a poor fit for a fixed-route transit service such as contributing funds to city-operated shuttle programs or subsidizing on-demand trips in areas without fixed-route service. Concern for those who lose access to any transit service, particularly in Almaden Valley, South San Jose, East San Jose Hills Saratoga, Cupertino, Los Gatos and Fremont. Routes 37, 45, 53, 65, 82, 88, 89, 120, and 181, which were proposed to be discontinued or have decreased levels of service were the subject of many comments. 7.3 Page 5 of 16 Concern about the impact to paratransit users whose homes or destinations would fall outside of the paratransit service area or into the premium fare zone if fixed-route services along the periphery of the transit network are discontinued. Interest in how VTA can better meet the needs of senior citizens. A compendium of all comments on the Draft Transit Service Plan can be downloaded at nextnetwork.vta.org. Final Transit Service Plan In developing the Final Transit Service Plan, VTA staff sought to balance the direction to pursue a more ridership-oriented network with community requests to retain coverage-purposed routes that had been proposed to be discontinued. Ultimately, staff developed a compromise plan that retained some coverage-purposed routes, resulting in an 83/17 ridership/coverage balance. The Final Transit Service Plan (as shown in Attachment C) maintains all of the frequency increases proposed in the Draft Transit Service Plan and retains transit service in some corridors where discontinuances had been proposed. Attachment D includes by-route and by-city listings of all Final Transit Service Plan changes compared to the current transit service plan and Draft Transit Service Plan. Changes from Draft Transit Service Plan to Final Transit Service Plan Every transit service decision bears an opportunity cost as service hours that could benefit some travelers are shifted to benefit others. In making these decisions, VTA staff attempts to achieve the greatest good, balancing Board direction, ridership data, and community input while giving special consideration to the transportation needs of vulnerable populations such as students, seniors, the disabled, and low-income. The development of the Final Transit Service Plan attempts to achieve the best balance of all these factors within VTA’s allotted budget for transit operations. In this process, staff benefitted greatly from the extensive and detailed input received from Santa Clara County travelers during Phase II Outreach. The following bullets briefly discuss elements of the Draft Transit Service Plan that received a high level of community input and the resulting staff recommendations for the Final Transit Service Plan. A detailed discussion of each service decision can be found in Attachment E. Cupertino/Saratoga - De Anza Boulevard/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Current Route 53) Recommendation: Continue service in this corridor by extending Route 51 south of De Anza College. San Jose - Leigh Avenue (Route 65) Recommendation: Retain service on Route 65 and decrease frequency from 30-minute service level to 60-minute service level. Los Gatos/Campbell (Current Routes 48 and 49) Recommendation: Operate Route 27 on Main Street in Downtown Los Gatos as well as Hacienda Avenue and Knowles Drive to service Los Gatos El Camino Hospital and Los Gatos High School. 7.3 Page 6 of 16 San Jose - Downtown (Current DASH)/Rapid 500 Recommendation: Retain the Draft Transit Service Plan’s recommendation to upgrade the DASH to the Rapid 500 and add a Rapid 500 stop at Almaden Avenue. Fremont/Sunnyvale (Route 120) Recommendation: Given the extension of BART to Santa Clara County and compelling needs for transit service inside Santa Clara County, staff does not recommend retaining Route 120 in the Final Transit Service Plan. Fremont/San Jose (Route 181) Recommendation: Given the extension of BART to Santa Clara County, alternate ways of making the trip by transit, and compelling needs for transit service inside Santa Clara County, staff does not recommend retaining Route 181. Palo Alto - Gunn High School (Current Route 88) Recommendation: Provide a new Route 288 service during school bell times, with an additional after school trip to accommodate students involved in extracurricular activities. Discontinue Route 88. Palo Alto - Veterans Hospital (Route 89) Recommendation: Retain Route 89 as it exists today to provide hospital access for veterans. San Jose - East Hills (Current Route 45) Recommendation: Retain the Draft Service Plan’s recommendation to discontinue Route 45. VTA will offer to provide a van for use by the patrons of the Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility. San Jose - Mineta San Jose Airport (Current Route 10) Recommendation: Due to the inability to enforce whether riders who board at non-airport stops are traveling to the airport, only provide free boardings at airport terminals. Non- airport terminal boardings require a standard fare. Campbell/San Jose - Hamilton/Pine (Current Route 82) Recommendation: Discontinue Route 82 and retain transit service along Hamilton Avenue/Pine Avenue corridor by rerouting Route 56. Gilroy (Current Routes 14, 17 and 19) Recommendation: Discontinue routes 14, 17 and 19 and replace them with a loop route, which will be named Route 85. Campbell/San Jose/Saratoga (Current Route 37) Recommendation: Retain Route 37 at a 60-minute frequency service level rather than a 30-minute service level. The portion of Route 37 that exhibits the greatest demand (from West Valley College to the Light Rail Line between Mountain View and Winchester) will be supplemented by Route 26, which offers 30-minute service. 7.3 Page 7 of 16 Cupertino/Los Altos - Foothill and De Anza Colleges Recommendation: Due to insufficient demand, the Final Plan does not propose adding service between these two colleges. San Jose - Forest Avenue (Current Route 23, new Route 59) Recommendation: Retain the Draft Transit Service Plan’s recommendation to keep Route 23 on Stevens Creek, and extend Route 59 from its terminus at the Santa Clara Caltrain Station to serve Forest Avenue via Lafayette. Sunnyvale - Civic Center (Current Route 54) Recommendations: Discontinue service on Route 54 along Olive Avenue. Sunnyvale - Fair Oaks Avenue (Route 55) Recommendation: Retain the Draft Transit Service Plan’s recommendation of removing the Route 55 deviation that serves the Fair Oaks/Remington area. The volume and proximity of other transit services in the area (routes 22, 55, 522 and 523) provide adequate connectivity in all travel directions. San Jose - Almaden Valley (Current Routes 13, 63, 64, 328 and 330) Recommendation: Extend Route 64, which currently terminates at Almaden Light Rail Station, to Camden Avenue and retain Route 13 (renamed to Route 83) with modifications to better serve the Almaden Community Center and shopping plazas at the intersection of Blossom Hill Road and Almaden Expressway. Additionally, VTA will explore an on-demand pilot service in Almaden Valley. Retaining Access for Current Riders and Paratransit Clients Of particular community concern were the proposals to discontinue routes in areas along the periphery of the transit network. Such changes would leave about one percent of current transit riders without any nearby transit service and would push some trips made by paratransit clients outside of the paratransit service area. The paratransit service area mirrors the shape of the fixed-route transit network. VTA is required by the Americans with Disabilities Act to operate paratransit service in areas within ¾ of a mile of a fixed route while that route is in operation. VTA’s own paratransit policy extends the service area by an additional mile, at a higher fare. By retaining routes that were proposed to be discontinued in the Draft Transit Service Plan, the impact to current riders and paratransit riders is lessened considerably. For example, while the Draft Transit Service Plan would result in about one percent of current weekday boardings being more than half a mile from a transit stop. The Final Transit Service Plan would reduce that to about half a percent. Similarly, the Draft Transit Service Plan would result in the homes of 47 current paratransit clients falling outside the paratransit service area. The Final Transit Service Plan reduces this number to two. A detailed analysis of paratransit impacts can be found in Attachment F. Title VI Analysis Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act states that agencies that receive federal funding may not discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin. 7.3 Page 8 of 16 Federal guidance encourages transit agencies to uphold Title VI in two ways: a metric-based analysis that evaluates the impact to minority and low income communities compared to the overall population of Santa Clara County, and by involving Title VI communities in the planning process so that their input may inform decisions as early as possible. The metric-based evaluation of Title VI impacts for the Final Transit Service Plan was undertaken by an independent contractor and can be found in Attachment G. This analysis evaluates the impacts in two ways: 1) Disproportionate Impact, which measures the impact to minority residents and 2) Disproportionate Burden, which measures the impact to low-income residents. VTA’s Board-adopted threshold for determining Title VI impacts is 10 percent, meaning that a service change that decreases the provision of transit for minority or low-income residents at a rate 10 percent greater than a decrease for overall residents is presumed to be non- compliant with the mandates of Title VI. The independent Title VI analysis found that compared to the overall population, access to transit for low-income and minority residents of Santa Clara County increased slightly. As such, the metric based analysis finds that no disparate impacts or disproportionate burdens would result from the proposed transit service changes. VTA sought to involve Title VI communities in the Next Network planning process by working with VTA’s Title VI Office and following the VTA’s Public Participation Plan. This included outreach to organizations that represent minority, low-income, and immigrant communities, hosting community meetings and workshops throughout the county, and partnering with Working Partnerships USA to gain input from transit riders and minority and low-income residents. Additionally, a multi-lingual advertising campaign spread awareness of the proposed service changes and a multi-lingual website encouraged residents to provide feedback in their preferred languages. A full list of outreach to Title VI groups can be found in Attachment B. Ridership Projections Ridership projections for the Final Transit Service Plan must be viewed in the context of current ridership trends. In Santa Clara County, ridership in FY2016 was two percent lower than FY2015. To date, FY2017 ridership (through January 2017) is down 11.6 percent compared to FY2016. These are significant decreases for an agency that has had relatively flat ridership for the previous ten years. These trends are not isolated to Santa Clara County. CityLab reports that transit ridership has been declining nationally with seven of the 30 largest metropolitan areas losing riders over the past calendar year. Only two metropolitan areas, Seattle, WA (4.1 percent) and Houston, TX (2.3 percent), showed increases in ridership over this time and both agencies have recently completed transit network redesigns that allocated a greater share of operations funding to ridership-purposed routes. Many potential reasons for the national ridership decline have been identified including low gas prices, rising automobile ownership, higher income levels, on-demand services, corporate shuttles, unprecedented weather events, continued suburbanization, the suburbanization of poverty and changing demographics. Nationwide research into these influences is emerging and VTA is following these reports and is evaluating its own data to assess impacts at the local level. Given the recent seismic shift in transit ridership, uncertainty about the cause, and inability to 7.3 Page 9 of 16 predict whether these trends will continue, it would be impractical to project ridership totals as a specific number. Rather, projections for the Final Transit Service Plan are presented in comparison to a scenario where VTA retains the current transit service plan. These projections are developed using VTA’s countywide transportation demand model and do not account for potential changes to demand that may result from changes to VTA’s fare policy, which may include free VTA-to-VTA transfers for Clipper Card users, changes in pricing to the base fare, youth fares, community bus fares and EcoPass. Our analysis projects that the Final Transit Service Plan could potentially result in an increase in transit boardings as follows: A 15 to 20 percent increase in light rail ridership. This is driven by the addition of the Orange Light Rail Line which connects Downtown Mountain View with the Milpitas BART Station and Alum Rock Transit Center at 15-minute all day service. An 8 to 10 percent increase in bus ridership. This is due to the increase in frequent, all-day services, the restructuring of VTA’s network to an interconnected grid and the new connection to BART service. Changes in ridership typically take up to two years to stabilize, though early trends can give an indication as to whether ridership increases are materializing on a system-wide and individual route basis, as shown in the table below. Depending on how ridership changes in the first 6 months, VTA will have a sense for what the eventual ridership changes may be and whether adjustments are necessary. Decreases in ridership immediately after big network changes are common as transit riders adapt to the new service. These decreases can be minimized by information and marketing campaigns. 6 Months 70% of ridership change realized 12 Months 80% of ridership change realized 18 Months 90% of ridership change realized 24 Months 100% of ridership change realized These projections are based on BART providing two lines of service into Santa Clara County. BART’s initial operating plan calls for one of the two lines that currently serve the Fremont BART Station to be extended to the Berryessa BART Station. The second line is expected to be extended in 2018 or 2019. As a result, the impact that new BART service will have on ridership growth may be reduced in the initial 12 to 24 months after BART service begins. Related Efforts and Issues Core Connectivity Fixed route transit service is not always the best mobility solution for every community. As discussed in the Transit Choices Report, some communities will have features that are not supportive of fixed route transit, such as lower land use densities, first/last-mile gaps, an 7.3 Page 10 of 16 environment not designed for pedestrians, or a street grid not conducive to transit access. Such areas of our county have always struggled with poor transit access and low productivity under the one-size-fits-all model of fixed route service. As the industry evolves to acknowledge that fixed route transit is not always the best solution, more flexible models of transit service are emerging as potential solutions to provide better mobility for the residents of these communities. VTA’s Core Connectivity will explore and develop solutions for these areas where fixed route transit may not be the best approach. The 2016 Measure B includes a funding category for “innovative first/last mile solutions.” While a program has yet to be determined by the VTA Board, this funding category could potentially include an on-demand transit service solution. For example, under Core Connectivity, VTA is exploring a pilot, on-demand transportation approach in Almaden Valley. Such a pilot could leverage VTA’s paratransit contractor’s ability to utilize on-demand software and excess capacity on Paratransit vehicles (and potentially a multi-provider service, where VTA software would interface with multiple transportation providers such as paratransit, taxis and on-demand service providers to meet trip demand with the most cost-effective option) to deliver service within this area. The pilot could further serve as a model for on-demand service that could be replicated for other areas in the county to replace unproductive fixed route service. VTA staff is also exploring additional options which may include a senior/municipal shuttle operating subsidy. The Core Connectivity process will engage the VTA Board and committees in exploring the development of a countywide program. The scale of this program would depend on the level of city partnership and how much funding VTA’s Board of Directors allocates for first/last-mile solutions. Fare Policy Review Staff is reviewing VTA’s fare policy within the context of the service redesign objectives of increasing transit ridership and improving farebox recovery. A specific focus is aligning VTA’s fare policy with the design of a transit network that encourages making transfers between routes. VTA’s present policy of charging cash-paying customers each time they board a vehicle discourages transfers. Additionally, staff is evaluating lowering the cost of youth fares, continuing the Transit Assistance Program (TAP) for low income riders, restructuring the Eco pass program, and adjusting the base fare-which VTA has not done since 2009. VTA sought input on the fare policy as part of the Draft Transit Service Plan outreach. Finance staff engaged with the public at all nine VTA-hosted community meetings and sought input on VTA’s fare policy through an online survey which was promoted on the nextnetwork.vta.org microsite, at community meetings, staff presentations and on social media. Staff will present a preliminary fare change proposal at the April 21, 2017 Board Workshop that includes a preliminary Title VI Fare Equity Analysis and summary of revenue impacts from proposed fare changes. Additional community outreach is planned in May and a recommended fare proposal is scheduled for Board adoption in June of 2017. 7.3 Page 11 of 16 Next Steps Implementation Upon adoption of the Final Transit Service Plan, VTA Operations staff will begin the large task of turning a high-level service plan into a finely-tuned schedule that coordinates connections with regional transit services. Drivers will undergo training on the Final Transit Service Plan to ensure familiarity with new or changed routes. Operations staff will also develop vehicle circulation plans for the new transit centers at Milpitas and Berryessa BART Stations. The timing of service changes will largely be dependent upon the start of service to the Milpitas and Berryessa BART Stations which itself is dependent upon construction and systems testing being completed on time. Changes to special school bell-timed service would be timed for summer or winter breaks to minimize disruption in student travel patterns. Information and Marketing Campaign In order to maximize awareness of the service changes, VTA will undertake a robust, multi- lingual information and marketing campaign to promote the new service plan. This campaign will begin in the second half of 2017 with intense promotion in the three months prior to service change implementation. This effort will target Santa Clara County travelers as well as East Bay BART travelers and will consist of print, radio, broadcast TV, cable TV, billboard, and social media advertising. Additionally, VTA will use its own resources to promote the service including: vehicle wraps, shelter posters, car cards, in-vehicle printed collateral, and promotion through the WiFi splash page. A multi-lingual microsite will allow riders to explore the new service plan and compare their trips in the current and future networks. VTA’s operators and customer service representatives will receive training and VTA staff will serve as in-person ambassadors at transit centers providing information in the opening days of service. New Transit System Map and Route Timeguides Following the adoption of the Final Transit Service Plan, VTA will redesign its transit system map and route timeguides to make them easier to use and more useful. The redesigned system map will focus on frequency rather than service classes, as the current map does. The redesigned timeguides will feature more useful maps that can serve as a resource during trip planning, travel and after disembarking the bus or train. These changes follow national design trends as well as a recommendation from JWA regarding how to reduce information barriers to transit ridership. Express Bus Study Following adoption of the Final Transit Service Plan, VTA staff will undertake a study of Express Bus routes, which are peak-period routes that are designed to take commuters long distances at high speeds. With the exception of Express Routes 120, 140, 180 and 181 which currently serve the Fremont BART Station, VTA has excluded changes to express routes from the Final Transit Service Plan. The Express Bus Study will evaluate whether changes should be made to those routes, or new ones added given the new transit network and changes in travel 7.3 Page 12 of 16 demand since the last Express Bus Plan was developed in 2011. FISCAL IMPACT: At the November 18, 2016 Board Workshop, VTA’s Board of Directors endorsed the staff recommendation to return with a Draft Transit Service Plan that employed an 85/15 ridership/coverage plan that was service hour neutral, meaning it would reflect the same number of hours of service being provided. Bus Service Although 1,595,000 bus service hours were budgeted in FY17, the actual service hours for FY17 are projected to be 1,499,000 due to a number of planned service changes that were put on hold pending the finalization of the Next Network process. The budgeted service hours for FY18 and FY19 include the 102,000 service hours that were deferred in FY17, resulting in an increase in cost of approximately $12 million per year. Light Rail Service For light rail service, a combination of the proposed Orange Line service (Alum Rock to Mountain View) and the increase in mid-day frequency on the Green Line (Winchester to Old Ironsides) is expected to increase service hours by 38,000 and operating expenses by approximately $11 million per year. Approaches to accommodating these increases in costs could include revenue from projected increases in ridership generated by the proposed service revisions, changes to fare structure, potential increased ridership as a result of Transit Oriented Development, and use of the 2016 Measure B Transit Operations program. The budgetary impacts of these proposed changes will be reflected in the Proposed FY18 and FY19 Transit Fund Operating Budget. ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Advisory Committee considered this item on April 12 and many committee members expressed appreciation to VTA staff for their robust outreach efforts and discussions with city staff. A majority of committee members expressed a strong desire to partner with VTA to use 2016 Measure B Transit Operations Innovative First/Last-Mile Service Models program funds to implement new mobility solutions in their communities; however nearly all expressed concern about the timeline and requested VTA accelerate the program's development so that the services could be in place in time for implementation of the new fixed route network when BART opens. Committee members had the following additional comments and questions: 1) clarification that school-oriented service will continue; 2) asked for clarification on proposed service near the Sunnyvale Civic Center; 3) asked for clarification on the request to provide new service between Foothill and De Anza colleges; 4) expressed concern for the cost of the paratransit premium-zone service; 5) expressed concern about the loss of Route 88 in Palo Alto; 6) asked if service information will be published to 511.org; 7) requested BART ridership information at stations; 8) announced that Gilroy and Morgan Hill are discussing a partnership and will make a formal request to partner with VTA to provide some kind of senior mobility service under the 2016 Measure B Transit Operations Innovative First/Last-Mile Service Models program. Staff answered 1) yes, school service will continue; 6) yes, schedule will be published 7.3 Page 13 of 16 to 511.org. The committee voted 14-to-1 to recommend approval of the final transit service plan and to recommend that VTA lead the development of a 2016 Measure B countywide program to identify gaps in the transit market and offer solutions which could be implemented prior to implementation of the new transit network. The Citizens Advisory Committee considered this item on April 12 and commended staff for excellent depth of analysis and explanatory materials. Committee members had the following questions or comments: 1) asked about construction-related impacts on the Rapid 500 on Santa Clara Street when BART Phase 2 work occurs; 2) expressed concern for SJSU riders having to walk a block to Rapid 500; 3) expressed appreciation that paratransit users were considered and impacts minimized; 4) asked for clarification on the 2016 Measure B Transit Operations Innovative First/Last-Mile Service Models program; 5) asked why VTA ridership has been declining; 6) expressed concern for loss of Express 120 service for Fremont residents; 7) liked the strategy to simplify the classes of transit service; 8) asked for clarification regarding proposed Morgan Hill service; 9) expressed appreciation for staff's detailed work and the Board packet attachments; 10) asked if Route 65 could be improved to 30-minute frequency; 11) liked the move to an all-day transit network; 12) relayed that a member of the community has a number of concerns about the plan, expressed in an email to the committee member; 13) asked about service for the airport and Levi's/Avaya stadium events; 14) expressed eager anticipation for the forthcoming Express Bus study; 15) understood the need to discontinue some Gilroy service because of low ridership, explained very well in the supporting materials; 16) expressed appreciation for staff's consideration of the paratransit impacts, which have been greatly minimized in the final plan; 17) asked staff to make sure routes coordinate with SJSU class schedules; 18) appreciate staff meeting with DASH stakeholders. Staff answered 1) BART Phase 2 construction will have impacts that will be dealt with at the appropriate time; 2) staff met with SJSU and the walk distance is not the primary concern for SJSU riders; 5) a new group of VTA senior staff has been convened to examine the research into why transit usage is falling across the country; 10) Route 65 was proposed for elimination in the draft plan and the final plan proposes a restoration at a lower service level to better match the demand for service; 13) the Orange light rail line will provide a BART connection to Levi's stadium for events, and Route 60 will provide more connections to Avaya stadium, though VTA will continue to provide special event service where necessary; 17) schedules will be coordinated to SJSU class times where appropriate and possible. The committee unanimously voted to recommend approval of the final transit service plan. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee considered this item on April 12 and expressed great appreciation to staff for their extensive outreach and the high quality and breadth of the memo and the supporting materials. Committee members had the following comments or questions: 1) like the increased service level on Route 57 and 60; 2) like the extension of the Route 60 from Winchester to the airport and then Milpitas BART; 3) look forward the discussion of adding additional service to the plan's transit network using forthcoming 2016 Measure B Transit Operations Core Bus Network funds. The committee unanimously voted to recommend approval of the final transit service plan. The Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility considered this item on April 13 and thanked staff for "hitting the mark" on the plan, particularly the process of listening to concerns and revising the draft plan accordingly. Committee members had the following 7.3 Page 14 of 16 comments or questions: 1) appreciated the plan's webinars; 2) asked staff to clarify the 2-year ridership maturation projection; 3) expressed concern about the loss of service along Route 54; 4) expressed difficulty in keeping up with transit schedule changes every 3 months; 5) asked about the timing of renumbering Route 81 to 51; 6) asked for clarification of the final plan's proposal for Almaden Valley; 7) asked if VTA could use smaller buses in areas of lower ridership; 8) asked staff to clarify the proposal for Route 200 and 62; and 9) relayed recent student and rider concerns about safety on light rail. Staff will investigate safety concerns and follow up with the committee member. The committee unanimously voted to recommend approval of the final transit service plan. The Policy Advisory Committee considered this item on April 13 and expressed unanimous appreciation to staff for the "phenomenal" and broad outreach effort. Committee members had the following comments or questions: 1) when will we see results of the forthcoming Express Bus Study? 2) asked for clarification of the paratransit impacts in Alameda County; 3) asked if staff can accelerate the 2016 Measure B Transit Operations Innovative First/Last-Mile Service Models program; 4) expressed concern regarding the industry's recent ridership declines; 5) clarified that the proposed final plan does not yet include Measure B Transit Operations Core Network Improvements funds; 6) asked if VTA has ever partnered with, or would be willing to in the future, local municipalities to provide a cooperative shuttle/small bus transit service for areas left unserved by VTA's big buses; 7) expressed concern for the high paratransit fare for premium-zone trips, particularly in Morgan Hill; 8) look forward to exploring 2016 Measure B Transit Operations Innovative First/Last-Mile Service Models program to reduce school congestion, perhaps similar to Contra Costa County's Traffix model; 9) appreciate the multilingual outreach and outreach to communities of concern like East San Jose; 10) understood the need to discontinue some very unproductive routes, such as Route 17 in Gilroy, even though the decisions are difficult, and feel like staff did an excellent job listening to the concerns, considering ways to address them, looking at all the data, and writing a detailed explanation of decisions that covered every concern point-by-point. Staff replied 1) the Express Bus study will likely begin later this year and conclude in 2018; 6) VTA will explore potential partnerships for cooperative service under the 2016 Measure B Transit Operations Innovative First/Last-Mile Service Models program. The committee unanimously voted to recommend approval of the final transit service plan. The Congestion Management Program & Planning Committee considered this item on April 20 and expressed appreciation to staff for the extensive outreach efforts and for revising the plan to incorporate community feedback. Committee members had the following comments or questions: 1) agreed with a public comment that there should be more robust ongoing reporting of ridership once the plan is implemented, including a comparison back to multiple previous years instead of just the single previous year; 2) asked if there is a way to "grandfather in" the 2 impacted paratransit users; 3) asked VTA to expedite the Measure B Transit Operations discussions so that those resources can be used to serve new markets; 4) asked about the paratransit impacts in Alameda County; 5) asked if VTA will provide an online trip planning feature in advance of the new service and when; 6) asked that the new Route 60 continue to prominently advertise the route as service to the airport; 7) asked that Route 60 signage at the airport advertise that riders can board at the airport for free and that it goes to the BART station; 8) asked VTA to provide WiFi onboard Route 60. Staff responded to questions: 2) it may be possible to "grandfather in" the two impacted riders, though this is a departure from our existing 7.3 Page 15 of 16 paratransit policy that the Board would have to consider; 4) VTA currently provides paratransit service in Alameda County due to Express Routes 120, 140, 180, and 181, and in the proposed plan these paratransit users would be covered by East Bay Paratransit; 5) yes, VTA will provide an interactive trip planning feature on its website approximately 60 days prior to the launch of service. The committee unanimously voted to recommend approval of the final transit service plan. The Administration & Finance Committee considered this item on April 20 and had extended discussion of the need to be "disciplined" in our approach to allocating money for transit service, including an honest discussion of whether we need to reduce the total amount of service provided, given our budget reality, and also as the community and Board considers possible uses of Measure B Transit Operations funds, where the appetite for Measure B money will probably greatly exceed the amount of funds available. In addition to universal appreciation for staff's community engagement efforts and collaboration with city staff, committee members had the following comments or questions: 1) asked what the timeline will be for consideration of Measure B Transit Operations funds; 2) asked if staff know what a service plan with fewer total service hours (a reduction from 1.6 to 1.4 million annual hours, for example) would look like, given VTA's financial situation; 3) appreciate that the plan is forward-thinking and bold, even after extensive engagement with the community; 4) asked why Route 77 exists, since it seems to duplicate BART service between Milpitas and Berryessa stations; 5) expressed a desire to make sure cities are invested in the success of any on-demand pilots we implement; 6) asked staff to carefully consider the price (fare) of any on-demand services that we may provide; 7) asked if staff will do anything new and different to market the new service; 8) asked staff to show the full Board the map of areas where service will go away; 9) asked staff to show a linear chart of ridership history and the expected trend in the future, to set expectations for policy makers; 10) expressed that staff should not be compelled to make any service proposals that we don't think will work in order to avoid difficult decisions; 11) asked for clarification on timing of the final plan versus the budget; 12) asked staff to provide more robust and easier to understand ridership/performance reports on a regular basis. Staff responded to questions: 1) Measure B Transit Operations will be discussed at the April 21 Board Workshop and the June Board meeting; 2) no, staff has not considered or modeled a service plan that includes a reduction of total service hours; 4) Route 77 will provide an important connection between East San Jose residential areas and Milpitas job centers, not necessarily related to the BART service itself; 7) yes, VTA will provide an interactive trip planning feature on its website approximately 60 days prior to the launch of service; 11) the final plan will be considered in early May and the budget considered in June. The committee unanimously voted to recommend approval of the final transit service plan. The Safety, Security, and Transit Planning and Operations Committee considered this item on April 21 and had the following questions or comments: 1) asked if staff will coordinate schedules with BART and Caltrain; 2) asked how many existing riders would lose access to transit; 3) asked if staff has an alternative strategy to serve areas with routes that cost upwards of $15 per passenger; 4) asked if staff will do a transit marketing campaign for the Next Network; 5) advocated for an easier-to-use transit map and transit trip planning apps; 6) encourage more real-time information at stops; 7) encouraged by the very few paratransit riders impacted by the plan; 8) expressed that the Core Connectivity project timeline should be aligned with the Next Network plan; 9) asked for more information on the price elasticity of transit demand; 10) 7.3 Page 16 of 16 expressed a concern about the use of Measure B Transit Operations resources; 11) asked that capital expenditures focus on maintaining VTA's capital assets; 12) asked staff to investigate moving forward the fare increase by 6 months in order to isolate the impacts from the Next Network impacts. Staff responded to questions: 1) yes, staff coordinate schedules with Caltrain and BART where possible and will continue to do so; 2) less than 0.5% of today's riders would lose access to transit; 3) VTA's Core Connectivity program is exploring alternative mobility options for difficult-to-serve areas; 4) yes, VTA will conduct a major marketing effort for the rollout of the Next Network plan. The committee unanimously voted to recommend approval of the final transit service plan. Prepared by: Adam Burger Memo No. 5897 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Current Transit Service Plan (PDF) Attachment B - Phase II Outreach Summary (PDF) Attachment C - Final Transit Service Plan Maps - Frequency Table - Light Rail System Map - Service Profile (PDF) Attachment D - Route by Route List of Changes (PDF) Attachment E - Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan (PDF) Attachment F - Paratransit Service Impacts (PDF) Attachment G - Board VTA Service Equity Analysis Full Report (PDF) 7.3 m o n t e r e y se n t e r tully w h i t e curtner hillsdale sara t o g a sa r a t o g a - s u n n y v a l e gr a n t wo l f e homestead reed ho l l e n b e c k ma r y stevens creek m c l a u g h l i n mckee alum r o c k hostetter la f a y e t t e qu i t o sa n a n t o n i o arastrad er o al m a evelyn sp r i n g e r fremont ma t h i l d a sara t o g a wi n c h e s t e r blossom hill aborn calaveras abel milpitas mccarthy lande s s m eridi an me r i d i a n campbell hamilton williams prospect allendale stellin g parkmoor fruitdale will o w k e y e s ba s c o m alma d e n hillsdale capitol snell senter kiely co t t l e guad alu p e bascom el camino real university mid dlefi eld californ i a hano ver fo o t h ill h ilview el monte fabian rengst orff miramon te shoreline m offett central maude java duane arques ta sman great america n bowers monroe el camino real lawren ce a g n e w m o ntague 1 s t scott 1st lick mill d e la cr uzaldo l a f e yette mission san toma s bent o n california bernardo remington de a nz a sun n y vale-sar atoga tantau bollinger pollard hacienda santa cruz winchester main los gatos samaritan union leigh lo s g atos almaden c a m d e n camden crow n harry santa teresa via del oro silver leaf branham winfield roed e r y erb a buena c a pit o l quimby murillo delta san felipe the villages kin g storysanta clar ajulian ocala jacks o n kirk t o y o n pie d m o n t tem ple park vic t oria m orril l cro p ley o a kla n d l u n d y bro ka w berryessa m a bury naglee ta ylor h e d di ng coleman e sc u ela flickin g er monterey santa teresa fair o aks homer 101101 101101 101101 280 280 680 880 880 280 237 237 85 85 85 102 101 102 102 102 101 328 328 102 168 182 328 328 328 328 103 102 330 330 330 330 330 101 328 101 328 102 103 182 102 103 182 120 104 104 104 120 104 120 200 122 122 321 321 330140140 330 104 120 104 120 168 182 121 121 121 121 168 168 121 182 328 328 121 122 103 103 103 103 104 104 104 304 304 304 304 122 122 304 304122 304 304 122 328 122200 104 182 103182 103 182 182 104 102 102 103 182 102 103 104 200 200 304 328 102 104 168 48 49 48 53 37 37 13 13 39 51 51 53 53 51 5134 34 88 88 88 88 58 58 58 58 45 46 46 48 48 58 53 58 58 37 3749 49 13 71 71 71 71 25 26 26 82 64 64 64 6463 63 63 65 65 27 27 61 61 61 62 62 26 26 2626 27 26 26 26 26 81 81 57 57 57 57 57 57 60 60 60 32 32 32 252525 25 61 62 62 54 55 40 52 40 52 89 89 35 40 32 35 32 32 54 26 26 55 55 60 60 81 81 828282 31 31 27 27 42 62 61 180 180 81 54 55 27 65 42 42 42 42 82 63 65 61 62 61 71 180 61 62 47 47 180 180 47 180 180 55 55 25 37 37 37 89 27 63 77 77 66 66 66 66 77 77 66 73 66 68 68 68 66 68 73 68 68 73 73 77 70 70 70 72 22 70 22 72 70 70 70 72 72 70 22 22 22 22 22 2323 72 10 23 181 181 181 181 10 64 25 25 25 25 522 522 522 522 522 522 71 25 via 168 61 62 evelynevelyn mm 34 32 328 25 uuniver sa r a t o g a - s u n n y v a l e 88 102 n10 10 EASTRIDGE ALUM ROCK GREAT MALL / MAIN SANTA TERESA WINCHESTER VALLEY FAIR LOCKHEED MARTIN SUNNYVALE MOUNTAIN VIEW MISSION COLLEGE SCV MEDICALCENTER DIRIDON BERRYESSA PALO ALTO WEST VALLEY SAN ANTONIO FOOTHILL COLLEGE DE ANZACOLLEGE SAN JOSEAIRPORT SANTA CLARA EVERGREENCOLLEGE SNELL COTTLE SUPERIOR COURT SANTA CLARA PASEO DE SAN ANTONIOCONVENTION CENTER REAM W O O D MIDD L E F I E L D FAIR O AK S OLD IRO N S I D E S METRO/AIRPORT MON T A G U E FRUITDALE RACE ST TAMIEN CURTNER BORR E G A S CRO S S M A N CHA M P I O N TASMAN CRO P L E Y I-8 8 0 / M ILPI T A S CAPITOL ALMADEN OAKRIDGE OHLONE/CHYNOWETH HOST E T T E R BLOSSOM HILL BRANHAM BAYP O I N T E W HIS M A N GREA T AMER I C A LICK M ILL RIVER OAKS ORCHARD CIVIC CENTER VIEN N A VIRGINIA BONAVENTURA COMPONENT GISH MOF F E T T PARKBAYS H O R E CISC O W AY JAPANTOWN KARINA DOWNTOWN CAMPBELL HAMILTON BASCOM BERR Y E S S A MCKEE PEN I T E N C I A San Jose Milpitas Palo Alto Sunnyvale Cupertino MountainView Campbell Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara 0 1 2 3 4 mi outside Santa Clara County natural area Caltrain / ACE commuter rail Other Transit Services TC VTA Transit Center VTA light rail Peak only Every 60 minutes or worse Every 30-59 minutes Every 15 minutes or better Rapid: every 15 minutes and limited stops VTA Route Midday Frequencies VTAEXISTING NETWORK (70% RIDERSHIP GOAL, 30% COVERAGE GOAL) Every 20 minutes m ainhale dunn e m o n t ere y 1st 6th 8th montere y welburn princ e vall e sant a tere sa thomas m a nnt elli miur ray s a n y sidro arr oyo 10th co chrane p eebles elm mis s i o n vie w half burnett wren 3rd kern 101101 101101 168 121 168 121 168 121 18 18 16 16 19 19 68 68 68 MAIN & HALE mainhale dunn e m o n t ere y 1st 6th 8th montere y welbur n princ e vall e sant a tere sa thomas m a nn telli miur ray s a n y sidro arr oyo 1 0 th cochrane peebles elm mis s i o n vie w half burnett wren 3rd kern 101101 101101 168 121 168 121 168 121 18 18 16 16 19 19 68 68 68 MAIN & HALE Morgan Hill Service Gilroy Service 04/19/2016 Attachment A7.3.a Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary 1 Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary In January and February of 2017, VTA conducted a community engagement campaign that featured several community meetings, presentations, marketing, media coverage and outreach through businesses, community organizations and Title VI groups among others. The following lists summarize the Phase II outreach campaign. External Engagement 2,500+ incoming public comments collected via phone, e‐mail and specialized microsite https://nextnetwork.vta.org Nine public meetings held thus far resulted in: o Average attendance = 46; o Total attendance = 421 16 videos (2 live streamed meetings, 5 geographically‐focused webinars, 8 college‐focused videos) – key metrics include: o 4,300 views o 111 live viewers o 25,700 hours of watch time o 250 comments o 45 thumbs‐up and 75 shares Countywide Title 6 mailing to 150 organizations Targeted South County Title 6 mailing to 80 organizations Community presentations include: Saratoga Senior Center, SJ District 1 Leadership Council, SPUR, Transform, Gunn High School PTA, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, Hope Services, Centennial Recreation Senior Center (Morgan Hill), Traffic Safe Communities Network among others Outreach to Community Based Organizations, offering presentations/literature for distribution Educational Institution Transit Fairs: San Jose State, De Anza, SCU, City College Street Team ambassadors deployed in the field at major transit hubs for 10 days; reach was over 3,300 individuals. Marketing Collateral Car cards translated in 5 languages on all vehicles Proposed discontinued route flyers distributed on affected bus lines Bus Stop signage at proposed deleted stations Light Rail Station and Bus Shelter Posters Passenger Information Message Signs on light rail platforms Bus Bench Ads Special Take Ones (passenger newsletter translated in 5 languages with proposed service map) on board buses and at major literature distribution points Two rounds of print newspaper ads in 24 publications targeting community and minority publications including: San Jose Mercury News, Silicon Valley Community Newspapers, Metro Newspapers, Gilroy Dispatch/Morgan Hill Times, El Observador, News for Chinese, Philippine 7.3.b Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary 2 News, Korea Daily, Thoi Bao/Vietnam Daily News, Palo Alto Daily Newspaper, Santa Clara Weekly, Evergreen/Almaden Times Aggressive social media (Twitter, Facebook, Gov Delivery, Next Door) campaign promoting meetings and webinars Digital/Others Wi Fi Splash Page directing riders to https://nextnetwork.vta.org Spanish language radio advertisements (KRZZ) Pandora Ads (targeted to Santa Clara County) Digital Display Ads (targeted to Santa Clara County) Eco Pass email blast Targeted email blast to North San Jose employers and to employers along the Express 185 route Media Coverage 27 stories about VTA's Next Network appeared as follows: o 1/5/17 Jeannie Bruin's OpEd in SJ Mercury News, Palo Alto Weekly, Mountain View Voice o 1/6/17 SJ Mercury News and Morgan Hill Times o 1/9/17 SJ Mercury News, Biz Journal and KPIX Ch. 5 CBS o 1/10/17 SF Bay.com o 1/13/17 Biz Journal, SJ Mercury News and KNTV Ch. 3 NBC o 1/14‐17/17 Milpitas Post and Saratoga Patch o 1/25/17 Palo Alto Weekly o 1/26/17 San Jose Mercury News and San Jose Blog o 2/6/17 San Jose Mercury News and Gun High School Oracle Newspaper o 2/7/17 Mountain View Voice o 2/8/17 Los Altos Town Crier o 2/13/17 South Comm Business Media o 2/15/17 San Jose Mercury News o 2/21/17 San Jose Mercury News (Roadshow) San Jose Mercury News (Herhold) o 2/21/17 Gilroy Dispatch o 2/27/17 San Jose Mercury News All main broadcast outlets were contacted resulting in stories or mentions as follows: o KNTV Ch.3, KTVU Ch.2, KPIX Ch. 5, KGO TV Ch. 7, KRON Ch. 4, Univision KDTV Ch. 14 and Telemundo KSTS Ch.48 (no story) KCBS (interview and story) Eight Headways featured blog articles about: Next Network Outreach effort, fare policy, status update, public input so far, video on how the draft plan would affect services to colleges, VTA’s Street Team, the last public meeting night and the later release of the final plan; distributed through email, monthly newsletter and on all social media channels. Potential Stories Pending: We held media interviews on 2/21/17 with San Jose State University Update Television News, on 3/8/17 with San Jose News Group, and on 3/9/17 with San Jose Spartan Daily Outreach thru Business Development Partnerships: Nate Donato‐Weinstein: City San Jose Economic Development o Newsletter/first of the month 7.3.b Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary 3 Rahul Chandhok, 49ers o Newsletter o Emails/follow up in person meetings Alex Sanchez: ROEM developments John Boslet: Irvine developments Sharon Fredlund: BOMA o Newsletter Derrick Seaver: Silicon Valley Chamber/Organization Chris O’Connor/Matt Quevedo: SVLeadershipGroup Moffett, Mountain View, Stanford TMAs Economic Development Directors: Milpitas, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View Larry Carr: Joint Venture SV Outreach to “Neighbors” in North 1st/Tasman/Montague/Brokaw: Glen Hendricks/PayPal Serena Poon/SV Bank Ali Ahmed: Cisco Dan Poritzky/Shawn Williams: LeEco Paula Kutansky‐Brown: Next EV/NIO NXP Mike Jones: Cadence Dave Hendrickson: Oracle Michael Strle: Great Mall Rawley Bushman/Karin Hughes: Samsung Nerissa Flanderz: Infinitysolutions Applied Materials Fujitsu Michael Alba/Danielle Glaser: LinkedIn Ryan Kauffman: Apple Terry Smith: Microsoft Downtown Residential/Downtown Association Westfield Valley Fair: Scot Vallee Outreach to Title VI Organizations Chi Am Circle Inc Dalai Lama Foundation Bread Of Life Evangelistic Walls of Faith Ministries Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility Congregation Beth Am Reform Addison‐Penzak Jewish Community Center San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP John Stott Ministries Sri Satya Narayana Swamy Devasthanam International New Wave Ministries 7.3.b Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary 4 Correctional Institutions Chaplaincy ROCK of Salvation Church Christian Worship Center San Jose Christian Assembly North Valley Christian Fellowship Crosspoint Chinese Church Of Silicon Valley Bridgeway Church Good Shepherd Community Church BuddhistTzu Chi Medical Foundation Brahma Kumaris Silicon Valley Pakistani American Culture Center Baha'i Faith of Palo Alto Saint Vincent De Paul Project Victory Grace Lutheran Church E L C A Russian Orthodox Church Hall Native TANF Program Afghan Islamic Association African American Community Services American Indian Education Center Arab American Congress Asian Americans for Community Involvement: AAIC Assyrian American Association of San Jose California Italian‐American Casa Do Benfica Castellano Family Foundation Center of Spiritual Enlightenment Chinese American Chamber of Commerce Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Mekong Community Center Mexican Heritage Corporation Mexican Heritage Plaza National Council of Negro Women National Latino Peace Officers Association Portuguese Athletic Club Portuguese Community Center Rahima Foundation San Jose Cambodian Buddhist Society San Jose Firefighters IAFF Local 230 Santa Clara County Black Firefighters Association Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers Silicon Valley Somos Mayfair South Bay Japanese Community Taiwanese American Center Unique Zan Foundation Ujima Adult & Family Services 7.3.b Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary 5 Viet‐American Cultural Foundation (vietacf) George Shirakawa Community Center Vietnamese American Community of Northern California Vietnamese American Council Vietnamese Cultural Association Inc of Santa Clara County Vietnamese Voluntary Foundation Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California California Israel Chamber of Commerce VIVE CHURCH Sanatana Dharma Kendra Unidos De Jesucristo SIREN (Services Immigrant Rights and Education Network) Council on American‐Islamic Relations CAIR California Youth Chinese Symphony Multi‐Cultural Center MCC (Santa Clara University) Silicon Valley Chao Chow Community Center of San Jose Glad Tidings Christian Chinese Rainbow Chamber Silicon Valley South Bay Church ‐ North San Jose Campus WestGate Church ‐ Saratoga Campus South Bay Church ‐ Sunnyvale Campus Full Gospel Korean Assembly Chung Tai Zen Center Of Sunnyvale Sunnyvale Presbyterian Church Sacred Logos Resource Center‐Sagos Christian Leadership Institute Korean Peresbyterian Church San Jose Triumphant Life Center Catholic Academy Resurrection Catholic Church Intersection Teen Ministry Oshman Family Jewish Community Center Balaji Temple Arab American Congress of Silicon Valley China Silicon Valley Association Chinese Community Center Chinese Seniors Club of Santa Clara Valley Chinese Software Professionals Association Eritrean Community In Santa Clara County Ethiopian Bay Area Muslims Assoc Ethiopian Community Services Fiesta Educativa Sur De La Bahia Filipino American Chamber of Commerce Filipino Youth Coalition German American Club Grupo De Carnaval Cultural Portugues De Sao Jose 7.3.b Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary 6 Hindu Temple & Community Center Hip Sen Association Hispanic Development Corporation Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley International Children Assistance Network (ICAN) Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) Bay Area India Community Center International Hispanic Network Italian American Heritage Foundation Italian Mens Club Japantown Business Association Jewish Family Services Silicon Valley Jewish Family & Children's Services Jewish Federation of Silicon Valley Hillel of Silicon Valley Community Child Care Council Community Child Care Council Khmer Kampuchean Krom Buddhist Northside Community Center Korean American Community Services La Raza Roundtable de California Latinas Contra Cancer Little Italy San Jose Los Bomberos of Northern California Los Fundadores, the Founders and Friends of Santa Clara County Macla/Movimiento De Arte Y Cultura Latino Americana MACSA Youth Center Pars Equality Center Santa Clara Woman's Club Adobe Sociedade Filarmonica Uniao Popular Silicon Valley Black Chamber of Commerce Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Foundation Evergreen Valley College San Jose City College 7.3.b Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary 7 Draft Transit Service Plan Presentations January 4 Tailgate at North Bus Yard Presentation: TransForm January 5 Tailgate at Chaboya Bus Yard VTA Board Meeting – Release of Draft Plan January 7 Joint Workforce Investment (VTA bus driver mentorship program) January 9 Tailgate at Cerone Bus Yard City of Morgan Hill Staff Briefing January 11 Presentation: VTA Technical Advisory Committee Presentation: VTA Citizens Advisory Committee Presentation: VTA Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Community Meeting: Downtown San Jose January 12 Meeting: Palo Alto/Gunn High School Parent Teacher Students Association Presentation: VTA Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility Meeting: Amalgamated Transit Union Leadership Presentation: VTA Policy Advisory Committee Community Meeting: Milpitas January 14 Presentation: San Jose District 1 Leadership Group January 17 Presentation: SPUR San Jose Lunch Forum Webinar: Focus on Morgan Hill and Gilroy January 18 City of San Jose Council Office Staff Briefing Community Meeting: Cupertino January 19 Palo Alto/Gunn High School Parent Teacher Students Association Silicon Valley BART Extension Coordination Meeting Community Meeting: Palo Alto City Hall January 23 Presentation: Grand Boulevard Initiative Working Committee City of Sunnyvale Staff Briefing Study Session: Palo Alto City Council Community Meeting: Campbell January 24 Webinar: Focus on South San Jose Presentation: Los Gatos Senior Citizens and Community Services Presentation: Cupertino City Council January 25 VTA Customer Service Briefing Presentation: VTA Administration and Finance Committee Presentation: Saratoga Senior Center Study Session: Morgan Hill City Council 7.3.b Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary 8 January 26 VTA Customer Service Briefing Webinar: Focus on West Valley January 30 City of Los Alto Staff Briefing Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility January 31 City of Campbell Staff Briefing Study Session: Sunnyvale City Council February 1 Presentation: VTA Committee for Transit Mobility and Accessibility Presentation: CalWorks Presentation: India Community Center Presentation: Saratoga City Council February 2 Presentation: Mountain View Transit Center Redesign Committee Update: VTA Board of Directors Meeting (GM Report) February 3 Presentation: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce February 6 Community Meeting: Mountain View Presentation: Sunnyvale Library Trustees February 7 Meeting: Palo Alto/Gunn High School Parent Teacher Students Association Webinar: Focus on Palo Alto Presentation: San Jose BART Community Working Group Presentation: Santa Clara City Council February 8 Presentation: VTA Land Use and Transportation Integration Working Group City of Milpitas Staff Briefing Presentation: VTA Technical Advisory Committee Presentation: VTA Citizens Advisory Committee Presentation: VTA Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee February 9 Presentation: Hope Services Presentation: Traffic Safe Communities Network Presentation: VTA Employee Advisory Committee City of Gilroy Staff Briefing Presentation: VTA Policy Advisory Committee Presentation: Santa Clara BART Community Working Group Presentation: Town of Los Gatos Transportation and Parking Commission Presentation: Santa Clara County Cities Association February 10 San Jose State University Transit Solutions Meeting February 13 Presentation: City of San Jose Green Commute Community Meeting: East San Jose February 14 Presentation: Moffett Park Traffic Management Association 7.3.b Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary 9 February 15 Presentation: O’Connor Hospital Seniors Presentation: Morgan Hill Seniors Webinar: Focus on Milpitas and North San Jose Community Meeting: Gilroy February 16 Presentation: Senior Round Table Meeting: District 10 Council Office Presentation: VTA Congestion Management Program and Planning Committee Presentation: VTA Administration and Finance Committee Presentation: VTA Safety, Security and Transit Planning and Operations Committee Community Meeting: South San Jose February 21 Presentation: Silicon Valley Independent Living Center Meeting: Santa Clara University Transportation Administration March 9 Downtown San Jose Business Association, San Jose State University, City of San Jose March 21 Milpitas City Council Presentation March 30 South County Cities 7.3.b m o n t e r e y se n t e r tully w h i t e curtner hillsdale sara t o g a el a v y n n u s - a g o t a r a s tn a r g efl o w homestead reed kc e b n e l l o h ma r y stevens creek m c l a u g h l i n mcke e alum r o c k hostetter la f a y e t t e ot i u q oin o t n a n a s alm a evelyn sp r i n g e r fremont mat h i l d a sara t o g a re t s e h c n i w blossom hill aborn calaveras abel milpitas mccarthy lande s s me r idia n na i d i r e m campbell hamilton williams prospect allendale stellin g parkmoor fruitdale willo w k e y e s ba s c o m a lmad e n hillsdale capitol snell senter kiely co t t l e santa teresa monterey gu a d al u p e bascom el camino real university middlefi eld californ i a hano ver f o ot hill h i lview el monte fabian rengst orff miramon te shoreline moffett central maude java fair oaks duane arques t a sman great america n bowers monroe el camino real lawren ce a g n e w m o ntague 1 s t scott 1st lic k mill d e la cru zaldo la f e yette mission san toma s bent o n california bernardo remington de a nz a sun n y vale-sar atoga tantau bollinger pollard hacienda santa cruz winchester main los gatos samaritan union leigh los g atos almaden c a m d e n camden crow n harry santa teresa via del oro silver leaf branham winfield roed e r y erb a buena c a p ito l quimb y murillo delta san felipe the villages kin g storysanta clarajulian oc ala jackso n pi edm o n t temple pa rk vi c t o ria m o rri l l cr o pl ey o a kla n d lu n d y broka w m a b ury naglee ta ylor coleman e sc u ela berryessa h e d d ing flickin g er homer the ala m e da lin c ol n charlest o n a r a s tr a d e r o 101101 101101 101101 280 280 680 880 880 280 237 237 85 85 85 288 288 288L 288L 288 288M 288M 256 246 246 251 247247 247 255 255 255 266 266 AC217 AC217 39 39 39 37 37 37 37 42 42 42 42 65 65 65 83 83 83 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 89 56 56 21 59 59 59 59 70 70 20 20 20 20 56 59 59 21 21 21 68 66 66 56 21 70 47 47 47 55 55 63 63 63 64 64 27 27 27 27 27 55 55 61 56 56 56 70 2525 25 71 71 71 71 71 71 64 31 31 55 53 5353 53 53 26 26 26 26 52 52 61 61 21 27 55 21 64 40 40 40 40 22 22 61 60 61 61 23 60 60 66 66 73 73 72 72 72 77 23 23 2223 22 22 22 25 25 25 61 22 22 61 26 26 60 60 57 57 57 57 57 57 77 77 77 77 68 64 64 68 68 66 66 66 66 68 66 25 522 522 522 522 523 522 523 522 522 522 523 523 523 523 500 500 ba ba EASTRIDGE ALUM ROCK SANTA TERESA WINCHESTER VALLEY FAIR LOCKHEED MARTIN SUNNYVALE MOUNTAIN VIEW MISSION COLLEGE VALLEY MEDICALCENTER BERRYESSA BART PALO ALTO WEST VALLEY COLLEGE SAN ANTONIO FOOTHILL COLLEGE DE ANZACOLLEGE EVERGREENCOLLEGE SAN JOSEAIRPORT SANTA CLARA KAISER MEDICAL CENTER MILPITAS BART SNELL COTTLE SANTA CLARA REA M W O O D MIDD L E F I E L D FAIR O AKS OLD IRON S I D E S FRUITDALE RACE ST T CURTNER BORR E G A S CROS S M A N CROP L E Y ALDE R CAPITOL ALMADEN OHLONE/CHYNOWETH HOS T E T T E R ST JAMES BAYP O I N T E METRO/AIRPORT ORCHARD CIVIC CENTER DOWNTOWN CAMPBELL BLOSSOM HILL San Jose Milpitas Palo Alto Sunnyvale Cupertino Mountain ViewLos Altos Campbell Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Alviso 0 1 2 3 4 mi AMIEN Other Transit Services Every 60 minutes peak only Every 60 minutes plus 30 minute peak VTA Weekday Route Frequencies FINAL PLAN (83% RIDERSHIP GOAL, 17% COVERAGE GOAL) School trippers Municipal shuttles Every 60 minutes Every 30 minutes peak only Every 30 minutes Every 30 minutes plus 15 minute peak Every 15 minutes or better Rapid: every 15 minutes or better and limited stops VTA light rail TC VTA Transit Center Caltrain / ACE commuter rail natural area outside Santa Clara County Future BART ba 77 m ainhale d unn e m o n te r e y 1st 6th 8th mont erey welb urn prin c e vall e sant a m a nnt elli s a n y sidro arr oyo cochranepeebles elm mis s i o n vie w half burnett wren 3rd kern 101101 101101 87 87 85 85 68 68 68 86 MAIN & HALE 77 ne 1st 6th 8th mont ere y welbur n prin c e vall e sant a tere sa thomas m a nntelli s a n y sidro arr oyo 1 0 th elmhalf wren 3rd kern 101101 85 85 68 86 86 GAVILANCOLLEGE Morgan Hill Service Gilroy Service ba 52352222 23 66 72 73 500 68 63 64 523 52222 23 63 500 66 64 7273 68 64 7365 65 santa c l a r a fir s t se c o n d el e v e n t h t e n t h julian san fer n a n d o san car l o s mo n t g o m e r y se v e n t h 280 87 SJSU m o n t e r e y SANTA CLARA si x t h ST. JAMES SAN ANTONIO CONVENTIONCENTER CHILDREN’SDISCOVERY SAN FERNANDO DIRIDON Downtown San Jose 287 Route 257 terminatesat Monterey Road and San Martin Avenue 287 256 Attachment C7.3.c m o n t e r e y s e n t e r tully w h i t e curtner hillsdale sara t o g a sa r a t o g a - s u n n y v a l e gr a n t wo l f e homestead reed ho l l e n b e c k ma r y stevens creek m c l a u g h l i n mcke e alum r o c k hostetter la f a y e t t e qu i t o sa n a n t o n i o alm a evely n sp r i n g e r fremont mat h i l d a sara t o g a win c h e s t e r blossom hill aborn calaveras abel milpitas mccarthy lande s s mer idi an me r i d i a n campbell hamilton williams prospect allendale stellin g parkmoor fruitdale will o w k e y e s ba s c o m alm ad en hillsdale capitol snell senter kiely co t t l e santa teresa monterey g u a d al u p e bascom el camino real university middlefi eld californ i a hano ver f o o t hill h ilview el monte fabian rengst orff miramon te shoreline m offett central maude java fair o aks duane arques t a sman great america n bowers monroe el camino real lawren ce a g n e w m o ntague 1 s t scott 1st lick mill d e la c r u zaldo la f e yette mission san toma s be n to n california bernardo remington de a nz a sun n y vale-sar atoga tantau bollinger poll ard hacienda santa cruz winchester main los gatos samaritan union leigh l o s g atos almaden c a m d e n camden crown harry santa teresa via del oro silver leaf branham winfield roed e r y er b a buena c a pit o l quimby murillo delta san felipe the villages kin g storysanta cl ar ajulian o cala jacks o n pie d m o n t temple pa rk vic t oria m o rri l l c ro pley o a kla n d lu n d y brokaw m ab ury na glee t a ylor coleman esc u ela berryessa h e d ding flickin ger homer the ala m e d a li n c ol n charlesto n a r a str a d e ro 101101 101101 101101 280 280 680 880 880 280 237 237 85 85 85 AC217 AC217 39 39 39 53 53 61 63 63 63 70 70 31 31 40 40 40 21 40 21 21 21 21 21 61 61 21 26 26 26 56 56 59 59 59 56 59 59 56 47 47 55 55 64 64 27 27 27 27 27 55 56 25 25 71 71 71 64 55 27 64 64 47 25 55 56 56 64 71 71 71 55 26 26 57 57 57 57 57 57 60 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 61 61 66 66 66 68 68 66 66 66 66 66 66 68 68 68 70 70 72 72 73 73 77 77 77 77 500 500 72 77 22 22 23 23 23 22 23 22 22 22 25 25 22 22 25 25 522 522 522 522 523 522 523 522 522 522 523 523 523 523 ba ba EASTRIDGE ALUM ROCK SANTA TERESA WINCHESTER VALLEY FAIR LOCKHEED MARTIN SUNNYVALE MOUNTAIN VIEW MISSION COLLEGE VALLEY MEDICALCENTER BERRYESSABART PALO ALTO WEST VALLEYCOLLEGE SAN ANTONIO FOOTHILL COLLEGE DE ANZACOLLEGE EVERGREENCOLLEGE SAN JOSEAIRPORT SANTA CLARA KAISER MEDICALCENTER MILPITASBART SNELL COTTLE SANTA CLARA REA M W O O D M IDD L E F I E L D FAIR O AK S OLD IRON S I D E S FRUITDALE RACE ST TAMIEN CURTNER BORR E G A S CROS S M A N CROP L E Y ALDE R CAPITOL ALMADEN OHLONE/CHYNOWETH HOS T E T T E R ST JAMES BAYP O I N T E METRO/AIRPORT ORCHARD CIVIC CENTER DOWNTOWN CAMPBELL BLOSSOM HILL San Jose Milpitas Palo Alto Sunnyvale Cupertino MountainViewLos Altos Campbell Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Alviso 0 1 2 3 4 mi Other Transit Services VTA Saturday Route Frequencies Weekend Final Plan (83% ridership goal, 17% coverage goal) Every 30 minutes Every 15 minutes or better Rapid: every 15 minutes or better and limited stops VTA light rail TC VTA Transit Center Caltrain / ACE commuter rail natural area outside Santa Clara County Future BART ba Every 40 - 60 minutes Every 20 minutes 77 m ainh ale dunn e m o n terey 1st 6th 8th monte rey welburn princ e vall e s a n ta te res a thomas m a nnt elli san ysidr o arro y o 10th co chranepeebles elm mis s i on v ie w half burnett wren 3rd kern 101101 101101 85 85 68 68 68 MAIN & HALE GAVILANCOLLEGE 77 mainh ale dunne m o n terey 1st 6th 8th monte rey welbur n princ e v all e s a n ta t e res a thomas m a nn telli san ysidr o arro y o 1 0 th cochranepeebles elm mis s i on vie w half burnett wren 3rd kern 101101 101101 85 85 68 68 68 MAIN & HALE GAVILANCOLLEGE Morgan Hill Service Gilroy Service ba 523 52222 23 66 72 73 500 68 63 523 52222 23 63 500 500 66 64 72 73 68 7364 64 santa c l a r a fir s t s e c o n d el e v e n t h te n t h julian san fer n a n d o san car l o s mo n t g o m e r y 280 87 SJSU m o n t e r e y se v e n t h si x t h ST. JAMES SAN ANTONIO CONVENTIONCENTER CHILDREN’SDISCOVERY SAN FERNANDO DIRIDON SANTA CLARA Downtown San Jose Some routes have small routing and frequency changes on Sundays. Services not shown include: - VTA Express - ACE shuttles - Hwy 17, MST 55, DB Express 03/24/2017 Attachment C7.3.c 26L Curtner – Campbell 51L Saratoga – West Valley College 27 Blossom Hill – Los Gatos 31 Evergreen College 37 Hillsdale – Hacienda – Pollard 40 Foothill College – North Bayshore 42 Monterey – Capitol – Evergreen 47 Calaveras 51 Grant – Moffett 52 Foothill College – Downtown Mtn View 53 Homestead – Sunnyvale 55 Sunnyvale – Saratoga 56 Wolfe – Hamilton 57 Bowers – Saratoga 59 Monroe – Great America – Alviso 60 Winchester – Airport – Brokaw 61 Taylor – Bascom 61L Berryessa 63 Meridian 64 McKee – Julian 64L Lincoln – Almaden 66 Oakland – Monterey – Snell 65 Leigh 66L Main – Abel 68 Monterey 68L Monterey South County 70 Jackson 70L Flickinger – Morril 71 Piedmont – White 72 McLaughlin 73 Senter 83 Almaden 77 King – Lundy 89 California Ave – VA Hospital 39 Quimby – San Felipe 85 Gilroy 86 Gavilan College 87 Morgan Hill 522 El Camino – Alum Rock Rapid 523 Sunnyvale – Stevens Creek – BART Rapid 500 Diridon – BART Rapid Orange Line Green Line Blue Line Purple Line 22 El Camino – Alum Rock 23 Stevens Creek – Alum Rock 25 Story – Willow 25L Williams 26 Tully 20 Sunnyvale – Milpitas G B O P 21 Middlefield BART (Milpitas and Berryessa stations) 87 20 51 42 37 51L 52 65 83 86 87 20 51 42 37 51L 52 53 65 83 89 89 86 87 BART 500 522 523 20 21 22 23 25 25L 26 26L 27 31 31 31 40 47 51 51L 52 53 55 56 57 59 60 61 61L 63 64 64L 65 66 66L 68 68L 70 70L 71 72 73 83 39 42 37 85 86 BART 500 522 523 21 22 23 25 25L 26 26L 27 40 47 53 55 56 57 59 60 61 61L 63 64 64L 66 66L 68 68L 70 70L 71 72 73 39 85 BART 500 522 523 O G B P O G B P O G B P 21 22 23 25 25L 26 26L 27 40 47 55 56 57 59 60 61 61L 63 64 64L 66 66L 68 68L 70 70L 71 72 73 77 77 77 89 39 85 1 212 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11pmam am 1 212 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11pmam am1 212am ampm123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 1 212 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11pmam am 1 212 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11pmam am1 212am ampm123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SERVICE FREQUENCY TABLE FY18-19 Transit Service Plan school and express services not shown FREQUENCY OF SERVICE <15 minute 15minute 20minute 30minute 40-45minute 60minute Attachment C 7.3.c E X P R E S S S E R V I C E Convention Center Ohlone/Chynoweth BlossomHill Snell Oakridge Cottle ALUMROCK SANTATERESAALMADEN MOUNTAINVIEW WINCHESTER San Fernando Children’sDiscoveryMuseum St. James Japantown/Ayer Civic Center River Oaks Tasman Cropley Hostetter Berryessa Penitencia Creek McKee Orchard Bonaventura Component Karina Metro/Airport Gish Milpitas Santa Clara Paseo de San Antonio Virginia Tamien Curtner Race Fruitdale Bascom Hamilton DowntownCampbell Capitol Branham San JoseDiridon OldIronsides Baypointe CiscoWay Alder GreatMall Orange Line Blue Line Green Line Purple Line Yellow Line Light Rail Stations Park and Ride Lot Milpitas BART Station Commuter Rail VTA Light Rail System Ch a m p i o n Lic k M i l l Gre a t A m e r i c a Re a m w o o d Vie n n a Fai r O a k s Cro s s m a n Bo r r e g a s Loc k h e e d M a r t i n Ba y s h o r e / N A S A Wh i s m a n Y P G B O Attachment C 7.3.c ANNUAL SERVICE HOURS FY16-17 APPROVED FINAL PLAN (FY18-19) Local Bus Bus Express Bus Peak Vehicles Special Event Bus School Bus Light Rail 169,367 1,454,338 1,515,789 1,601,277 1,601,277 8,676 7,000 17,883 16,000 120,380 62,488 57 light rail cars 381 buses 67 light rail cars 358 buses Regular Rail Special Event Rail 160,691 8,676 207,124 205,221 1,903 SERVICE BY DAY BUS SERVICE HOURS BY DAY OF WEEK SATURDAYWEEKDAY 5,157hours 2,844hours (55% ofweekday)(46% ofweekday) 2,387hours SUNDAY SATURDAYWEEKDAY 4,845hours 3,273hours (68% ofweekday)(55% ofweekday) 2,674hours SUNDAY FY16-17 APPROVED FINAL PLAN (FY18-19) R I D E RSHIP R I D E RSHIP C O V E R A G E COVERA G E RIDERSHIP–COVERAGE ALLOCATION FY16-17 APPROVED 30% 70%83% 17% LOCAL BUS SERVICE RESOURCES, BY PURPOSE FINAL PLAN (FY18-19) CONNECTING SERVICE AT BART STATIONS FREQUENT ROUTES routes with weekday frequency of every 15 minutes or better all day 70 Jackson 72 McLaughlin 73 Senter 66 Oakland – Monterey – Snell 68 Monterey Highway 61 Taylor – Bascom 60 Winchester – Airport – Brokaw 57 Bowers – Saratoga 77 King – Lundy 64 McKee – Julian 23 Stevens Creek – Santa Clara – Alum Rock 22 El Camino – Santa Clara – Alum Rock 26 Tully 25 Story 500 Diridon – BART Rapid 522 El Camino – Santa Clara – Alum Rock Rapid 523 Sunnyvale – Stevens Creek – BART Rapid LIGHT RAIL ORANGELINE LIGHT RAIL BLUELINE LIGHT RAIL PURPLELINE LIGHT RAIL GREENLINE entire light rail system is frequent all day on weekdays VEHICLES IN SERVICE BY HOUR WEEKDAY BUSES IN SERVICE BY HOUR, ESTIMATED 12AM 50 100 150 200 Bu s e s i n S e r v i c e 250 300 350 400 1AM 2AM 3AM 4AM 5AM 6AM 7AM 8AM 9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM 2PM 3PM 4PM 5PM 6PM 7PM 8PM 9PM 10PM 11PM FY16-17 (TODAY) FINAL PLAN (FY18-19) CLASSES OF SERVICE 4ROUTES+EXPRESS 3ROUTES 23ROUTES 9ROUTES 14ROUTES SERVICE PROFILE FY18-19 Transit Service Plan Attachment C7.3.c Alignment Change Frequency Change Span Change Class Span Peak Frequency Midday Frequency Span Frequency Span Frequency 10 Metro/Airport LRT Station - Santa Clara Transit Center Combine with new Route 60, which would connect Mineta San Jose Airport to Milpitas BART Station, Santa Clara Caltrain Station, Valley Fair, Santana Row and Downtown Campbell; improve weekend frequency. 12 Eastridge Transit Center - San Jose Civic Center Discontinue; current riders may use revised Route 61 or Route 77. 13 Ohlone/Chynoweth LRT Station - Almaden/McKean Replace with new Route 83. 14 Gilroy Transit Center - St. Louise Hospital Replace with new Route 85, which would serve Route 14 destinations and other areas of Gilroy; reduce weekday frequency. 16 Morgan Hill Civic Center - Burnett Avenue Renumber to Route 87; service retained on an interim basis until a more effective flexible transit service can be implemented. 17 Gilroy Transit Center - St. Louise Hospital Discontinue due to low ridership; some riders may use Route 85. 18 Gavilan College - Gilory Transit Center Renumber to Route 86; increase frequency on weekdays. 19 Gilroy Transit Center - Wren and Mantelli Replace with new Route 85, which would serve Route 19 destinations and other areas of Gilroy; decrease weekday frequency. 20 Sunnyvale - North San Jose - Milpitas Create new Route 20 that would connect Milpitas BART Station, Mission College, Santa Clara Square and Downtown Sunnyvale; new Route 20 would provide service to areas currently served during commute periods by parts of Routes 58, 321 and 304. Local 5:30a - 10:00p 15 min 30 min ————The draft plan proposed the route end at Mountain View, but in the final plan the route would end in Sunnyvale. 21 Middlefield Create new Route 21 that would connect Palo Alto, San Antonio Transit Center, Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara Transit Ctr (Sunday service would only operate between Stanford Shopping Center and Mountain View); new Route 21 would replace current Routes 32 and 35. Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 8:00a - 8:00p 45 min 9:00a - 8:00p 60 min Minor alignment changes to serve San Antonio Circle in Mountain View and Lytton/Hamilton in Palo Alto (pending street improvements). 22 El Camino - Santa Clara - Alum Rock Decrease weekday frequency; increase frequency on Rapid 522 (to be implemented in April 2017).P Frequent 24 hours 15 min 15 min 24 hours 15 min 24 hours 15 min 23 Stevens Creek - Alum Rock Decrease weekday frequency; modify alignment to serve Stevens Creek Blvd instead of Forest Ave.P P Frequent 5:00a - 1:00a 15 min 15 min 6:00a - 1:00a 15 min 6:00a - 1:00a 15 min Final plan would maintain Route 23's current alignment in east San Jose; Sunday frequency would increase to every 15 minutes. 25 Story - Willow - Williams Decrease weekday frequency and increase Sunday frequency; modify alignment near De Anza College.P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 12-24 min 12-24 min 6:00a - 12:00a 15-30 min 6:00a - 12:00a 15-60 min Final plan would maintain service to White Road in east San Jose; minor alignment changes through Valley Medical Center. 26 Tully - Curtner - Campbell Split into two separate routes. Revised Route 26 would connect West Valley College and Eastridge Transit Center; frequency would increase on weekdays and weekends; new Route 56 would connect Lockheed Martin and Tamien Station. P P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15-30 min 15-30 min 6:30a - 12:00a 20-40 min 7:30a - 11:00p 20-40 min 27 Blossom Hill - Los Gatos Extend to Winchester Transit Center via Los Gatos Boulevard, downtown Los Gatos and Winchester Boulevard; increase frequency on weekday midday and Saturdays; add extended evening hours on weekdays and Saturdays. P P P Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 7:00a - 9:00p 30 min 8:00a - 8:00p 60 min Final plan would maintain service to Knowles/Hacienda area and downtown Los Gatos; Saturday service would end at 9:00p. 31 Evergreen Valley College Modify alignment for more direct service between Evergreen Valley College and Eastridge Transit Center.P Local 6:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 7:30a - 6:30p 60 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min Route was proposed for elimination in draft plan (parts were covered by Route 76). 32 San Antonio Shopping Center - Santa Clara Transit Center Replace with new Route 21. 34 San Antonio Shopping Center - Downtown Mountain View Discontinue due to low ridership; some current riders can use Routes 21 or 40. 35 Stanford Shopping Center - Downtown Mountain View Replace with new Route 21. 37 West Valley College - Capitol Light Rail Station Reduce weekday frequency.P Local 6:30a - 6:30p 60 min 60 min ————Route was proposed for elimination in draft plan. 39 Quimby - San Felipe Decrease peak period frequency. P Local 6:30a - 6:30p 60 min 60 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min Route was proposed to be renumbered to Route 93, but final plan maintiains current number. 40 Foothill College - North Bayshore Extend Route 40 along Shoreline Boulevard and Villa Street to connect with Mountain View Transit Center; increase Saturday and Sunday frequency.P P Local 6:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 7:00a - 7:00p 45 min 9:00a - 6:00p 45 min 42 Kaiser San Jose - Evergreen Valley College Discontinue low ridership segments, reduce weekday frequency; discontinue Saturday service. P P P Local 6:30a - 6:30p 60 min 60 min ————Route was proposed for elimination in draft plan. 45 Alum Rock Transit Center - Penitencia Creek Transit Center Discontinue due to low ridership. Proposed Change (current service vs. final plan)Route Change from Draft Plan to Final Plan See Route 85 See Route 87 See Route 86 See Route 96 See Route 21 See Route 21 New New Weekday Saturday Sunday See Route 60 See Route 83 1 Attachment D - Route-by-Route List of Changes 7.3.d Alignment Change Frequency Change Span Change Class Span Peak Frequency Midday Frequency Span Frequency Span FrequencyProposed Change (current service vs. final plan)Route Change from Draft Plan to Final Plan Weekday Saturday Sunday 46 Great Mall Transit Center - Milpitas High School Scale back to school-oriented service (to be called Route 246) between Milpitas High School and Landess/Yellowstone. 47 Calaveras Route would become a two-way loop; increase Sunday frequency; modify alignment to serve McCandless Drive; add extended evening hours 7 days a week.P P P Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 7:00a - 9:00p 30 min 8:00a - 8:00p 30 min Modify alignment to serve McCandless Drive. 48 Downtown Los Gatos - Winchester LRT Station Replace with revised Route 27; increase frequency on Route 27. 49 Downtown Los Gatos - Winchester LRT Station Replace some segments with revised Route 27; increase frequency on Route 27. 51 Grant - Moffett - Saratoga New number for Moffett Field to De Anza College portion of current Route 81; decrease midday frequency; extend route to West Valley College; discontinue Saturday service.P P P Local 6:30a - 6:30p 30 min 60 min ————Extend 60-min segment of route to West Valley College, via Saratoga-Sunnyvale and Saratoga town center. 52 Foothill College - Downtown Mountain View No changes proposed.Local 7:00a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min ———— 53 Homestead - Sunnyvale Change alignment to serve Vallco Mall and Santa Clara Transit Ctr instead of West Valley College, which would replace part of current Route 81 (Saturday service to operate between Vallco and Santa Clara Transit Ctr); increase frequency on weekdays. P P Local 5:30a - 8:00p 30 min 30 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min ——Modify alignment to serve Scott and Benton in Santa Clara. 54 Lockheed Martin Transit Center - De Anza College Discontinue due to low ridership; add new Rapid 523 service on Mathilda Avenue/De Anza Boulevard corridor. 55 Sunnyvale - De Anza College Change alignment between Downtown Sunnyvale and Remington Avenue; minor alignment changes in Lakewood Village; decrease weekday peak period frequency and increase Sunday frequency.P P Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 7:30a - 9:00p 30 min 8:00a - 8:00p 30 min 56 Wolfe - Hamilton Create new Route 56, which would connect Lockheed Martin Transit Center to Downtown Sunnyvale, Vallco Mall, Westgate, and Tamien Station; replaces parts of Routes 26 and 82.Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 6:30a - 10:00p 30 min 7:30a - 9:00p 30 min Extend route to Tamien station via Hamilton. 57 Great America - Bowers - Saratoga Increase weekday and Saturday frequency; add extended evening hours 7 days a week.P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15 min 15 min 6:30a - 11:00p 20 min 7:30a - 10:00p 30 min Extend weekday service to midnight. 58 West Valley College - Alviso Discontinue; some current riders may use Routes 57, 59, 20 and 26. 59 Monroe - Great America - Alviso Create new Route 59, which would connect Valley Fair, O'Connor Hospital, Santa Clara Caltrain Station, Mission College, Alviso and Baypointe Light Rail Station; would cover some segments of Route 58 and Route 60. Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 7:00a - 10:00p 30 min 7:30a - 6:30p 60 min Extend weekday service to Valley Fair and O'Connor Hospital. 60 Winchester - Airport - BART Consolidate with Route 10 to create new Route 60, which would connect Mineta San Jose Airport to Milpitas BART Station, Metro light rail station, Santa Clara Caltrain Station, Valley Fair, Santana Row, and Downtown Campbell; increase weekday and weekend frequency. P P P Frequent 5:00a - 11:00p 15 min 15min 5:00a - 11:00p 20 min 5:00a - 11:30p 20 min 61 Taylor - Bascom - Berryessa Change alignment from Mabury Road to Berryessa Road between Berryessa BART Station and Capitol Avenue; increase frequency on weekends; add extended evening hours 7 days/week.P P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15-30 min 15-30 min 6:30a - 11:00p 20-40 min 7:30a - 10:00p 20-40 min 62 Good Samaritan Hospital - Sierra/Piedmont Replace with Route 61. 63 Meridian Change southern end from Almaden Expressway/Camden Avenue to Meridian Avenue/Blossom Hill Road; increase weekday midday frequency.P P Local 6:00a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 8:00a - 7:00p 60 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min 64 McKee - Lincoln - Almaden Change downtown routing (Julian to 6th/7th and San Fernando); extend route to Camden in Almaden Valley.P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15-30 min 15-30 min 6:30a - 12:00a 30 min 7:00a - 11:00p 30 min Extend route to Camden in Almaden Valley. 65 Kooser/Blossom Hill - Downtown San Jose Discontinue segment north of downtown San Jose; reduce frequency.P P Local 6:00a - 6:30p 60 min 60 min ————The draft plan proposed to discontinue Route 65. 66 Milpitas - Oakland - Monterey - Snell Change alignment to serve Milpitas BART Station; weekday frequency changes by segment; move to 10th/11th Streets from 1st Street.P P Frequent 5:00a - 12:00a 15 min 15-30 min 6:00a - 12:00a 20 min 6:00a - 12:00a 20 min 68 Monterey - South County Decrease midday frequency south of Santa Teresa Light Rail Station; increase midday frequency north of Santa Teresa light rail station.P Frequent 4:30a - 12:00a 15 min 15-30 min 5:00a - 12:00a 20 min 5:00a - 12:00a 20 min 70 Jackson - Flickinger - Morrill Modify alignment to connect to Berryessa BART Station; decrease frequency north of Berryessa BART station; discontinue service between Eastridge Transit Center and Capitol station, some riders in that segment may use Routes 71 or 42. P P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15-30 min 15-30 min 6:30a - 12:00a 20-40 min 6:30a - 10:00p 20-40 min 71 Piedmont - White Change northern end from Great Mall to Milpitas BART Station; decrease weekday peak period service and increase Sunday service; extended to Capitol light rail station.P P Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 6:30a - 10:00p 30 min 7:30a - 9:00p 30 min The final plan moves its southern end from Eastridge to Capitol light rail station. 72 McLaughlin Increase frequency on weekday midday and weekends; add extended evening hours 7 days/week.P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15 min 15 min 6:30a - 12:00a 20 min 7:30a - 11:00p 30 min Reduce Sunday daytime frequency from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes; change southern end from Capitol light rail station to Monterey & Branham. See Route 246 See Route 27 See Route 27 New New See Route 61 2 Attachment D - Route-by-Route List of Changes 7.3.d Alignment Change Frequency Change Span Change Class Span Peak Frequency Midday Frequency Span Frequency Span FrequencyProposed Change (current service vs. final plan)Route Change from Draft Plan to Final Plan Weekday Saturday Sunday 73 Senter Change southern end from Capitol Expressway/Snell to Monterey Road/Branham Road; increase weekday midday and weekend frequency; add extended evening hours 7 days/week.P P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15 min 15 min 6:30a - 12:00a 20 min 7:30a - 11:00p 30 min Reduce Sunday daytime frequency from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes. 77 King - Lundy Change northern end from Great Mall to Milpitas BART Station; change southern end of route to Eastridge Transit Center via Tully Road rather than Rigoletto Drive; serve Berryessa BART station; increase weekday midday and weekend frequencies; add extended evening hours 7 days/week. P P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15 min 15 min 6:30a - 12:00a 20 min 6:30a - 11:00p 30 min Reduce Sunday daytime frequency from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes. 81 Moffett Field - Downtown San Jose Replace Moffett Field to De Anza College segment with new Route 51; replace De Anza College to Santa Clara Caltrain Station segment with revised Route 53. 82 Westgate - Downtown San Jose Discontinue; some segments of route replaced with Routes 56, 66, and 68. 83 Almaden New route based on current Route 13, provided on an interim basis prior to implementation of on- demand service for Almaden Valley; revised alignment would serve Blossom Hill (Oakridge Mall), McAbee, and Camden. P Local 6:30a - 6:30p 60 min 60 min ————The draft plan proposed to discontinue Route 13. 85 Gilroy New two-way loop route in Gilroy; replaces Routes 14, 17, and 19.Local 6:30a - 6:30p 60 min 60 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min Was called Route 96 in draft plan; also minor alignment changes to facilitate connections with Route 68. 86 Gavilan College Replaces Route 18; increase frequency.P Local 7:00a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min ————Was called Route 97 in draft plan. 87 Morgan Hill Renumber Route 16 to Route 87, provided on an interim basis until a more effective flexible transit solution can be implemented; no other changes proposed.Local peak only 60 min ————— Draft plan proposed a reduction in service to school- oriented trips only. Final plan would maintain current service until flexible solution can be implemented. 88 Palo Alto VA Hospital - Middlefield/Colorado Scale back to school trips (to be called Route 288) for Gunn High School. 89 California Avenue Caltrain - Palo Alto VA Hospital No changes proposed.Local 6:30a - 6:30p 30 min 60 min ————The draft plan proposed to discontinue Route 89. 101 Camden/Highway 85 - Palo Alto No changes proposed. Express ———— 102 South San Jose - Palo Alto No changes proposed.Express ———— 103 Eastridge Transit Center - Palo Alto No changes proposed.Express ———— 104 Penitencia Creek Transit Center - Palo Alto Change alignment to serve Milpitas BART Station rather than Great Mall Transit Center.P Express ———— 120 Fremont BART - Lockheed Martin Transit Center/Shoreline Discontinue due to extension of BART to Santa Clara County; explore options for inter-county partnership service with AC Transit. 121 Gilroy Transit Center - Lockheed Martin Transit Center No changes proposed.Express ———— 122 South San Jose - Lockheed Martin Transit Center No changes proposed.Express ———— 140 Fremont BART Station - Mission College/Montague Discontinue due to extension of BART to Santa Clara County. 168 Gilroy Transit Center - San Jose Diridon Station No changes proposed.Express ———— 180 Fremont BART Station - Great Mall - Eastridge Discontinue due to extension of BART to Santa Clara County. 181 Fremont BART - San Jose Diridon Station Discontinue due to extension of BART to Santa Clara County. 182 Palo Alto - Bailey Road/IBM No changes proposed.Express ———— 185 Gilroy Caltrain Station - Shoreline - San Antonio No changes proposed.Express ———— 201 DASH Shuttle: Diridon Station - Downtown San Jose - San Jose State University Replace with Rapid 500; change alignment to Santa Clara Street.See Route 500 1 trip each peak period 3 trips each peak period 7 trips each peak period 9 trips each peak period 1 trip each peak period New See Routes 51 and 53 7 trips each peak period 4 trips each peak period 2 trips each peak period See Route 56 See Route 288 2 trips each peak period 3 Attachment D - Route-by-Route List of Changes 7.3.d Alignment Change Frequency Change Span Change Class Span Peak Frequency Midday Frequency Span Frequency Span FrequencyProposed Change (current service vs. final plan)Route Change from Draft Plan to Final Plan Weekday Saturday Sunday 246 Milpitas High School - Yellowstone/Landess School-oriented service (formerly Route 46), based on school bell schedules.Special ———— 247 Milpitas High School - Park Victoria School-oriented service (formerly Route 46/47), based on school bell schedules.Special ———— 251 St. Francis High School - Downtown Mountain View School-oriented service, based on school bell schedules; afternoon service only.Special ———— 255 Fremont High School - Lakewood Village School-oriented service (formerly Route 55X), based on school bell schedules.Special ———— 256 Willow Glen High School - Tamien Station - Monterey/Alma School-oriented service (formerly Route 82), based on school bell schedules.Special ————Was called Route 282 in draft plan. 266 Santa Teresa High School - Bernal Road School-oriented service, based on school bell schedules; afternoon service only.Special ———— 287 Live Oak High School - Monterey & San Martin School-oriented service, based on school bell schedules; afternoon service only.Special ———— 288 Gunn High School - North Palo Alto School-oriented service (formerly Route 88), based on school bell schedules, plus one afterschool extracurricular trip; to follow former 88, 88L, 88M alignments.Special ———— Add one additional trip an hour or two after the afternoon bell time to accommodate afterschool activities; modify alignment to follow existing route. 304 South San Jose - Sunnyvale Transit Center Discontinue due to low ridership; some current riders may use Routes 66, 68 or 20. 321 Great Mall Transit Center - Lockheed Martin Transit Center Discontinue due to low ridership; some current riders may use Routes 20, 59, or Orange line. 323 De Anza College - Downtown San Jose Upgrade to Rapid 523 and extend western end to Lockheed Martin Transit Center and eastern end to Berryessa BART Station; increase Sunday frequency. 328 Almaden/Via Valiente - Lockheed Martin Transit Center Discontinue due to low ridership. 330 Almaden/Via Valiente - Tasman Drive Discontinue due to low ridership. 500 Diridon - Berryessa BART Rapid Replaces DASH shuttle; 7-day a week service; connects Diridon Station to downtown San Jose, San Jose State University, and Berryessa BART Station. Rapid 4:00a - 1:30a 10 min 15 min 6:00a - 1:30a 20 min 8:00a - 1:30a 20 min Add additional stop at Almaden Boulevard. 522 Palo Alto Transit Center - Eastridge Transit Center Increase weekday frequency (to be implemented in April 2017); add extended evening hours 7 days/week; start earlier AM service on weekends.P P Rapid 5:00a - 11:00p 12 min 12 min 6:00a - 11:00p 15 min 6:00a - 10:00p 15 min Reduce frequency of some weekend early morning and evening service from every 15 minutes to every 20 minutes; extend Sunday service to 10 pm. 523 Lockheed Martin Transit Center - Berryessa BART Station Create new Route 523 which would connect Lockheed Martin Transit Center, Downtown Sunnyvale, De Anza College, Vallco, Valley Fair, Santana Row, Downtown San Jose, Mexican Heritage Plaza and Berryessa BART Station. Rapid 5:00a - 10:30p 15 min 15 min 6:00a - 10:30p 15 min 7:00a - 10:00p 15 min Extend Sunday service to 10 pm. Green Old Ironsides Station - Winchester Station Change name to Green Line. Change northern end to Old Ironsides Light Rail Station; increase weekday frequency to 15 minutes all day. P P Light Rail 5:00a - 12:00a 15 min 15 min 6:30a - 12:00a 30 min 6:30a - 12:00a 30 min Blue Alum Rock Transit Center - Santa Teresa Station Change name to Blue Line.Light Rail 4:30a - 1:00a 15 min 15 min 5:00a - 1:00a 15 min 5:00a - 12:00a 15 min Purple Almaden Station - Ohlone/Chynoweth Station Change name to Purple Line.Light Rail 5:30a - 10:30p 15 min 15 min 8:00a - 10:00p 15 min 8:00a - 10:00p 15 min Orange Mountain View Transit Center - Alum Rock Transit Center Create new Orange Line to connect Downtown Mountain View with Alum Rock Transit Center; operate at 15-minute frequency all day on weekdays.Light Rail 5:00a - 11:30p 15 min 15 min 6:30a - 11:30p 30 min 7:00a - 11:30p 30 min Yellow Downtown San Jose - Santa Teresa Station Express Service Change name to Yellow Line. Change northern end from Baypointe Light Rail Station to St. James Light Rail Station; increase peak period span of service. P P Light Rail ———— 3 trips before and 4 trips after school 1 trip after school 5 trips each peak period 1 trip before and 1 trip after school # of trips varies by school schedule 1 trip before and 1 trip after school 1 trip after school 1 trip after school # of trips varies by school schedule See Route 523 New New New 4 Attachment D - Route-by-Route List of Changes 7.3.d Routes Currently Serving City Routes to Serve City in Proposed Plan Campbell 26, 27, 37, 48, 49, 60, 61, 62, 65, 82, 101, 328, 330, Green 26, 27, 37, 56, 60, 61, 65, 101, Green Cupertino 23, 25, 26, 53, 54, 55, 81, 101, 182, 323 23, 25, 26, 51, 53, 55, 56, 101, 182, 523 Gilroy 14, 17, 18, 19, 68, 121, 168, 185 68, 85, 86, 121, 168, 185 Los Altos 22, 40, 52, 81, 522 22, 40, 51, 52, 522 Los Altos Hills 40, 52 40, 52 Los Gatos 27, 48, 49 27 Milpitas 46, 47, 66, 70, 71, 77, 104, 140, 180, 181, 321, 330, Blue 20, 47, 60, 66, 70, 71, 77, 104, 246, 247, Blue, Orange Monte Sereno 48 27 Morgan Hill 16, 68, 121, 168, 185 68, 87, 121, 168, 185 Mountain View 22, 32, 34, 35, 40, 52, 81, 120, 185, 522, Green 20, 21, 22, 40, 51, 52, 185, 251, 522, Orange Palo Alto 22, 35, 88, 89, 102, 103, 104, 182, 522 21, 22, 89, 102, 103, 104, 182, 288, 522 San Jose 10, 12, 13, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 31, 37, 39, 42, 45, 49, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 81, 82, 101, 102, 103, 104, 122, 140, 168, 180, 181, 182, 185, 201 DASH, 304, 321, 323, 328, 330, 522, Blue, Green, Purple, Yellow 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 31, 37, 39, 42, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 83, 101, 102, 103, 104, 122, 168, 182, 185, 201 DASH, 266, 282, 500, 522, 523, Blue, Green, Orange, Purple, Yellow Santa Clara 10, 22, 23, 32, 55, 57, 58, 60, 81, 121, 140, 304, 321, 323, 328, 330, 522, Green 20, 21, 22, 23, 53, 55, 57, 59, 60, 121, 522, 523, Green, Orange Saratoga 26, 37, 53, 57, 58 26, 37, 51, 53, 56, 57 Sunnyvale 22, 26, 32, 53, 54, 55, 120, 121, 122, 304, 321, 328, 522, Green 20, 21, 22, 26, 53, 55, 56, 255, 522, 523, Green, Orange 5 Attachment D - Route-by-Route List of Changes 7.3.d Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan 1 DISCUSSION OF MAJOR THEMES FROM DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK This attachment describes the major changes in the transit service plan between the draft and final versions. Following the release of the draft transit service plan VTA staff collected over 5,000 points of feedback during January and February 2017. Feedback came from community members, city/town staff, elected officials, city/town councils, community organizations, business associations, and other institutions. Without exception, every change proposed by the draft plan generated some feedback. However, the quantity of feedback overwhelmingly concerned a small subset of topics, and this attachment discusses each of these major topics. As such, this section discusses the major themes of feedback in no particular order, and is not meant to represent the entirety of feedback received, which is more fully discussed in the public outreach attachment. DOWNTOWN SARATOGA (ROUTE 53) The draft plan proposed to discontinue service along Saratoga-Sunnyvale, to Saratoga’s downtown, and to West Valley College as Route 53’s coverage resources were reallocated to more productive service. Staff received comments from staff at the City of Saratoga, a letter from the Saratoga mayor and council, and several community members expressing concern over the loss of service, including for senior to access social services near De Anza. The City requested service at a 30-minute frequency along the Sunnyvale-Saratoga corridor. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff gathered ridership data for the segment of Route 53 between De Anza and West Valley College. This segment has approximately 195 weekday boardings as shown in the map at right. While the street grid and land use densities along this segment are not ideal for transit, the area does exhibit some demand for service that justifies some fixed route service. Staff studied two options to continue service in the final plan: by extending one of either Route 51 or Route 55 (both proposed to end at De Anza College under the draft plan) south to West Valley College via downtown. The length of this segment could be served at a 60-minute frequency with one bus; allocating more resources along this area would not be justified based on ridership demand. Due to the its proposed turnaround at the large block of Stelling, Stevens Creek, De Anza, and McClellan, it would not be operationally feasible to extend Route 55. Route 51, however, could be extended without operational issues. Based on the demand for service and the desire to provide service to downtown Saratoga and West Valley College, the final plan includes an extension of Route 51 to West Valley College via downtown Saratoga, at a 60-minute frequency on weekdays. 7.3.e Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan 2 SAN JOSE LEIGH AVENUE (ROUTE 65) Staff received many comments from community members and San Jose State University, concerned about the loss of Route 65 service, primarily the core segment along Leigh Avenue, Camden Avenue, and Parkmoor/Moorpark Avenues in San Jose (see map below). San Jose State University expressed concern about the loss of service between this area and their campus. Route 65 was proposed for elimination in the draft plan as its coverage-oriented resources were reallocated to more ridership-oriented service. A smaller number of community members also expressed a concern over the loss of service to a community center at Empire and 6th/7th streets in San Jose and also access to San Jose City College. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff categorized all the feedback on Route 65; the area of most concern is between Lincoln/Parkmoor in the north and Camden/Blossom Hill in the south (see map at right). VTA currently provides service along three parallel north-south corridors in the area as listed below. These corridors are ½-mile apart for much of their length, then increasing to over a mile apart at their southern end. The draft plan proposed consolidating routes and discontinuing the least productive of them, Route 65. Route 61 (Bascom): 19 boardings per service hour Route 62 (Bascom): 18 boardings per service hour Route 63 (Meridian): 18 boardings per service hour Route 65 (Leigh): 16 boardings per service hour. Staff gathered ridership data on Route 65, which indicates that 78% of the route’s ridership activity occurs on the segment between downtown and the southern end at Blossom Hill Road. This is the segment that provides connections to SJSU and San Jose City College, expressed as a concern from the community. Staff analyzed various options to restore service for this market. The final plan includes the addition of Route 65 service at a 60-minute frequency (less service than today’s 45-minute frequency), which would operate between South San Jose and downtown San Jose. The community center on Empire at 6th/7th Streets would no longer have front-door service. However, Frequent Route 66 would provide new service on 10th/11th Streets, (½ to ⅓-mile to the east of the community center), and Frequent Route 64 would provide service on Julian Street at 6th & 7th streets (⅓-mile south of the community center). Staff analyzed options to modify the alignment of other routes in the area to provide service closer to the community center, but could not develop an option that would meet VTA’s board-adopted productivity standards. 7.3.e Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan 3 LOS GATOS TOWN CENTER AND HACIENDA/KNOWLES AREA (ROUTES 48, 49, 27) Staff received comments and letters from community members, the Town of Los Gatos, the City of Campbell, and El Camino Hospital Los Gatos, all concerned about the alignment of the proposed Route 27; specifically, the lack of service to downtown Los Gatos (including Los Gatos High) and the lack of service to the neighborhood near Knowles Drive, Hacienda Avenue, and Burrows Road in Los Gatos and Campbell (including El Camino Hospital Los Gatos, see map below). STAFF ANALYSIS Staff gathered ridership data on Route 48, which currently provides service to the Hacienda/Knowles area, and on Route 49, which currently provides service to downtown Los Gatos. In addition, staff conducted on-site field visits to assess the area’s suitability for transit service. The segment of Winchester Boulevard between Knowles Drive and Hacienda Avenue is adjacent to a rail corridor and it would not be possible to place bus stops on the east side of the street. As such, this segment is not ideal for transit service as proposed by the draft plan’s Route 27. The Knowles/Hacienda/Burrows deviation on today’s Route 48 has 43 weekday boardings (about 10 of which are at the hospital itself). Los Gatos downtown has 36 weekday boardings on Route 49 and 50 weekday boardings on Route 48. Of these boardings, 25 are in front of Los Gatos High School, which suggests some demand for school service. Based on the ridership demand in both areas, the alignment of the Route 27 has been modified in the final plan to serve both downtown Los Gatos and the Hacienda/Knowles neighborhood (including El Camino Hospital Los Gatos), as shown in the map at right. RAPID 500 BETWEEN DIRIDON, DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE, BERRYESSA BART Staff received many comments from community members and organizations concerned about the proposal to eliminate the DASH shuttle and introduce a new Rapid 500 route. DASH offers free-fare service timed to meet trains at Diridon Station on weekdays, operating in a one-way loop through downtown San Jose. The route carries about 1,000 boardings per day, and VTA received an operating subsidy from both SJSU ($55,000) and from MTC’s Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA, $400,000 to $800,000). Interested groups included riders of today’s DASH, the City of San Jose, the Downtown Association, and SJSU, who expressed concerns regarding: The proposed alignment and stops of the Rapid 500. The proposed Rapid 500 would travel along Santa Clara in both directions between Diridon Station and 10th/11th Streets, and would no longer travel along San Fernando or San Carlos (see map below). Commenters requested Rapid 500 travel along San Fernando to provide front-door service to SJSU and employers such as Adobe. The loss of a free-fare downtown route. The Rapid 500 would incur a standard fare, therefore downtown San Jose would lose its free-fare route. 7.3.e Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan 4 STAFF ANALYSIS The DASH’s primary market is connections between Diridon and SJSU/City Hall. As shown in the map above, 78% of the route’s boardings occur at Diridon Station or at the stops on 4th Street adjacent to SJSU. Alignment. The Rapid 500 would provide an improved first/last-mile connection for Diridon Station and Berryessa BART Station, integrating downtown San Jose into the regional transit network with frequent and rapid service (buses scheduled to meet trains at both stations). An industry best practice in downtown transit service is for routes to converge onto a single downtown street to provide a consolidated corridor where riders can walk to for all transit services. In San Jose, Santa Clara Street would be the transit corridor for east-west routes (1st/2nd streets for north- south routes), providing a single place to catch three Rapid routes and six Frequent routes going east-west. A downtown rider could walk to Santa Clara to catch one of the many routes heading to Diridon or Berryessa BART and benefit from a bus coming at least every two minutes. If the Rapid 500 were on another street, downtown users would have to consult a schedule to decide where to walk and the benefit of combined frequency would be lost, which would make transit more difficult to use, particularly for visitors and those unfamiliar with our transit system. In addition, there will be an abundance of frequent services to provide circulation throughout downtown, including light rail service between Diridon and downtown stations every 15 minutes and bus routes on San Fernando in front of SJSU (Route 63 every 30 minutes and Route 65 every 60 minutes). Finally, the alignment is the recommended alignment from two planning consultants who independently conducted a study of downtown transit service and made recommendations for the future of DASH (Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates and Jarrett Walker + Associates). Other significant improvements of the Rapid 500 over the current DASH service include: Additional regional connections at Berryessa BART station (DASH serves Diridon only) Expanded service span (4:00 am – 1:30 am, compared to 6:30 am – 9:30 pm on DASH) Addition of weekend service on both Saturday and Sunday (no weekend service on DASH) For these reasons, no changes are proposed to the alignment of the Rapid 500 in the final transit service plan. 7.3.e Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan 5 Stop distance. The Rapid 500 proposal includes stops on Santa Clara Street at 1st/2nd Street and 6th Street. The community’s concerns are also related to the increased distance of service to major destinations/employers such as Adobe and SJSU, which currently have closer service because the DASH operates in a one-way loop along San Fernando and San Carlos. The Rapid 500 stop closest to the University would be at Santa Clara/6th, one block from campus. Staff met with student representatives and staff at SJSU and learned that safety of the walk (mostly at night) was the primary concern, not the extra block of walking distance. Many students currently make this walk now to get to buses on Santa Clara Street (Route 22, 522, etc.); others walk 2-3 blocks to 1st/2nd Streets to access light rail. Staff investigated the potential to add stops to better serve important destinations and employers, such as Adobe. The final plan includes the addition of a Rapid 500 stop at Santa Clara/Almaden Boulevard to provide direct service to downtown destinations and important employers such as Adobe. Free fare. The conversion of the DASH to the Rapid 500 represents a loss of downtown’s free-fare route, as the Rapid 500 as proposed would be integrated into the overall transit network and riders would pay a standard fare. However, most Rapid 500 riders would still not incur a fare at boarding: SJSU students and staff ride VTA free as EcoPass participants Adobe and many other downtown employees ride VTA free as EcoPass participants Caltrain riders with a 2-zone or higher pass ride VTA free ACE riders with a monthly pass ride VTA free Staff are also studying the potential to offer free VTA-to-VTA transfers as part of the comprehensive fare study. As such, no changes are proposed to the Rapid 500’s standard fare. Ridership projection and impact on operating subsidies. VTA’s travel demand model confirms the importance of Rapid 500’s key connections to Diridon, downtown, and BART, projecting that the route will attract well over 5,000 additional daily riders. Staff will continue to seek a TFCA operating subsidy from MTC, and believe the additional regional rail connections at Berryessa BART station will improve the route’s eligibility for the grant resources. FREMONT EXPRESS ROUTES 120 AND 181 VTA operates four Express routes between locations in Santa Clara County and the end-of-line BART station in Fremont to provide connections to the regional transit network. By bringing regional BART service to our county with the BART extension project, it would no longer be necessary to operate Express service into Alameda County to provide regional connections, as these regional connections would be made here at the new BART stations. As such, the draft plan follows the established assumptions from the BART extension project that VTA’s transit network would no longer include Express service into Alameda County. However, staff received a large volume of comments from the community (including a letter from employers in the Lockheed Martin area) and Alameda County residents (a petition from Express 120 riders) concerned about the impacts of losing two of these routes, VTA Express 181 and 120. VTA Express 181 currently provides all-day frequent service in both directions between Fremont BART and downtown San Jose, largely used by San Jose State University students and by some downtown employees. VTA Express 120 provides six AM and six PM one-way trips between Fremont BART and Lockheed Martin for area employees. STAFF ANALYSIS The BART extension and VTA planning studies (including the Berryessa Connector Study, the BART Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension FTA New Starts submittal, the BRT Strategic Plan, and the BART Transit Integration Plan) all assumed that once BART service opens at Milpitas and Berryessa, the four Alameda County Express routes would be discontinued and the resources used for regional connections at the two new BART stations. The draft plan accordingly used these resources to provide bus service to the two new BART stations. While there has been a 7.3.e Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan 6 longstanding service precedent set by these routes (Express 120 and 181 have been operating since 1981), they exist solely for providing connections to the regional transit network. Many of these riders will have better service with BART coming all the way into Milpitas and San Jose; these riders would remain on BART into the county and then make their last-mile connections via timed and frequent light rail and bus connections to job centers. Express 181 riders going to downtown San Jose would benefit from a BART ride into the county and a fast and direct connection into downtown (including a stop one block away from SJSU) that would reduce their travel time by 25% (see travel time comparison below). These riders would pay a higher BART fare. Travel Time Comparison from Fremont to Downtown San Jose (2nd & Santa Clara) Today Final Plan 19 min on BART 48 min on VTA Express 181 4 min average transfer time 13 min on Rapid 500 48 min total trip time 36 min total trip time Express 120 riders will have the option of a BART ride to Milpitas station and a direct connection to Lockheed Martin on the new Orange light rail line. However, many of today’s Express 120 riders are Alameda County residents who aren’t using BART at all, and either live near (or drive to) an Express 120 stop in Fremont; these riders would have to use BART for service to Milpitas where they can make the Orange line connection. Some riders may not find the new BART + Orange line trip attractive, as the new trip would not be as fast as today’s Express 120. While VTA’s mission (and funding structure) does not include the objective of providing service for Alameda County residents, there may be a potential to introduce a new inter-county partnership service between Alameda County and Lockheed Martin. VTA has begun discussions with AC Transit to explore options to partner (such as a limited-stop extension of AC Transit Route 217 from Milpitas BART to Lockheed Martin, or an inter- county premium service like the Highway 17 Express) that may serve such a market while respecting each agency’s mission and service area. AC Transit is beginning a comprehensive study of their transit network in Fremont, which presents an excellent opportunity to study the Fremont-Lockheed Martin demand and explore options to maintain this service. VTA staff will coordinate with AC Transit staff during the study and present partnership service strategies that are developed to the VTA Board for consideration. No changes are proposed to the plan to discontinue VTA Express routes into Alameda County, though VTA is exploring the potential for an inter-county partnership service. PALO ALTO ROUTE 88 Staff received many comments from the community, Palo Alto city staff, the Gunn High School PTSA, the school district, and the Palo Alto City Council, expressing concern regarding Route 88 service. Route 88 currently provides service between the Veteran’s Hospital and midtown Palo Alto, via Gunn High School, Arastradero, Charleston, Fabian, and Louis (see map at right). The route was designed in collaboration with the Gunn High School PTSA during VTA’s service redesign project in 2008. The route was primarily designed to serve Gunn High School students, and has three service patterns to serve the various neighborhoods where students live (alternate alignments 88, 88L, and 88M). The draft plan proposed scaling back the route to focus exclusively on school service renamed as Routes 288, 288L, and 288M. To better understand community concerns, staff met with the Gunn High School PTSA, discussed the proposal at the 7.3.e Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan 7 Palo Alto City Council, conducted several meetings with city staff, hosted a public meeting in Palo Alto, and conferred with community leaders on several occasions. The community’s primary concerns regarding the draft plan’s proposal for Route 288 are: The loss of service during the weekday midday period for student trips. The loss of service during the several hours following Gunn’s afternoon bell times for student trips, to accommodate students’ extracurricular activities in the afternoon. The loss of all-day service (outside of school bell times) for non-student (community) trips. A general desire to increase transit service along the Arastradero/Charleston corridor for all types of trips, particularly given the forthcoming complete streets improvements along the corridor. STAFF ANALYSIS Midday student trips. Staff gathered ridership data for Route 88 trips throughout the day to assess the demand for midday trips at Gunn High School. The chart below shows each trip’s average number of boardings on a typical weekday at the two stops used by Gunn High School students, illustrating the demand from Gunn High School throughout the day. As shown, the midday trips (highlighted in the red box) have very little activity, averaging less than one boarding per trip. Despite the desire for students to have a transit option for midday trips to and from the school, ridership data demonstrates that demand for such trips is very low. The insufficient demand for midday school trips does not justify adding midday service to the proposed Route 288. 0.1 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.1 1.8 1.0 30.1 27.8 29.0 1.9 5.4 4.6 2.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 7:14 AM 8:10 AM 8:55 AM 9:55 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:05 PM 2:05 PM 3:03 PM 3:05 PM 3:07 PM 3:10 PM 4:10 PM 5:15 PM 6:15 PM Route 88 Northbound Average Daily Boardings at Gunn High School Stops midday trips school bell trips 88M 88L 88 7.3.e Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan 8 Afternoon school trips for extracurricular activities. Staff consulted ridership data to assess the demand for afternoon school trips. On a typical school day, VTA provides three northbound school trips timed to the afternoon bell schedule, departing just a few minutes apart from each other (trips in the green box in the chart above). Each of the trips follows a unique alignment to take students to different areas of Palo Alto. These trips are productive and carry about 30 students each. However, there is very low demand for each of the subsequent afternoon trips (at hourly intervals after the bell time), with each trip carrying an average of four riders. Despite the desire for multiple afterschool trips to serve students’ extracurricular activity needs, ridership data demonstrates that demand for these trips is very low and would not justify more than one extra trip. In order to support afterschool activities, the final plan includes the addition of one afternoon school trip (subject to productivity minimums) scheduled to meet extracurricular activity needs of some students. Schedule and alignment to be determined in coordination with the community. This added trip will be in addition to the 3 AM and 3 PM school trips timed to the bell schedule. All-day service for (non-school) community trips. Although designed primarily to serve school trips, Route 88 does provide transit service for the general community, including Stevenson House, Abilities United, and the Mitchell Park Library. Staff consulted ridership data to determine the level of demand for non-school trips. As shown by the graph below, activity on non-school trips is quite low, averaging less than six riders per trip. The low demand for service is due to route’s design to focus on school trips, as the route doesn’t offer many connections to places people want to go. Route 35, for example, is considerably more popular for residents of Stevenson House because it offers a connection to downtown Palo Alto, San Antonio Center, and Midtown Shopping Center, in addition to many transit connections. The low demand for non-school community trips does not justify adding all- day service to the proposed Route 288. Community desire to increase transit service in this market. While the low demand for transit service exhibited by the Route 88 market doesn’t meet VTA’s regional minimum standard for VTA fixed route service at this time, there is a community need and desire to provide additional transit service to the areas currently served by the route. In fact, the Charleston/Arastradero corridor is slated to receive complete streets improvements soon to improve bicycle/pedestrian safety, give a corridor a sense of place, and provide sustainable transportation options. These improvements to the corridor’s pedestrian environment, coupled with increases in land use densities, could increase the demand for transit service in the future to a level that would warrant VTA fixed route service. In the meantime, staff have been in discussions with City of Palo Alto staff to discuss alternative mobility solutions for this market, including the potential for community service provided by the city’s municipal shuttle program. VTA staff will continue to support the coordination of community-focused municipal shuttle programs throughout the county with VTA’s regionally-focused fixed route service. By coordinating services, residents can enjoy the benefits of VTA’s regional service along productive transit corridors as well as greater mobility coverage that only local services can provide. While the low demand for service exhibited by Route 88’s market doesn’t justify VTA fixed route service 4 2 4 4 5 8 9 8 32 31 36 11 11 11 74 30 40 24 7 10 4 3 6 4 3 2 2 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 6: 3 2 A M 7: 1 4 A M 7: 3 6 A M 7: 4 4 A M 7: 4 9 A M 8: 1 0 A M 8: 2 0 A M 8: 5 5 A M 9: 3 3 A M 9: 5 5 A M 10 : 1 7 A M 11 : 0 0 A M 11 : 2 3 A M 12 : 0 0 P M 12 : 2 3 P M 1: 0 5 P M 1: 2 8 P M 2: 0 5 P M 2: 2 8 P M 3: 0 3 P M 3: 0 5 P M 3: 0 7 P M 3: 1 0 P M 3: 3 5 P M 4: 1 0 P M 4: 3 5 P M 5: 1 5 P M 5: 4 0 P M 6: 1 5 P M Route 88 Average Daily Boardings, All Stops Northbound Trips Southbound Trips school bell trips school bell trips 7.3.e Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan 9 at this time, VTA staff are in discussions with the local community and city staff to explore the potential for city shuttles to serve this market. PALO ALTO ROUTE 89 Staff received many comments from the community (including a letter from Stanford Research Park) concerning the draft plan proposal to discontinue Route 89 service in Palo Alto. Route 89 currently provides service between the California Avenue Caltrain station and the Palo Alto Veteran’s Hospital, via the Stanford Research Park employment center. Route 89 was proposed for elimination in the draft plan as its coverage-oriented resources were reallocated to more ridership-oriented services. The feedback received expressed concern over the loss of transit service to the jobs at Stanford Research Park and the services at the Veteran’s Hospital, two regionally-important destinations that warrant VTA service. STAFF ANALYSIS The Stanford Research Park and the Veteran’s Hospital are important regional destinations. In addition, Caltrain is planning to increase the level of Caltrain service to California Avenue Caltrain station in April 2017, which would increase the number of transit connections at the station. Staff gathered service performance data to assess the area’s demand for service and the route’s comparative performance amongst the routes in the area. Both Route 88 and Route 89 serve the VA hospital, though Route 89 has much higher productivity, particularly during the peak period. Route 89 would be the better candidate to add service to this market in the final plan, given its better productivity and service to the Stanford Research Park. Given the regional importance of the Veteran’s Hospital and Stanford Research Park, along with comparatively high productivity of existing service, service for this market is justified and Route 89 has been added back into the final plan. Route Performance Measures (Weekday FY16) Route 89 Route 88 Route 35 Route 22 Route 522 Boardings per Revenue Hour 19.9 15.0 15.8 32.1 24.8 Rank Among VTA Local Routes 28th of 56 48th of 56 43rd of 56 2nd of 56 13th of 56 SAN JOSE EAST HILLS ROUTE 45 Staff received many comments from the community concerning the draft plan proposal to discontinue Route 45 service in San Jose’s East Hills. Route 45 currently provides hourly weekday-only service between the Penitencia light rail station and the Alum Rock transit center as shown in the map below. Route 45 was proposed for elimination in the draft plan as its coverage-oriented resources were reallocated to more ridership-oriented services. The feedback received primarily expressed concern over the loss of transit service to the Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility on Kirk Avenue at Alum Rock Avenue, served exclusively by Route 45. A smaller number of comments concerned the loss of service for the greater areas east of White Road. STAFF ANALYSIS After discussing service in the area with community members at the VTA-hosted draft plan feedback meeting in East San Jose in February, staff gathered ridership data to assess the demand for transit service along Route 45. Ridership activity is very low at stops along Route 45, particularly the segment east of White Road (the segment that would lose service with the elimination of Route 45), as shown on the map at right. On an average weekday, only 69 7.3.e Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan 10 boardings occur in this area (about 2 boardings per service hour), which explains why Route 45 is not productive. Based on the low demand for service in the area, no changes are proposed to the draft plan’s proposal to discontinue Route 45. Staff also met with leadership at the veterans housing facility to discuss the patrons’ transportation needs. While Route 45 service meets some of their transportation needs, the facility may be better served with a more flexible mobility solution. Due to low ridership demand, no changes are proposed to the draft plan proposal to discontinue Route 45. However, staff is proposing, and is in discussion with the facility’s director to discuss, providing a van or other vehicle to the facility so they may provide their own transportation. SAN JOSE ROUTE 10 AIRPORT FLYER Staff received many comments and letters expressing concern regarding the changes proposed to Route 10 Airport Flyer. VTA and the San Jose International Airport partner to offer the Route 10 Airport Flyer, between Santa Clara Caltrain, the airport, and light rail on North First Street (Metro/Airport station). The draft plan proposed to maintain the route’s current alignment as it is today, with the following additions (see map below): Extend west end to serve Winchester corridor, end at Winchester light rail station Extend east end to serve Brokaw and Lundy corridors, end at Milpitas BART Renumber to Frequent Route 60 Convert to a regular fare, except boardings at the airport terminals would be fare-free While the community expressed overwhelming support for the concept to extend the route for new connections, they expressed concern regarding the transition to a regular-fare route. STAFF ANALYSIS VTA operates Route 10 through an agreement with the City of San Jose, with free service to riders. San Jose pays VTA approximately $700,000 annually as part of this agreement. The amount used to be as much as $1.2 million but was reduced due to city financial difficulties in 2012. The agreement between VTA and San Jose has been in place since 1998, when as part of mitigation for airport expansion, an option for free transit was required. VTA will continue to provide free service to passengers boarding the new Route 60 at the airport as part of service plan and no changes to the financial terms of the cooperative agreement between San Jose and VTA are proposed. The agreement will need to be revised to address the new Route 60 service. 7.3.e Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan 11 VTA will also continue to equip buses serving the airport with interior luggage racks. We will work with the airport on marketing the new Route 60 to passengers as an airport connector with improved connections and the bus headsign will inform passengers that Line 60 provides airport service. VTA staff met with airport staff to discuss the proposed service change. We believe the new connections provided by the route, including a direct connection to BART, will lead to increased ridership at the airport. We received comments requesting that free fares also be maintained for passengers boarding at the LRT Metro Station stop and the Santa Clara Caltrain Station. The current fare policy proposal also under review would allow free transfers for Clipper card holders. Also, airport employees would ride free with their EcoPass. Thus, the only group of Route 10 riders that would be required to pay an additional fare under the new Route 60 are cash riders transferring to Route 60 from light rail or Caltrain. These are mostly one-time riders. No changes are proposed to the draft plan’s proposal to upgrade Route 10 to Frequent Route 60 with fare-free boardings at the airport terminals. VTA will continue to equip airport buses with luggage racks, will work with airport staff on branding and marketing the new route, and the headsign on Route 60 vehicles will advertise service to the airport. CAMPBELL/SAN JOSE HAMILTON CORRIDOR (ROUTES 82 AND 56) The draft plan proposed to discontinue service along the Hamilton corridor east of Winchester due to low ridership, proposing instead to turn the route (Route 56 in the draft plan) south at Winchester to provide a new connection to the Winchester light rail station. Staff received many comments from community members expressing concern over the loss of service along the eastern end of the Hamilton corridor and suggesting the new connection to Winchester station would not be valuable. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff gathered ridership data to assess the demand for service along the Hamilton corridor east of Winchester and found there is fair ridership demand, with 154 boardings per weekday among the stops. Given the demonstrated demand for service, staff explored several alternatives to retain service along the entire Hamilton corridor. The alternative with the highest potential ridership among the feasible options is similar to today’s Route 82 service along Hamilton, Pine, Newport, and Minnesota to Tamien station. The final plan includes an extension of Route 56 to provide service along the Hamilton corridor and a connection at Tamien station. 7.3.e Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan 12 GILROY Staff received many comments and letters from community members, Gilroy city staff, the county executive, county staff, and other organizations expressing concern over the draft plan’s proposed service in Gilroy. The primary concerns were: Loss of service to a low income community in the San Ysidro Park area, currently served by Route 17. Loss of service to the county’s Social Services office at Tomkins Court, also currently served by Route 17. Increased reliance on transfers and the fare (transfer penalty) impact throughout the county. Reduction of Route 68 midday service. Poor pedestrian environment, particularly for connections to/from and along Route 68. The draft plan proposed consolidating three of Gilroy’s four community routes into one two-way loop route that would serve the highest ridership parts of Gilroy (see map at right). As such, the proposed two-way route would maintain service for nearly all riders on the existing routes, plus offer new direct east-west connections across Gilroy. The areas that would lose service under the draft plan’s proposed route are the San Ysidro Park area () and the Tomkins Court deviation (), both served by Route 17 today. STAFF ANALYSIS San Ysidro Park. Staff gathered ridership data to assess the demand for service in the area. As shown along the San Ysidro Park area of Route 17 (in red on the map), ridership is very low. The total number of boardings across the stops in the area is 8 per weekday (4 daily riders making a roundtrip). While the area may be a community of concern, almost none of the residents are riding Route 17 today. Route 17 has the lowest productivity among all VTA’s routes, with just 8.1 boardings per weekday, 3.3 per Saturday, and 2.9 per Sunday. Contrast the low demand with Route 68 on Monterey Road (orange dots), where the stops in the area have 195 daily boardings (98 daily riders making a round trip). The high ridership on Monterey suggests that perhaps many of the residents of the San Ysidro Park area are walking to Monterey Road (¼ to ½-mile walk) because Route 68 is more useful for their needs (better frequency and it goes more places). Recognizing the desire to provide some coverage service to the area, staff attempted to come up with a modified alignment for Gilroy service that would serve San Ysidro Park. However, none of the options were feasible because they would either add resources beyond justifiable levels, compromise the rest of the route’s design, and/or eliminate service to more productive areas of Gilroy. Due to very low ridership, no changes are proposed to the draft plan’s proposal to discontinue service to the San Ysidro Park area. Social Services at Tomkins Court. Route 17 currently provides service to the Santa Clara County Social Services offices on Tomkins Court; the draft plan proposed to discontinue service to this location, as the office’s isolated location makes it nearly impossible to serve well and ridership is very low. Staff assessed ridership data confirmed ridership at this location is very low; the stop has just 10 weekday boardings (5 riders making a roundtrip). The stop has always had very low ridership, and VTA staff have collaborated with Social Services staff since the facility opened at the location to try and boost ridership. Strategies included redesigning the alignment of the route to go different places and offer a direct connection with Route 68, direct marketing and promotions, and even offering free transit rides for a month. None of the strategies resulted in any increased transit usage at the stop. Unfortunately, this important office is in an area that is not transit-supportive and is not possible to serve well with fixed route transit. Also, as was the case for the residents of the San Ysidro Park area, there is evidence that many patrons of the Social Services office are walking to/from Monterey Road to ride Route 68 (better frequency and it goes more places). Due to its location in an area that is not transit-supportive and therefore demonstrates very low demand for service, no changes are proposed to the draft plan’s proposal to discontinue service to the area. 7.3.e Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan 13 Increased transfers and fare impacts. Although the proposed network for Gilroy would not impact transfers, the proposed network design elsewhere relies on transfers in order to expand transit access and mobility. As such, staff is studying VTA’s fare structure and will develop a revised fare structure to complement the new transit network. Being studied is a revision to VTA’s transfer policy that allows riders free transfers for 90-minutes with a Clipper card. Staff is studying the potential to revise VTA’s fare structure to offer free transfers with a Clipper card. Reduction in Route 68 midday service. The draft plan included a reduction in midday service frequency on Route 68, from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes. Due to operational constraints of operating the inner segment of Route 68 (between downtown San Jose and Santa Teresa station) at a 15-minute midday frequency, the only feasible options for the outer portion of the route (between Santa Teresa Station to Gilroy) would be the same frequency (every 15 minutes) or half the frequency (every 30 minutes). While it is not possible to propose service every 15 minutes on the outer segment due to limited resources in the service hours-neutral final plan, the corridor does demonstrate potential to support 15-minute midday service if new resources become available. No changes are proposed to the proposal to reduce midday service on Route 68 to every 30 minutes; however, an option to improve frequency to every 15 minutes is a potential improvement for future consideration. Poor pedestrian environment to/from and along Monterey Road. Recognizing that walkability critical for transit success, several community members and organizations expressed concern regarding the poor pedestrian environment getting to and walking along parts of Monterey Road, which is Gilroy’s primary transit corridor. For example, the Social Services office is only ¼-mile from Monterey Road and Route 68 stops, though the lack of connectivity of the street grid in this area means the actual walking distance between the facility and the transit stops is over ½-mile. The need to consider the pedestrian environment for transit areas is discussed in VTA’s draft Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan, including specific discussion about the pedestrian environment in Gilroy. VTA will continue to work with cities to improve the pedestrian environment in transit areas. SAN JOSE/CAMPBELL/SARATOGA ROUTE 37 Staff received many comments and letters expressing concern regarding the proposal to discontinue Route 37 in South San Jose, Campbell, and Saratoga. The community and the administration of West Valley College expressed concern over the loss of the route. The route has two primary markets: Service to the communities along the Hillsdale, Camden, Hacienda, Pollard, Allendale corridors, and Connections between West Valley College and the Winchester and Capitol light rail stations. 7.3.e Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan 14 Route 37 offers weekday-only service every 30 minutes, though the segment between Winchester station and Capitol station is every 60 minutes midday. Route 37 has relatively low productivity (it has 14.0 boardings per service hour, placing it 50th out of VTA’s 56 local routes) and the route was proposed for elimination in the draft plan as its coverage-oriented resources were reallocated to more ridership-oriented service. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff gathered ridership data to assess the demand for service to the communities along the route (see map above). Ridership not at the light rail stations is fairly substantial with 866 boardings on an average weekday (433 people making a roundtrip). Given the fair ridership along the route, Route 37’s low productivity is likely due to a mismatch in service level and service demand (too much service), suggesting that service every 60 minutes all day may be a more appropriate level of service for the area. Ridership data suggests that many West Valley College students use Route 37 to make a connection between the college and light rail, at both Winchester and Capitol stations. The connection is important for both the Winchester (Green) light rail line and the Guadalupe (Blue) light rail line. The draft plan’s Route 26 would maintain the connection to the Winchester line (every 30 minutes) at the Downtown Campbell station and the Guadalupe line (also every 30 minutes) at the Curtner station. Due to significant ridership demand along Route 37 and the desire to provide multiple connections between West Valley College and light rail, the final plan includes Route 37 service along its current alignment, but at a reduced 60-minute frequency. NEW DIRECT ROUTE BETWEEN FOOTHILL COLLEGE — DE ANZA COLLEGE At the project’s community meetings, staff received many comments from students at De Anza and Foothill colleges expressing a request for a new direct route between campuses. Both campuses are in the same college district, and the demand for student travel between campuses continues to grow as the campuses specialize and students often have to take classes at both campuses during an academic period. Students developed and submitted a petition to staff requesting a new direct route between campuses with frequent service all day. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff assessed the request to determine if there is a ridership justification for the new route. There are surely some students that would benefit from service between campuses, however there is no evidence that suggests demand would be sufficient to justify a dedicated VTA fixed route: 7.3.e Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan 15 There is insufficient demand for service between campuses. VTA previously (until 2009) offered such a connection between campuses on Route 23, which continued west past De Anza to Foothill College via Grant, Foothill, and El Monte every 30 minutes all day (see map above). While 55 students boarded at Foothill per day (about 20 of which were going to De Anza), overall ridership activity was very low and the segment west of De Anza was discontinued in the 2009 Comprehensive Operational Analysis due to low productivity. Demand for travel between campuses has certainly grown since the service was discontinued, as the college district has significantly expanded the number of classes offered at only one of the campuses. However, there is no evidence to suggest that demand is now high enough to justify the level of service that would be useful for students, probably every 30 minutes all day. (A 10x increase in inter-campus travel demand from 2009 levels would still equal just 8 boardings per trip.) There is also insufficient demand to justify additional service for the areas along the route. The areas in between campuses have very low ridership demand, and Route 51 would already serve the segment east of Grant Road to De Anza. The unserved segment west of Grant Road to Foothill is a residential area with limited access to bus stops and demonstrated very low demand when service was provided prior to 2009. The low demand for such a route is another example of the difficulty in providing useful transit service to locations that are not supportive of transit. Foothill College’s location on the periphery of the county’s urban area makes it nearly impossible to integrate the campus into the overall transit network and provide connections such as the petitioners have requested. While there is not sufficient demand to justify providing such a new route under VTA’s regional mission, the college district may wish to explore options to provide a dedicated shuttle. SAN JOSE ROUTE 23 SERVICE TO O’CONNOR HOSPITAL Route 23 currently deviates from Stevens Creek to Forest Avenue (behind Valley Fair) between Bellerose and Winchester in order to provide front-door service to O’Connor Hospital and make connections at the transit center behind Valley Fair. The draft plan proposed to discontinue the deviation so that Route 23 would stay on Stevens Creek. Staff received several comments from community members expressing concern about the loss of front-door service to O’Connor Hospital. 7.3.e Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan 16 STAFF ANALYSIS Staff gathered ridership data for stops in front of O’Connor Hospital, which have 86 boardings per day. While these riders could walk to Stevens Creek to ride Route 23, the distance may be a challenge for some. The hospital is on Forest Avenue, which is ¼-mile north of Stevens Creek (see hospital symbol on map), however due to the street network in the area, actual walking distance to the closest bus stops (Stevens Creek at Bradley) is ½-mile. Staff will explore the potential for new bus stops on Stevens Creek that would be closer to the hospital. Given the relatively significant ridership demand to an important community destination, staff also explored options to maintain its front-door service. The option with the highest ridership potential would be an extension of Route 59, proposed to end at Santa Clara station. The extension (shown by the purple dotted line) would provide service along Benton, Lafayette, Washington, Bascom, and Forest to turn around at the Valley Fair transit center. This extension would provide front- door service to the hospital on weekdays and integrate the hospital into the transit network (including connections to Caltrain, ACE, BART, and light rail). The final plan includes an extended Route 59 to provide front-door service to O’Connor Hospital on weekdays. SUNNYVALE CIVIC CENTER/LIBRARY AND FAIR OAKS (ROUTES 54 AND 55) Staff received several comments from the community regarding Sunnyvale details of the draft plan, specifically: The loss of service along Olive Avenue in front of the library and civic center. Route 54 currently provides service along Olive Avenue, but draft plan proposed to consolidate Route 54 with Route 55 and Rapid 523 to provide better north-south service in Sunnyvale. The loss of service along Fair Oaks/Remington between Old San Francisco and Sunnyvale-Saratoga. Route 55 currently deviates to Fair Oaks/Remington, though the draft plan proposed to eliminate the deviation and keep Route 55 on Sunnyvale-Saratoga to make the route faster and more direct. STAFF ANALYSIS The library and civic center (marked by an X on the map) are served by Route 54 at three stops on Olive Avenue, with 59 daily boardings. While no route would directly serve these stops, they are within walking distance to two transit routes: 800 ft. (3-minute walk) to Route 22 on El Camino at Hollenbeck/Pastoria. Route 22 will provide 15- minute service all day, seven days a week. ½-mi. (9-minute walk) to Route 55 on Sunnyvale Avenue at Olive. Route 55 will provide 30-minute service all day, seven days a week. 7.3.e Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan 17 Patrons of the library and civic center would benefit from significantly better service on Routes 22 and 55, compared to Route 54 today. While the library and civic center would be well-served by both routes, staff explored options to maintain service directly along Olive Avenue, though none were feasible because none of the routes in the area could be diverted without significant impact to its design. (Route 22 and Rapid 522 could not be diverted from El Camino because as core routes they should remain on their primary corridor without deviation; Route 55 and Rapid 523 could not be diverted from Sunnyvale Avenue because they are also core routes; Route 53 is too far north and a deviation to Olive would leave areas of Washington Street without transit service.) Given the high level of service offered by nearby routes, no changes are proposed to the plan to discontinue Route 54 and its service directly on Olive Avenue. The area of Fair Oaks/Remington between Sunnyvale-Saratoga and Old San Francisco is currently served by a deviation of Route 55 from the Sunnyvale-Saratoga corridor (see dotted purple line on map). Ridership along Fair Oaks/Remington is significant, with 409 total daily boardings among these stops. While ridership in the area is relatively high, the deviation adds significant travel time and impacts the majority of riders who are traveling through the area. The community along the deviation will be well-served by several routes within walking distance: Route 22 on El Camino at Fair Oaks/Remington. Route 22 will provide 15-minute service all day, seven days a week. Route 55 on Sunnyvale-Saratoga at Remington. Route 55 will provide 30-minute service all day, seven days a week. Route 56 at Fair Oaks and Old San Francisco. Route 56 will provide 30-minute service all day, seven days a week. There are no other routes in the area that could be diverted to this Fair Oaks/Remington corridor. Given the high level of service offered by nearby routes, no changes are proposed to the plan to eliminate the deviation of Route 55 to Fair Oaks/Remington. 7.3.e Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan 18 ALMADEN VALLEY Staff received many comments, letters, and petitions from the community and elected officials regarding the loss of service in Almaden Valley as proposed. The draft proposal included a reduction of all service into Almaden Valley as its coverage-oriented resources were reallocated to more ridership-oriented service. VTA currently provides four routes into Almaden Valley (areas south of Blossom Hill, excluding Route 64 which ends at the edge of Almaden): Almaden Valley Routes Limited Route 328 Limited Route 330 Route 63 Route 13 Limited-stop service between Almaden and Moffett Park via Lawrence Expressway. 2 northbound AM peak trips and 2 southbound PM peak trips. Limited-stop service between Almaden and Tasman Drive (North San Jose/Milpitas). 4 northbound AM peak trips and 4 southbound PM peak trips. Local service between Almaden and downtown San Jose. 7 days/week. 30-min peak, 45-min midday, 60-min weekend. Local service between Almaden and Ohlone-Chynoweth station. Weekdays only. 60-min peak, 60-min midday. Daily ridership in Almaden (entire route): 9 (73) boardings Route cost per passenger: $8.94 (VTA average: $4.50) (52nd of 56 routes) Daily ridership in Almaden (entire route): 14 (168) boardings Route cost per passenger: $8.27 (VTA average: $4.50) (49th of 56 routes) Daily ridership in Almaden (entire route): 96 (833) boardings Route cost per passenger: $6.37 (VTA average: $4.50) (34th of 56 routes) Daily ridership (entire route): 185 boardings Route cost per passenger: $7.89 (VTA average: $4.50) (45th of 56 routes) Draft plan proposal. Limited Routes 328 and 330 were proposed to be discontinued, as these routes have very low ridership and productivity and serve a very limited market. Route 63 was proposed to be shortened to discontinue its unproductive segment in Almaden (the route would turn around at Blossom Hill). Route 13 was proposed for elimination, given its low ridership and productivity. STAFF ANALYSIS Following feedback from the community, staff developed three alternatives to restore some service to Almaden Valley. Staff then conducted a focused community meeting to discuss the options, attended by over 100 community members and Councilmember Khamis. While the community generally rejected all three options as not enough service, the community generated some good ideas for consideration. Staff used the additional feedback to develop the proposal as seen in the final plan (map below). Limited 328 and 330. The four Limited class routes in VTA’s current system, including 328 and 330, are all unproductive. Limited routes serve longer-distance markets with limited stops and travel along expressways (which are not transit-supportive in design and pedestrian environment), which limits the ridership potential of these routes. The final plan maintains the elimination of all Limited routes. Route 63. The segment of Route 63 south of Blossom Hill has just 96 daily boardings, which is the lowest productivity segment of the route. Of the 96 boardings, 64 are east of McAbee, which would be served by the proposed Route 83 (discussion below). Therefore, the area left unserved by shortening Route 63 at Blossom Hill currently has only 32 daily boardings, which is too low to justify fixed route service. No changes are proposed to the plan to shorten Route 63 to turn around at Blossom Hill. Route 64. Route 64 could be extended to provide 7-day service for the core of Almaden Valley, turning around at Camden (its current endpoint is Almaden light rail station). Route 64 would provide Almaden Valley with service every 30 minutes all day, every day of the week, a significant increase in service for the core of Almaden Valley. This concept was presented to the community during the public meeting and was very well-received. 7.3.e Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan 19 Route 13. Fixed route transit service is not the ideal mobility solution for Almaden Valley, evidenced by Route 13’s very low ridership and numerous iterations of fixed route services in Almaden Valley that have all failed to meet minimum productivity standards. Given its low land use densities and lack of a transit-supportive street grid and pedestrian environment, a more useful and attractive mobility solution for area residents (and more effective use of VTA’s regional operating resources) may be a flexible model of transit service that provides service throughout an established zone, instead of along a fixed route. VTA does not currently offer such a model of service, though a number of other transit agencies across the country have implemented these transit solutions of various designs, offering VTA several models to consider. There would be many issues to consider and resolve in order to implement such a service, including driver training, fares, service animals, software, and operator policies. Staff will explore the potential for a pilot service, though implementation will take time, and the solution may not be ready to begin along with the rest of the service plan. While fixed route service would not “make the cut” on its own merits for inclusion, the final plan includes a revised Route 13, provided on an interim basis until a more effective flexible transit solution can be designed and implemented for Almaden Valley. In the interim, Route 83 would provide transit coverage throughout Almaden Valley that would incorporate two community suggestions on routing details. First, the route would turn to serve Blossom Hill Road between Winfield Boulevard and Almaden Expressway, in order to serve the businesses and destinations in the area. Second, the route would deviate from Almaden Expressway (where the extension of Route 64 would already serve) to serve McAbee Road and Camden Avenue. This deviation would cover areas currently served by Route 63 and provide front-door service to the Almaden Community Center, Almaden Library, and the senior center, in addition to preserving service to Castillero Middle School. The route would continue to serve Bret Harte Middle and Leland High schools as today. Route 83 would provide service every 60 minutes all day, weekdays only. The final plan includes interim Route 83 (a revised Route 13) to provide some transit coverage in Almaden Valley while the potential for a more appropriate flexible transit solution can be explored and developed for Almaden Valley. VTA has begun preparations to explore a pilot flexible transit solution for Almaden Valley, with details to be determined in the coming months. If a feasible pilot service can be developed, staff will return to the VTA Board with a proposal. 7.3.e Attachment F – Paratransit Service Impacts 1 Attachment F ‐ Paratransit Service Impacts Background The Americans with Disabilities Act requires transit agencies to provide paratransit service to areas within ¾ of a mile of a fixed‐route service while that service is in operation. VTA’s Paratransit Policy expands on the federal requirement, extending the paratransit service area an additional mile. Travelers heading to or from this extended service area pay a premium fare, $16 per ride, while those in the standard, ¾‐mile service area pay $4 per ride. Since paratransit service operates only when fixed‐ route service operates, the shape of the paratransit service area changes throughout the day which effects when some clients are able to make trips. There are three potential ways that paratransit clients could be impacted by changes to the transit network: Their home or destination falls outside paratransit service area Their home or destination changes from the standard service area to the extended service area, resulting in an increased fare The hours of service in which paratransit operates in their area changes Alameda County Impacts VTA’s paratransit service area includes portions of Fremont as VTA Routes 120, 140, 180 and 181 currently serve the Fremont BART Station. When BART service to Santa Clara County begins, VTA will no longer operate fixed‐route bus service in Alameda County. The Warm Springs‐to‐Santa Clara County portion of the BART alignment will be considered a VTA fixed‐route service and will affect the shape of the paratransit service area. As a result, VTA will still provide some paratransit service in Alameda County, but to a lesser extent than it does today. Travelers in Fremont are currently double‐covered by paratransit service as BART and AC Transit currently fund an East Bay Paratransit service that overlaps with VTA paratransit service. Trips that cross the county line that were previously served entirely by VTA paratransit will now require a coordinated transfer to/from East Bay Paratransit at the Milpitas BART Station or Warm Springs BART Station. Travelers making this trip would pay two fares—one for each leg of the trip. Impacts to Current Paratransit Trips VTA analyzed 142,471 paratransit trips taken between November 4 of 2016 and February 28 of 2017 as a representative sample to assess the impact of the transit network change on active paratransit clients. This analysis included the location of origins, destinations and the time of day of travel. Top line findings include: The homes of two active paratransit clients would move from being within the paratransit service area to outside the paratransit service area. This is due to the proposed discontinuance of Route 45 in the East San Jose Hills. These two clients accounted for two trips in the four‐ month sample period. 7.3.f Attachment F – Paratransit Service Impacts 2 The homes of 20 active paratransit clients would move from the standard service area to the extended service area. This is due to the proposed discontinuance of Route 45 and reduced hours of service on Route 88/288. These clients accounted for 586 trips during the four‐month sample period which is 0.4 percent of all paratransit trips taken in this period. 499 of 124,750 weekday trips would change from being entirely within the standard service area to having an origin or destination within the extended service area. This represents 0.4 percent of all weekday paratransit trips. 87 of 17,721 weekend trips would change from being entirely within the standard service area to having an origin or destination within the extended service area. This represents 0.1 percent of all weekend paratransit trips. Change in client home access to paratransit service area Home in Standard Service Area Home in Extended Service Area Home Outside of Service Area Total Current Service Area 6,673 134 0 6,807 Final Plan Service Area 6,651 154 2 6,807 Change to client home access to paratransit service area as percent Home in Standard Service Area Home in Extended Service Area Home Outside of Extended Service Area Total Current Service Area 98.0% 2.0% 0% 100% Final Plan Service Area 97.7% 2.2% 0.02% 100% The two clients whose homes would fall outside the service area accounted for two trips during the four‐month sample period. A client whose home is outside of the paratransit service area may still use paratransit service, provided that they travel into the service area. Change in weekday trip pattern Applied to 124,705 weekday trips taken between November 4, 2016 and February 28, 2017 Service Area to Service Area Impact to Client Number of Trips Percentage of Trips Standard to Standard No change 122,870 98.5% Extended to Extended No change 897 0.6% Standard to Extended Increased fare 499 0.4% Extended to Outside of Area Home outside of service area 2 0.0% Fremont to Santa Clara County EB Paratransit transfer 482 0.3% 7.3.f Attachment F – Paratransit Service Impacts 3 99.1 percent of weekday trips would not be affected by the transit network redesign. About half of the affected trips are due to the discontinuance of Route 45 in the East San Jose hills. The other half is due to the reduced hours of service on Route 42 (service ends at 6:30PM rather than 7:00PM) and Route 88 (midday service discontinued) that would push some trips from the standard area to the extended area for certain hours of the day. It is probable that many of these trips could be rescheduled for other times of the day or could serve a different but comparable destination (i.e. different shopping center) that is within the standard service area in order to avoid incurring the extended area fare. Change in weekday trip pattern by time of day Applied to 124,705 weekday trips taken between November 4, 2016 and February 28, 2017 Service Area to Service Area Impact to Client Number of Midday Trips Number of Non‐ Midday Trips Standard to Extended Increased fare 223 276 Extended to Outside of Area Home outside of service area 0 2 Fremont to Santa Clara County EB Paratransit transfer 212 282 Change in weekend trip pattern Applied to 17,766 weekend trips taken between November 4, 2016 and February 28, 2017 Service Area to Service Area Impact to Client Number of Trips Percentage of Trips Standard to Standard No change 17,198 96.8% Extended to Extended No change 327 1.8% Standard to Extended Increased fare 87 0.5% Extended to Standard Decreased fare 2 0.0% Fremont to Santa Clara County EB Paratransit transfer 152 0.8% 98.6 percent of weekend trips would not be affected by the transit network redesign. It is probable that the 0.5 percent of trips that would incur a higher fare could be rescheduled to other times of the day or could serve a different but comparable destination in order to avoid paying the extended area fare. Change in weekend trip pattern by day Applied to 17,766 weekend trips taken between November 4, 2016 and February 28, 2017 Service Area to Service Area Impact to Client Number of Saturday Trips Number of Sunday Trips Standard to Extended Increased fare 78 9 7.3.f Attachment F – Paratransit Service Impacts 4 Extended to Standard Decreased fare 1 1 Fremont to Santa Clara County EB Paratransit transfer 85 67 Increase in Paratransit Service Hours The extension of service hours on many fixed routes as well as the increase in weekend service levels will increase the hours of the day and days of the week in which paratransit clients will be able to use the service. As a result, VTA is projecting an increase of 21,110 annual paratransit trips which is about four percent more than are currently served. These additional trips are projected to increase VTA’s Operations budget by about $865,000 annually. 7.3.f Attachment F – Paratransit Service Impacts 5 7.3.f Attachment F – Paratransit Service Impacts 6 7.3.f Transit Service Equity Analysis For VTA’s Next Network Transit Service Plan Prepared for Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority By April 2017 Revised Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 1 7.3.g Table of Contents Overview ......................................................................................................................... 3 Title VI Requirements ................................................................................................. 3 VTA Title VI Policies .................................................................................................... 4 Service Equity Analysis Methodology Overview ................................................ 5 Data Used .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Service Area Demographics Overview .................................................................. 7 Ethnicity and Income ................................................................................................................................ 7 Next Network Overview ............................................................................................. 7 Next Network Characteristics ................................................................................................................... 8 Potential Benefits ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Potential Adverse Effects .......................................................................................................................... 9 Specific Route Considerations .................................................................................................................. 9 Next Network Public Outreach Phase 1 .............................................................. 10 Next Network Public Outreach Phase 2 .................................................................................................. 11 External Engagement .......................................................................................................................... 11 Marketing Collateral ........................................................................................................................... 11 Incorporation of Feedback into Final Transit Service Plan ......................... 12 Service Equity Analysis Findings .......................................................................... 14 Summary Findings ................................................................................................................................... 15 Analysis Results ....................................................................................................................................... 15 Appendix A: VTA Title VI and Environmental Justice Policies ................... 18 Appendix B: Matrix of Changes by Route .......................................................... 40 Appendix C: Matrix of Impacts by Route ........................................................... 45 Appendix D: Maps of Title VI Community Impacts ........................................ 48 Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 2 7.3.g Overview In 2016, Santa Clara Valley Transportation (VTA) undertook ways to redesign their transit network to make public transit faster, more frequent and more useful for Santa Clara County travelers. Called the “Next Network,” this transit service redesign is aimed at accomplishing three main goals: 1. Increase overall system ridership 2. Improve VTA’s farebox recovery rate 3. Better connect VTA’s transit network with future BART stations at Milpitas and Berryessa Throughout the summer of 2016, VTA sought community input on three network design concepts, along with transit network design priorities. After analyzing community input on the three plans, a draft network was released in January 2017 for public review which is based on the service plan recommended by the Board of Directors at their November 18, 2016 meeting. During an extensive six-week public outreach period, VTA held nine public meetings, five webinars and made public presentations to over 50 community based organizations and government agencies. Additionally, a website was developed specifically to aid riders in understanding the planning process and potential outcomes. Over 3,000 comments on the draft plan were also gathered by e-mail, social media and phone calls. Using this input, a final plan will be presented to VTA’s Board of Directors in May 2017. The changes are scheduled to take place when the two Santa Clara County BART stations open in late 2017. Key to the adoption and implementation of the Next Network is a Title VI Service Equity Analysis that is aimed at assessing whether the service restructuring plan will result in negative impacts to minority and/or low-income communities. Using VTA Title VI policies, the Service Equity Analysis is the subject of this memo. As set forth in this report, the proposed adoption of the Next Network service plan will not disproportionately burden low-income communities nor have a disparate impact on minority communities. Rather, the analysis shows that both populations will bear less than their proportional share of the service losses associated with the Next Network proposed final plan. Title VI Requirements Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 601 states: “No persons in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 3 7.3.g It is VTA’s objective to avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations. As a recipient of financial assistance from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), VTA is required to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by evaluating service and fare changes at the planning and programming stages to determine whether those changes have discriminatory impacts, including Disparate Impacts on minority populations and/or Disproportionate Burdens on low-income populations. According to the Federal Department of Transportation, equity in the provision of transit service is described as "providing equal levels of service to minority and non-minority residents of the urbanized area. Levels of service, in turn, are defined in terms of capital allocation and accessibility."1 The metrics of discrimination that could be monitored for disparate treatment include service design that could consistently cause minority-group riders to experience less service than the overall riding public. Despite being an FTA requirement, a Title VI Equity Analysis should not replace good program planning, which should be an on-going process that considers equity among other factors when designing fare changes, service changes, or discretionary policies and programs. VTA Title VI Policies In 2012, FTA issued guidance under FTA Circular 4702.1B (Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients), and Circular 4703.1 (Environmental Justice Policy Guidance for Federal Transit Administration Recipients) that requires large transit agencies to develop policies for when they are contemplating either service or fare changes. In order to comply with the guidance, on November 7, 2013, the VTA Board adopted the VTA Major Service Change, Disparate Impact, and Disproportionate Burden policies for the evaluation of service and fare changes. The Policies established a definition of what would constitute a “major” service change to require an equity analysis, in addition to establishing a statistical threshold to determine whether minority and low-income riders are disproportionately impacted by the service changes. Prior to adoption, these Policies were the subject of extensive public outreach and engagement. The VTA policies are included as Appendix A, including a description of the public outreach efforts related to the establishment of the policies. These policies define what constitutes a “major” service change and therefore requires a service equity analysis: establishing of new routes, elimination of routes, a change that impacts 25% or more of a route’s miles or hours, a series of changes over time that would cumulatively become major changes, controversial changes, or a systemwide change that impacts 5% or more of the total system hours. The 1 Transit Cooperative Research Program, Legal Research Digest: “The Impact of Civil Rights Litigation Under Title VI and Related Laws on Transit Decision Making”, TCRP Project J-5, Washington, D.C. June 1997 Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 4 7.3.g policy states that for service and fare equity analyses, a disparate impact (and disproportionate burden) threshold of 10 percent shall be used to determine if minority and/or low income riders are more negatively affected by the proposed change, when compared to VTA riders as a whole. The 10 percent threshold applies to the difference in the aggregate impacts of the proposed change on minority and low income riders compared to the aggregate impacts on the overall VTA ridership. While the policies state that the analyses shall be based on VTA passenger data, the analyses can also be based on census data if survey data is inadequate or unavailable for the analysis. Prior to adopting a service change, VTA must conduct a service equity analysis and analyze specific elements of the proposed plan to determine whether the changes would result in impacts that exceed the threshold established by the policies. The analysis contained within this report uses the VTA adopted thresholds for determining Disproportionate Burden and Disparate Impacts. Should the service equity analysis show that the proposed service change results in a disparate impact or disproportionate burden, alternatives should be considered to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the discriminatory results of the service change. However, if the mitigations do not minimize adverse effects, the equity analysis must demonstrate a substantial legitimate justification and it must be demonstrated that there were no comparably effective alternatives that would result in fewer adverse impacts. Service Equity Analysis Methodology Overview Using the guidance provided in VTA’s Title VI Policies to quantitatively assess the impacts associated with the proposed service restructuring on minority and low-income populations, it is necessary to use data that would capture the systemwide change that the Next Network presents. This allows an analysis that can better isolate minority and low income rider populations that may be affected by the transition and compare them to the overall affected population. The methodology to perform this service equity analysis was designed per the checklist provided as Appendix K of the FTA’s October 2012 4702.1B Circular (Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients). Typically, VTA uses passenger survey data to assess the impacts of service changes. However, because the network redesign envisions a large number of service changes (route alignments, frequency changes, route additions and deletions), using passenger data for the analysis would not accurately quantify the impacts. As a result, this Service Equity Analysis is based on Census block group demographic data from a service planning tool called Remix to help assess impacts associated with proposed changes on a systemwide basis. Remix is a proprietary geospatial data analysis tool that uses Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping software that is customized specifically for VTA. Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 5 7.3.g Both the existing network and the proposed network were imported into Remix (including service frequencies, spans of service, and days of the week) along with census block group demographic data depicting minority and low income populations as a way of calculating the population’s access to transit under the existing network and the proposed network. This spatial data analysis tool produces “people trips” (total population served by a route X annual scheduled trips on that route) that present a surrogate for how individuals can benefit from a route. “People trips” are a measurement of the number of residents that are served by transit and the amount of service that is available to them. For each route, People Trips are calculated by multiplying the number of residents who live within ¼-mile of a stop by the total number of annual vehicle trips provided on that route based on its frequency and span of service. A route that runs frequently through densely populated areas would show a high number of People Trips. A route that runs infrequently through low density areas would reflect a much lower number of People Trips. Minority and low income People Trips may also be calculated by using minority or low income population figures in place of total population. Using the Remix outputs, the Service Equity Analysis compares the change in Total People Trips to the change in Minority People Trips and to Low Income People Trips. This way, the aggregate impacts on the total population can be compared to the impacts experienced by both minority and low income populations to determine if a Disparate Impact or Disproportionate Burden exists. If the percentage change between All People Trips and Minority People Trips is greater than 10%, that would suggest that the service change would result in Disparate Impacts on minority populations. Further, if the percentage change between All People Trips and Low Income People Trips is greater than 10%, that would suggest that the service change would result in a Disproportionate Burden to low income populations. A change of less than 0% (any negative percentage) would indicate that the service change would have a greater benefit low income and/or minority populations as compared to overall ridership. Data Used Remix is based on Census data provided by the US American Community Survey, 2009-2013. The Service Area consists of a set of Census block groups (and its underlying data) determined by the route design provided by VTA staff. The following data definitions were used: Minority status of the block groups is determined by subtracting the white, non-Hispanic population from the total population. Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 6 7.3.g Low income status is set at 200% the US poverty level, based on VTA’s definition of “low income” as referenced in the adopted VTA Title VI program. Service Area Demographics Overview The following provides an overview of the VTA Service Area population based on the 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Sample, which corresponds to the data set used for the Remix analysis. These demographic statistics were considered early and often in the development of the service recommendations in order to minimize or avoid the potential for changes to result in a Disproportionate Burden on low-income populations or Disparate Impacts on minority populations. Minority and Income Status Minority and Income Status are the primary considerations within the Service Equity Analysis. To determine the Service Area population’s minority and income profile, data from the American Community Survey was used for the block groups used in the Remix equity Analysis. The following Figures 1 and 2 provide a service area overview on minority and income status. Figure 1: Service Area Income Status Figure 3: Service Area Minority Status Source: 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-year Sample Next Network Overview The Transit Ridership Improvement Program is a two-year study of Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) services designed to identify ways to improve ridership. A key output of this study, the 2017 Next Network Plan, has reviewed the structure of the VTA transit network and proposed 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 changes required to integrate BART into the VTA network. The need for this study arose from two converging factors—falling ridership and population growth—that pose important new questions for transportation in Santa Clara County. Non Low Income 76% Low Income 24% Minority 65% Non- Minority 35% Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 7 7.3.g Identifying the appropriate service allocation between services geared toward increasing ridership and those geared toward ensuring geographic coverage was the essential first step in the design of the new transit network. Currently, 70 percent of VTA’s operating budget is spent on ridership-purposed routes; that is, those that travel through dense, walkable, transit-supportive places. 30 percent is spent on coverage-purposed routes that provide transit access to parts of the county with little regard for ridership demand. Three scenarios were studied during the last year: 70/30—70% of the service would be allocated to areas that would generate ridership, while 30% would be allocated for the purpose of geographic coverage. 80/20—80% of the service allocated to ridership-purposed service and 20% allocated to coverage purposed service 90/10—90% of the service allocated to ridership-purposed service and 10% allocated to coverage purposed service. Throughout the last year, VTA staff and consultants have sought input on concepts and plans studied under the Next Network in order to develop a service plan that addresses the concerns of the Authority and meets the needs of the riders. On November 18th, 2016 the VTA Board directed staff to design a draft transit network employing an 85/15 balance between ridership purposed and coverage-purposed services. Following a second outreach phase collecting input on this “85/15” draft service plan, staff made changes to produce a final plan. This final plan is the subject of this Service Equity Analysis. Next Network Characteristics The Next Network has proposed both service eliminations as well as service and frequency increases on the VTA proposed network. Due to the comprehensive nature of the changes that are included the proposed 85/15 Next Network, a large number of existing VTA riders may be impacted in both positive and negative ways. Some of the systemwide benefits and adverse effects that may result are included below. Potential Benefits Shorter Travel Times—Riders with access to the high frequency network may see reductions in their travel times due to increased service frequency, shorter wait times, and more direct routes. Increased Service Reliability—As a result of the frequency improvements on VTA’s more productive transit corridors, buses will be more frequent, which means that recovery time will be easier to schedule. If a passenger misses a bus, they know that another one will be arriving shortly. Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 8 7.3.g Better Connections—As a result of the frequency improvements on VTA’s more productive transit corridors, buses will be coming more often, which means that transfers will be much easier to complete and riders will have more freedom to move throughout the network. Increased Off-Peak Service—In order to increase overall ridership, the network recognizes the importance of improving service during mid-day, evening and weekend periods. By adding off- peak service, riders will have more options for trips during these periods than what is available with the existing network. Better Regional Mobility—The extension of BART to Milpitas and Berryessa will greatly strengthen the regional transportation network and provide additional mobility alternatives for individuals travelling between Santa Clara County and the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area. The overall increase in mobility will allow passengers to access employment, education, and commercial opportunities that were not previously available. Potential Adverse Effects Reduced Access to Transit Service in Low-Density Areas—Some of the outlying, low-density areas that are currently served by low frequency routes would no longer have access to transit service. As additional resources are invested in the more productive core routes that make up the high frequency network, many of the less productive routes would be reduced or eliminated and the individuals in those areas would no longer have access to transit service. Longer Walk Times—As a result of eliminating some routes, some existing riders may need to travel further distances to get to the nearest bus route. In some cases, the bus route that is further away will be running with more frequent service so the overall travel time may be comparable. Per VTA’s Major Service Change policy, a service equity analysis is required for both the draft (85/15) and final Next Network service plans, as both plans involve a complete redesign of the transit network and would impact more than 5 percent of the system’s service hours (the threshold established by the policy). Appendix B shows a comprehensive list of the final service plan’s proposed changes by route. Conducting a Service Equity Analysis is a necessary and useful component of this implementation, as it identifies equity concerns early in the planning process so that potential negative impacts can be mitigated. Specific Route Considerations While the Next Network proposes significant service increases on some routes, there are also service eliminations and consolidations that have been included in the network for areas with low population density and/or absent a tendency to use public transit. In some cases, productive portions of routes have been assigned to other routes to render useful service. Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 9 7.3.g VTA’s twelve Express routes were not studied as part of this project, except for the routes that currently service Fremont BART. As the only VTA routes that provide service outside of Santa Clara County, the four Express routes that currently serve Fremont BART will be discontinued with the BART Phase 1 (Milpitas and Berryessa) extension. Next Network Public Outreach Phase 1 Due to the potential scale of changes to the transit network that could be considered as part of the Next Network Plan, VTA started the process of reimagining the transit network by seeking public input on how transit could be improved. A five month long community engagement process was conducted from May 2016 through September 2016 designed to collect feedback on how VTA could make its transit service better. VTA held 12 Community Meetings (VTA staff-led) and four intensive Community Leader Workshops (led by Jarrett Walker and Associates) for during the first phase of outreach. Additionally, VTA staff made 15 presentations to community and neighborhood groups. For online outreach, 104,000 unique visits were recorded to the project website. VTA collected 2,236 votes in online surveys, 1,139 social media interactions and 860 email list subscribers. Staff posted 12 blog posts that each generated dozens of public comments and staff responses. 150 Next Network-related comments were received through VTA’s customer service line. In all, over 5,000 points of public input were received during the first outreach phase-more than halfway to staff’s goal of receiving 10,000 points of input throughout the entire project. Extensive communication to Limited English Proficient populations was also undertaken, which corresponded to VTA’s Language Assistance Plan. The comments received followed many common themes: Concerns over personal impacts of service changes on mobility—How will those who might see their transit service decreased or discontinued get around? Desires for more frequent and reliable transit service—With many routes operating at 30- minutes frequencies or less, transit is not a viable option for many who live within the core service area. Desires to lower the average rider subsidy by decreasing or discontinuing transit service to low- ridership areas. Desires to see public transit as a traffic congestion solution Desires to improve connections with regional services like Caltrain and future BART service A sense that transit did not go where riders wanted to go or that making one’s trip would be indirect or require lengthy transfers Recognition of the challenge of operating transit in low-density, suburban areas Concerns for the mobility of an aging population Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 10 7.3.g Next Network Public Outreach Phase 2 Public outreach has continued following the Board’s recommendation to study the Next Network 85/15 plan. The following is a summary of the second outreach phase on the Next Network, conducted during January and February 2017. External Engagement 2,500+ incoming public comments collected via phone, e-mail and specialized microsite https://nextnetwork.vta.org, with information on the site mirrored in English, Spanish, Chinese and Vietnamese. Nine public meetings held thus far resulted in: o Average attendance = 46; o Total attendance = 421 16 videos (2 live streamed meetings, 5 geographically-focused webinars, 8 college-focused videos) – key metrics include: 4,300 views 111 live viewers 25,700 hours of watch time 250 comments 45 thumbs-up and 75 shares Countywide Title VI mailing to 150 organizations Targeted South County Title VI mailing to 80 organizations Community presentations include: Saratoga Senior Center, SJ District 1 Leadership Council, SPUR, Transform, Gunn High School PTA, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, Hope Services, Centennial Recreation Senior Center (Morgan Hill), Traffic Safe Communities Network among others Outreach to Community Based Organizations, offering presentations/literature for distribution Educational Institution Transit Fairs: San Jose State, De Anza, SCU, City College Multilingual Street Team ambassadors deployed in the field at major transit hubs for 10 days; reach was over 3,300 individuals. Marketing Collateral Car cards translated in 5 languages on all vehicles Proposed discontinued route flyers distributed on affected bus lines Bus Stop signage at proposed deleted stations Light Rail Station and Bus Shelter Posters Passenger Information Message Signs on light rail platforms Bus Bench Ads Special Take Ones (passenger newsletter translated in 5 languages with a proposed service map) on board buses and at major literature distribution points Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 11 7.3.g Two rounds of print newspaper ads in 24 publications targeting community and minority publications including: San Jose Mercury News, Silicon Valley Community Newspapers, Metro Newspapers, Gilroy Dispatch/Morgan Hill Times, El Observador, Sing Tao, Philippine News, Korea Daily, Thoi Bao/Vietnam Daily News, Palo Alto Daily Newspaper, Santa Clara Weekly, Evergreen/Almaden Times Aggressive social media (Twitter, Facebook, Gov Delivery, Next Door) campaign promoting meetings and webinars The outreach effort for the Draft Transit Service Plan yielded over 3,000 comments about the components of the Draft Transit Service Plan. These comments were often specific and detailed and focused on several themes: Consensus that VTA’s ridership and farebox metrics were compelling reasons to make changes in the design of the transit network. Endorsement of the idea that increasing access of residents and jobs to frequent (15-minute or better, all-day) service would make transit a more viable travel option for more Santa Clara County travelers. Endorsement of more Rapid routes, particularly Rapid 523 in Sunnyvale and Cupertino. Support for the Core Connectivity Project, which seeks to identify new ways of providing mobility in areas that are a poor fit for a fixed-route transit service such as contributing funds to city-operated shuttle programs or subsidizing on-demand trips in areas without fixed-route service. Concern for those who lose access to any transit service, particularly in Almaden Valley, South San Jose, East San Jose Hills Saratoga, Cupertino, Los Gatos and Fremont. Routes 37, 45, 53, 65, 82, 88, 89, 120, and 181, which were proposed to be discontinued or have decreased levels of service were the subject of many comments. Concern about the impact to paratransit users whose homes or destinations would fall outside of the paratransit service area or into the premium fare zone if fixed-route services along the periphery of the transit network are discontinued. Interest in how VTA can better meet the needs of senior citizens. A compendium of all comments on the Draft Transit Service Plan can be downloaded at nextnetwork.vta.org. Incorporation of Feedback into Final Transit Service Plan After reviewing all of the input received during the outreach phases, staff developed a Final Transit Service Plan that made 34 changes to the Draft Transit Service Plan, including retaining service to some areas where discontinuances had been proposed such as Almaden Valley, Palo Alto, Cupertino, Saratoga and Campbell, among others. In response to public feedback, the Final Transit Service Plan employs an 83/17 ridership/coverage balance, compared to the draft plan’s 85/15 balance. The following bullets briefly discuss elements of the Draft Transit Service Plan that received a high level of community input and the resulting staff recommendations for the Final Transit Service Plan. Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 12 7.3.g Cupertino/Saratoga - De Anza Boulevard/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Current Route 53) Recommendation: Continue service in this corridor by extending Route 51 south of De Anza College. San Jose - Leigh Avenue (Route 65) Recommendation: Retain service on Route 65 and decrease frequency from 30-minute service level to 60-minute service level. Los Gatos/Campbell (Current Routes 48 and 49) Recommendation: Operate Route 27 on Main Street in Downtown Los Gatos as well as Hacienda Avenue and Knowles Drive to service Los Gatos El Camino Hospital and Lost Gatos High School. San Jose - Downtown (Current DASH)/Rapid 500 Recommendation: Retain the Draft Transit Service Plan’s recommendation to upgrade the DASH to the Rapid 500 and add a Rapid 500 stop at Almaden Avenue. Fremont/Sunnyvale (Route 120) Recommendation: Given the extension of BART to Santa Clara County and compelling needs for transit service inside Santa Clara County, staff does not recommend retaining Route 120 in the Final Transit Service Plan. Fremont/San Jose (Route 181) Recommendation: Given the extension of BART to Santa Clara County, alternate ways of making the trip by transit, and compelling needs for transit service inside Santa Clara County, staff does not recommend retaining Route 181. Palo Alto - Gunn High School (Current Route 88) Recommendation: Provide a new Route 288 service during school bell times, with an additional after school trip to accommodate students involved in extracurricular activities. Discontinue Route 88. Palo Alto - Veterans Hospital (Route 89) Recommendation: Retain Route 89 as it exists today to provide hospital access for veterans. San Jose - East Hills (Current Route 45) Recommendation: Retain the Draft Service Plan’s recommendation to discontinue Route 45. VTA will offer to provide a van for use by the patrons of the Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility. San Jose - Mineta San Jose Airport (Current Route 10) Recommendation: Due to the inability to enforce whether riders who board at non-airport stops are traveling to the airport, only provide free boardings at airport terminals. Non-airport terminal boardings require a standard fare. Campbell/San Jose - Hamilton/Pine (Current Route 82) Recommendation: Discontinue Route 82 and retain transit service along Hamilton Avenue/Pine Avenue corridor by rerouting Route 56. Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 13 7.3.g Gilroy (Current Routes 14, 17 and 19) Recommendation: Discontinue routes 14, 17 and 19 and replace them with a loop route, which will be named Route 85. Campbell/San Jose/Saratoga (Current Route 37) Recommendation: Retain Route 37 at a 60-minute frequency service level rather than a 30-minute service level. The portion of Route 37 that exhibits the greatest demand (from West Valley College to the Light Rail Line between Mountain View and Winchester) will be supplemented by Route 26, which offers 30-minute service. Cupertino/Los Altos - Foothill and De Anza Colleges Recommendation: Due to insufficient demand, discontinue this service. San Jose - Forest Avenue (Current Route 23, new Route 59) Recommendation: Retain the Draft Transit Service Plan’s recommendation to keep Route 23 on Stevens Creek, and extend Route 59 from its terminus at the Santa Clara Caltrain Station to serve Forest Avenue via Lafayette. Sunnyvale - Civic Center (Current Route 54) Recommendations: Discontinue service on Route 54 along Olive Avenue. Sunnyvale - Fair Oaks Avenue (Route 55) Recommendation: Retain the Draft Transit Service Plan’s recommendation of removing the Route 55 deviation that serves the Fair Oaks/Remington area. The volume and proximity of other transit services in the area (routes 22, 55, 522 and 523) provide adequate connectivity in all travel directions. San Jose - Almaden Valley (Current Routes 13, 63, 64, 328 and 330) Recommendation: Extend Route 64, which currently terminates at Almaden Light Rail Station, to Camden Avenue and retain Route 13 (renamed to Route 83) with modifications to better serve the Almaden Community Center and shopping plazas at the intersection of Blossom Hill Road and Almaden Expressway. Additionally, VTA will explore an on-demand pilot service in Almaden Valley. In summary, the extensive feedback received helped staff to create a better final transit service plan that minimizes adverse impacts and maximizes benefits. (Appendix B shows revisions made to the draft plan.) Service Equity Analysis Findings The planning process to develop the draft and final plans thoughtfully considered Title VI and Environmental Justice impacts on protected communities. Understanding the impact that plans, programs or projects have on minority and low-income communities has been part of the early planning and development process for the Next Network. Equity “check-in” analyses also occurred at various stages in the process. While a Service Equity Analysis may uncover impacts to protected populations, if the needs of the agency have been matched with the needs of the low income and minority Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 14 7.3.g communities, an Equity Analysis can also demonstrate that the agency has listened to the community and addressed their major concerns. Summary Findings Using the impact thresholds established under the VTA Title VI and Environmental Justice policies and based on a Service Equity Analysis performed on the proposed final Next Network service plan, the network changes would not impose a disparate impact on minority populations or a disproportionate burden on low income populations. Analysis Results Based on the Remix data, the final Next Network service plan will result in a reduction of approximately 519 million People Trips annually. This represents a little less than a 2% reduction (-1.70%). It should be noted that this magnitude of change falls well below the margin of error. Additionally, though the BART extension will increase access to jobs and residents, the analysis methodology shows a decrease in people trips because of two factors: 1) the increase in service to the areas surrounding the two BART stations means few new people trips because the station areas were sparsely-populated per the 2009-2013 Census data, and 2) the service provided by the BART extension itself, including connections throughout the entire BART system, are not reflected because the extension will not be operated directly by VTA. Minority populations will fare slightly better under the service plan than the overall population, and experience only 1.44% reduction in People Trips. The Difference between Minority Impacts to All Impacts is negligible at 0.26%. This does not represent a Disparate Impact using the 10% threshold established in the VTA policies. Table 1 presents the impacts experienced by the total population and the minority population expressed in People Trips. Table 1: Disparate Impact Analysis Additionally, low income populations will also experience fewer impacts when compared to the overall population under the final Next Network service plan, with a net reduction to Low Income People Trips of 0.67%. This also does not represent a Disproportionate Burden using the 10% threshold established by the VTA policies. Table 2, below, presents the impacts experienced by the total population and the low income population expressed in People Trips. People Trips Net change to Existing % Change People Trips Net change to Existing % Change Existing Network 31,126,194,325 22,335,385,235 Proposed Network 30,606,506,800 -519,687,525 -1.70%22,019,054,671 -316,330,564 -1.44%0.26%NO People Trips (Total) People Trips (Minority)Difference of Minority Impacts to Total Impacts Exceed 10% DI Threshold Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 15 7.3.g Table 2: Disproportionate Burden Analysis Appendix C presents a matrix showing route-by-route and overall impacts of the proposed Next Network service plan: The green columns reflect current service levels, including the total population living within ¼- mile of each route, the percent of that population reported as low income in the applicable block groups, the percent of that population reported as minority in the applicable block groups, and the amount of service provided by the route measured as annual bus trips. The blue columns set forth the same demographic and service level details under the proposed final Next Network service plan. The light grey columns show the gain or loss of service by calculating the population within ¼- mile of each route times the number of trips deleted from or added to the service schedule. The first dark grey or red columns show what percent of the added or lost trips is borne by low- income populations. The cell is dark grey when the percentage is equal to or less than 23.5%, the system-wide low-income population; the cell is red when the percentage is higher than 23.5%. The second dark grey or red columns show what percent of the lost or added trips is borne by minority populations. The cell is dark grey when the percentage is equal to or less than 65.3%, the system-wide minority population; the cell is red when the percentage is higher than 65.3%. The last line of the appendix shows systemwide information, reflecting the cumulative impacts across all routes. The table at the bottom of the matrix shows that the low-income population is expected to bear 12.3% of the total service loss, which is 11.2% less than the percentage of low-income people in the service area, meaning that the service losses will be borne less than proportionally by the low-income population. The minority population is expected to bear 60.9% of the total service loss, which is 4.5% less than the percentage of minority people in the service area, meaning that the service losses will be borne less than proportionally by the minority population. Taken together, these results indicate that low income and minority populations would actually receive a greater than proportional share of the benefits of the proposed final Next Network service plan. Maps showing the changes by low income and minority populations are Appendix D. As an additional support to this analysis, we also viewed the difference between the impacts borne by minority and low income populations compared to the overall percentage of minority and low income People Trips Net change to Existing % Change People Trips Net change to Existing % Change Existing Network 31,126,194,325 9,597,124,302 Proposed Network 30,606,506,800 -519,687,525 -1.70%9,533,081,271 -64,043,031 -0.67%1.03%NO People Trips (Total) People Trip (Low Income)Difference of Low Income Impacts to Total Impacts Exceed 10% DB Threshold Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 16 7.3.g populations within the service area. While this does not take into consideration the difference between the aggregate change between the total population impacts and the minority or low income population impacts that is required for the Service Equity Analysis, it does provide a touchstone to determine how well the impacts borne by the two populations compare to the overall minority and low income populations in the Service Area. As a result of this analysis, it appears that both low income and minority populations that experience the impacts are less than the overall population within the service area. For the low income populations, the impacts are a little more than half of the low income population in the area. Table 3 provides this analysis. Table 3: Impacts “Borne” by Low Income and Minority Populations Low Income Minority Impact Borne By: 12.3% 60.9% Service Area Average: 23.5% 65.3% Difference: -11.2% -4.5% As previously stated, Title VI and Environmental Justice impacts on protected communities were considered as part of the planning process to develop the draft and final plans. Because the impacts to minority and low-income communities were considered early in the planning and development process for the Next Network, VTA was able to bridge the needs of the agency with the needs of the low income and minority populations, and develop a service plan that has minimal system-wide impacts to both populations. Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 17 7.3.g Appendix A: VTA Title VI and Environmental Justice Policies Public Outreach for Title VI and Environmental Justice Policies In the development of the Major Service Change, Disparate Impact, and Disproportionate Burden policies, VTA solicited input from the community, including low-income, minority, and limited English proficient populations which are traditionally underrepresented in the transit decision-making process. A community outreach plan was implemented to provide the public with multiple opportunities to learn about the proposed policies and provide feedback. The proposed policies below were emailed to more than 30 community-based organizations, transit advocates, and other grassroots organizations to obtain feedback. Additionally, VTA presented the policies at the Refugee and Immigrant Forum and held a meeting at its River Oaks administrative office. Comments could be made by calling or sending emails to VTA Customer Service. VTA also informed the public of free language assistance available to persons who are limited English proficient. Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 18 7.3.g Resolution for Board Adoption of Major Service Change, Disparate Impact, and Disporportionate Burden Policies VTA Title VI Program 1RYHPEHU Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 19 7.3.g From:Baltao, Elaine To:Board.Secretary; Subject:November 7, 2013 Board of Directors Meeting Date:Friday, November 08, 2013 1:06:27 PM The VTA Board of Directors met last night and took the following actions: Removed from agenda: Item #3.4 – TAEA labor contract Approved all remaining items on the Consent and Regular Agenda. The Board of Directors adjourned the meeting in memory of VTA Employee, Anita Jacobson. Office of the Board Secretary Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 N. First Street San Jose, CA 95134 408.321.5680 board.secretary@vta.org Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 20 7.3.g BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Thursday, November 7, 2013 5:30 PM Board of Supervisors’ Chambers County Government Center 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, CA 95110 **REVISED AGENDA** 3331 North First Street ∙ San Jose, CA 95134-1927 ∙ Administration 408.321.5555 ∙ Customer Service 408.321.2300 To help you better understand, follow, and participate in the meeting, the following information is provided: Persons wishing to address the Board of Directors on any item on the agenda or not on the agenda should complete a blue card located at the public information table and hand it to the Board Secretary staff prior to the meeting or before the item is heard. Speakers will be called to address the Board when their agenda item(s) arise during the meeting and are asked to limit their comments to 2 minutes. The amount of time allocated to speakers may vary at the Chairperson's discretion depending on the number of speakers and length of the agenda. If presenting handout materials, please provide 25 copies to the Board Secretary for distribution to the Board of Directors. The Consent Agenda items may be voted on in one motion at the beginning of the meeting under Orders of the Day. If you wish to discuss any of these items, please request the item be removed from the Consent Agenda by completing a blue card at the public information table and handing it to the Board Secretary staff prior to Orders of the Day, Agenda Item #1.2. **Changes from previous version: - Agenda Item #7.7- 2014 STIP Program Adoption requires 2/3 vote - Agenda language updated for Agenda Item #8.2 –Santa Clara Alum Rock Bus Rapid Transit Project- Civil and Station Improvements Contract, to reflect the recommended contractor and contract amount. Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 21 7.3.g AGENDA VTA Board of Directors Thursday, November 7, 2013 Page 2 of 6 Disclosure of Campaign Contributions to Board Members (Government Code Section 84308) In accordance with Government Code Section 84308, no VTA Board Member shall accept, solicit, or direct a contribution of more than $250 from any party, or his or her agent, or from any participant, or his or her agent, while a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use is pending before the agency. Any Board Member who has received a contribution within the preceding 12 months in an amount of more than $250 from a party or from any agent or participant shall disclose that fact on the record of the proceeding and shall not make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his or her official position to influence the decision. A party to a proceeding before VTA shall disclose on the record of the proceeding any contribution in an amount of more than $250 made within the preceding 12 months by the party, or his or her agent, to any Board Member. No party, or his or her agent, shall make a contribution of more than $250 to any Board Member during the proceeding and for three months following the date a final decision is rendered by the agency in the proceeding. The foregoing statements are limited in their entirety by the provisions of Section 84308 and parties are urged to consult with their own legal counsel regarding the requirements of the law. 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 our website, www.vta.org, and also at the meeting. Any document distributed less than 72-hours prior to the meeting will also be made available to the public at the time of distribution. Copies of items provided by members of the public at the meeting will be made available following the meeting upon request. 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 : board.secretary@vta.org or (408) 321-2330 (TTY only). VTA’s home page is on the web at: www.vta.org or visit us on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/scvta. (408) 321-2300: 中文 / Español / 日本語 / 한국어 / tiếng Việt / Tagalog. NOTE: THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAY ACCEPT, REJECT OR MODIFY ANY ACTION RECOMMENDED ON THIS AGENDA. 70 West Hedding St., San Jose, California is served by bus lines *61, 62, 66, 181, and Light Rail. (*61 Southbound last trip is at 8:55 pm for this location.) For trip planning information, contact our Customer Service Department at (408) 321-2300 between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. Schedule information is also available on our website, www.vta.org. Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 22 7.3.g AGENDA VTA Board of Directors Thursday, November 7, 2013 Page 3 of 6 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 1.1. ROLL CALL 1.2. Orders of the Day - approve Consent Agenda (Item #7) 2. AWARDS AND COMMENDATION 2.1. INFORMATION ITEM -Recognize Maria Luisa Sanchez-Ku, Human Resources Analyst, River Oaks Administration; Ronald Langston, Coach Operator, Chaboya Division; and Jose Hernandez, Senior Track Worker, Guadalupe Division, as Employees of the Month for November 2013. 3. CLOSED SESSION 3.1. Recess to Closed Session A. Existing Litigation - Conference with Legal Counsel [Government Code Section 54956.9(a)] Name of Case: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority v. Eastridge Shopping Center (Eminent Domain) (Santa Clara Superior Court Case No.: 1-11-CV-209524) B. Existing Litigation - Conference with Legal Counsel [Government Code Section 54956.9(a)] Name of Case: Truck Rail Handling, Inc., et al. v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, et al. (Alameda County Superior Court Case No.: RG12628077) C. Anticipated Litigation - Conference with Legal Counsel Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). Number of potential cases: 1 Name of potential opposing party: Union Pacific D. Anticipated Litigation - Conference with Legal Counsel Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b). Number of potential cases: 1 E. Conference with Labor Negotiators [Government Code Section 54957.6] VTA Designated Representatives Bill Lopez, Chief Administrative Officer Robert L. Escobar, Deputy Director, Administrative Services Joseph Smith, Chief Financial Officer Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 23 7.3.g AGENDA VTA Board of Directors Thursday, November 7, 2013 Page 4 of 6 Employee Organizations Transportation Authority Engineers and Architects Association (TAEA), IFPTE, Local 21 3.2. Reconvene to Open Session 3.3. Closed Session Report 3.4. ACTION ITEM - Approve and authorize the General Manager to execute the amended successor labor agreement negotiated between the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Transportation Authority Engineers and Architects Association (TAEA), IFPTE, Local 21. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Board of Directors on any item within the Board's jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to 2 minutes. The law does not permit Board action or extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Board 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS There are no public hearings. 6. REPORTS 6.1. Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Chairperson's Report. (Verbal Report) (Brownley) 6.2. Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairperson's Report. (Verbal Report) (Price) 6.3. General Manager Report. (Verbal Report) 6.3.A. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) Program Update. 6.3.B. Receive updates regarding Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and California Transportation Commission (CTC) activities. 6.4. Chairperson's Report. (Verbal Report) 7. CONSENT AGENDA 7.1. Approve the Board of Directors Workshop Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2013. Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 24 7.3.g AGENDA VTA Board of Directors Thursday, November 7, 2013 Page 5 of 6 7.2. Approve the Board of Directors Regular Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2013. 7.3. ACTION ITEM -Review and accept the Fiscal Year 2013 Quarterly Statement of Revenues and Expenses for the period ending June 30, 2013. 7.4. ACTION ITEM -Revise the VTA Permit Policy to authorize the General Manager to waive fees for parties making transit improvements for VTA and adopt a resolution amending the VTA Permit Fee Schedule, adjusting fees to be collected for Construction Access Permits and Restricted Access Permits to be consistent with the revision of VTA allocated rates. 7.5. ACTION ITEM -Adopt the 2013 VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP). 7.6. ACTION ITEM -Approve the allocation of $5,460,000 of Local Program Reserve (LPR) to: SR 680 Corridor Study $250,000 I-280 Corridor Study $250,000 I-280/Winchester Blvd Off-Ramp $250,000 US 101 Auxiliary Lanes Project $260,000 and SR 237, SR 85 and US 101 Express Lanes $4,450,000 7.7. ACTION ITEM -Adopt a resolution to program 2014 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) capacity to projects; approve a funding exchange of $14.5 million in STIP funds for $14.5 million in Measure A funds; increase the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Fund Capital Budget by $14.5 million; and authorize the General Manager to execute appropriate funding agreements to receive STIP funds. Note: Motion must be approved by at least 2/3 of the Board (8 members). 7.8. ACTION ITEM -Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with GECMS Inc. dba Gyeron Construction, the second lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $337,400 for the construction of Pedestrian Swing Gates Replacement, and relieve the low bidder of its obligation to perform the contract. 7.9. ACTION ITEM -Review and receive the Auditor General's internal audit report on Investment Program Controls. 7.10. ACTION ITEM -Approve the following Internal Audit Work Plans developed and recommended by the VTA Auditor General: 1. Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 for a maximum amount of $358,800. This item replaces the Interim FY 2014 Internal Audit Work Plan approved by the Board on June 6, 2013 for a maximum amount of $290,500. 2. FY 2015 for a maximum amount of $364,500. 7.11. ACTION ITEM -Review and receive the Auditor General's report on the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Program Project Delivery Method and Project Execution Assessment. Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 25 7.3.g AGENDA VTA Board of Directors Thursday, November 7, 2013 Page 6 of 6 7.12. ACTION ITEM -Review and receive the Auditor General's report on the Sheriff's Office Contract Compliance Internal Audit. 7.13. INFORMATION ITEM -Review the Monthly Legislative History Matrix. 7.14. INFORMATION ITEM -Review VTA's adopted Sound Barrier Program. 7.15. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive a status update on implementation of the VTA Integrity Helpline. 8. REGULAR AGENDA 8.1. ACTION ITEM -Adopt the proposed Major Service Change, Disparate Impact and Disproportionate Burden Policies and the System-wide Service Standards & Policies as mandated by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Title VI guidelines. 8.2. ACTION ITEM -Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with Goodfellow Top Grade, the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $54,163,685 for the construction of the Santa Clara Alum Rock Bus Rapid Transit Project - Civil and Station Improvements. 9. OTHER ITEMS 9.1. ITEMS OF CONCERN AND REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION 9.2. Reports from VTA Committees, Joint Powers Boards (JPB), and Regional Commissions 9.2.A. VTA Standing Committees 9.2.B. VTA Advisory Committees 9.2.C. VTA Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) 9.2.D. Joint Powers Boards and Regional Commissions 9.3. Announcements 10. ADJOURN in memory of Anita Jacobson, former VTA Employee. Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 26 7.3.g Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 27 7. 3 . g Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 28 7. 3 . g Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 29 7. 3 . g Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 30 7. 3 . g Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 31 7. 3 . g Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 32 7. 3 . g Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 33 7. 3 . g Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 34 7. 3 . g Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 35 7. 3 . g Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 36 7. 3 . g Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 37 7. 3 . g Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 38 7. 3 . g Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 39 7. 3 . g Alignment Change Frequency Change Span Change Class Span Peak Frequency Midday Frequency Span Frequency Span Frequency 10 Metro/Airport LRT Station - Santa Clara Transit Center Combine with new Route 60, which would connect Mineta San Jose Airport to Milpitas BART Station, Santa Clara Caltrain Station, Valley Fair, Santana Row and Downtown Campbell; improve weekend frequency. 12 Eastridge Transit Center - San Jose Civic Center Discontinue; current riders may use revised Route 61 or Route 77. 13 Ohlone/Chynoweth LRT Station - Almaden/McKean Replace with new Route 83. 14 Gilroy Transit Center - St. Louise Hospital Replace with new Route 85, which would serve Route 14 destinations and other areas of Gilroy; reduce weekday frequency. 16 Morgan Hill Civic Center - Burnett Avenue Renumber to Route 87; service retained on an interim basis until a more effective flexible transit service can be implemented. 17 Gilroy Transit Center - St. Louise Hospital Discontinue due to low ridership; some riders may use Route 85. 18 Gavilan College - Gilory Transit Center Renumber to Route 86; increase frequency on weekdays. 19 Gilroy Transit Center - Wren and Mantelli Replace with new Route 85, which would serve Route 19 destinations and other areas of Gilroy; decrease weekday frequency. 20 Sunnyvale - North San Jose - Milpitas Create new Route 20 that would connect Milpitas BART Station, Mission College, Santa Clara Square and Downtown Sunnyvale; new Route 20 would provide service to areas currently served during commute periods by parts of Routes 58, 321 and 304. Local 5:30a - 10:00p 15 min 30 min ————The draft plan proposed the route end at Mountain View, but in the final plan the route would end in Sunnyvale. 21 Middlefield Create new Route 21 that would connect Palo Alto, San Antonio Transit Center, Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara Transit Ctr (Sunday service would only operate between Stanford Shopping Center and Mountain View); new Route 21 would replace current Routes 32 and 35. Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 8:00a - 8:00p 45 min 9:00a - 8:00p 60 min Minor alignment changes to serve San Antonio Circle in Mountain View and Lytton/Hamilton in Palo Alto (pending street improvements). 22 El Camino - Santa Clara - Alum Rock Decrease weekday frequency; increase frequency on Rapid 522 (to be implemented in April 2017).P Frequent 24 hours 15 min 15 min 24 hours 15 min 24 hours 15 min 23 Stevens Creek - Alum Rock Decrease weekday frequency; modify alignment to serve Stevens Creek Blvd instead of Forest Ave.P P Frequent 5:00a - 1:00a 15 min 15 min 6:00a - 1:00a 15 min 6:00a - 1:00a 15 min Final plan would maintain Route 23's current alignment in east San Jose; Sunday frequency would increase to every 15 minutes. 25 Story - Willow - Williams Decrease weekday frequency and increase Sunday frequency; modify alignment near De Anza College.P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 12-24 min 12-24 min 6:00a - 12:00a 15-30 min 6:00a - 12:00a 15-60 min Final plan would maintain service to White Road in east San Jose; minor alignment changes through Valley Medical Center. 26 Tully - Curtner - Campbell Split into two separate routes. Revised Route 26 would connect West Valley College and Eastridge Transit Center; frequency would increase on weekdays and weekends; new Route 56 would connect Lockheed Martin and Tamien Station. P P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15-30 min 15-30 min 6:30a - 12:00a 20-40 min 7:30a - 11:00p 20-40 min 27 Blossom Hill - Los Gatos Extend to Winchester Transit Center via Los Gatos Boulevard, downtown Los Gatos and Winchester Boulevard; increase frequency on weekday midday and Saturdays; add extended evening hours on weekdays and Saturdays. P P P Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 7:00a - 9:00p 30 min 8:00a - 8:00p 60 min Final plan would maintain service to Knowles/Hacienda area and downtown Los Gatos; Saturday service would end at 9:00p. 31 Evergreen Valley College Modify alignment for more direct service between Evergreen Valley College and Eastridge Transit Center.P Local 6:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 7:30a - 6:30p 60 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min Route was proposed for elimination in draft plan (parts were covered by Route 76). 32 San Antonio Shopping Center - Santa Clara Transit Center Replace with new Route 21. 34 San Antonio Shopping Center - Downtown Mountain View Discontinue due to low ridership; some current riders can use Routes 21 or 40. 35 Stanford Shopping Center - Downtown Mountain View Replace with new Route 21. 37 West Valley College - Capitol Light Rail Station Reduce weekday frequency.P Local 6:30a - 6:30p 60 min 60 min ————Route was proposed for elimination in draft plan. 39 Quimby - San Felipe Decrease peak period frequency. P Local 6:30a - 6:30p 60 min 60 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min Route was proposed to be renumbered to Route 93, but final plan maintiains current number. 40 Foothill College - North Bayshore Extend Route 40 along Shoreline Boulevard and Villa Street to connect with Mountain View Transit Center; increase Saturday and Sunday frequency.P P Local 6:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 7:00a - 7:00p 45 min 9:00a - 6:00p 45 min 42 Kaiser San Jose - Evergreen Valley College Discontinue low ridership segments, reduce weekday frequency; discontinue Saturday service. P P P Local 6:30a - 6:30p 60 min 60 min ————Route was proposed for elimination in draft plan. 45 Alum Rock Transit Center - Penitencia Creek Transit Center Discontinue due to low ridership. Proposed Change (current service vs. final plan)Route Change from Draft Plan to Final Plan See Route 85 See Route 87 See Route 86 See Route 96 See Route 21 See Route 21 New New Weekday Saturday Sunday See Route 60 See Route 83 Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 40 7.3.g Alignment Change Frequency Change Span Change Class Span Peak Frequency Midday Frequency Span Frequency Span FrequencyProposed Change (current service vs. final plan)Route Change from Draft Plan to Final Plan Weekday Saturday Sunday 46 Great Mall Transit Center - Milpitas High School Scale back to school-oriented service (to be called Route 246) between Milpitas High School and Landess/Yellowstone. 47 Calaveras Route would become a two-way loop; increase Sunday frequency; modify alignment to serve McCandless Drive; add extended evening hours 7 days a week.P P P Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 7:00a - 9:00p 30 min 8:00a - 8:00p 30 min Modify alignment to serve McCandless Drive. 48 Downtown Los Gatos - Winchester LRT Station Replace with revised Route 27; increase frequency on Route 27. 49 Downtown Los Gatos - Winchester LRT Station Replace some segments with revised Route 27; increase frequency on Route 27. 51 Grant - Moffett - Saratoga New number for Moffett Field to De Anza College portion of current Route 81; decrease midday frequency; extend route to West Valley College; discontinue Saturday service.P P P Local 6:30a - 6:30p 30 min 60 min ————Extend 60-min segment of route to West Valley College, via Saratoga-Sunnyvale and Saratoga town center. 52 Foothill College - Downtown Mountain View No changes proposed.Local 7:00a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min ———— 53 Homestead - Sunnyvale Change alignment to serve Vallco Mall and Santa Clara Transit Ctr instead of West Valley College, which would replace part of current Route 81 (Saturday service to operate between Vallco and Santa Clara Transit Ctr); increase frequency on weekdays. P P Local 5:30a - 8:00p 30 min 30 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min ——Modify alignment to serve Scott and Benton in Santa Clara. 54 Lockheed Martin Transit Center - De Anza College Discontinue due to low ridership; add new Rapid 523 service on Mathilda Avenue/De Anza Boulevard corridor. 55 Sunnyvale - De Anza College Change alignment between Downtown Sunnyvale and Remington Avenue; minor alignment changes in Lakewood Village; decrease weekday peak period frequency and increase Sunday frequency.P P Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 7:30a - 9:00p 30 min 8:00a - 8:00p 30 min 56 Wolfe - Hamilton Create new Route 56, which would connect Lockheed Martin Transit Center to Downtown Sunnyvale, Vallco Mall, Westgate, and Tamien Station; replaces parts of Routes 26 and 82.Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 6:30a - 10:00p 30 min 7:30a - 9:00p 30 min Extend route to Tamien station via Hamilton. 57 Great America - Bowers - Saratoga Increase weekday and Saturday frequency; add extended evening hours 7 days a week.P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15 min 15 min 6:30a - 11:00p 20 min 7:30a - 10:00p 30 min Extend weekday service to midnight. 58 West Valley College - Alviso Discontinue; some current riders may use Routes 57, 59, 20 and 26. 59 Monroe - Great America - Alviso Create new Route 59, which would connect Valley Fair, O'Connor Hospital, Santa Clara Caltrain Station, Mission College, Alviso and Baypointe Light Rail Station; would cover some segments of Route 58 and Route 60. Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 7:00a - 10:00p 30 min 7:30a - 6:30p 60 min Extend weekday service to Valley Fair and O'Connor Hospital. 60 Winchester - Airport - BART Consolidate with Route 10 to create new Route 60, which would connect Mineta San Jose Airport to Milpitas BART Station, Metro light rail station, Santa Clara Caltrain Station, Valley Fair, Santana Row, and Downtown Campbell; increase weekday and weekend frequency. P P P Frequent 5:00a - 11:00p 15 min 15min 5:00a - 11:00p 20 min 5:00a - 11:30p 20 min 61 Taylor - Bascom - Berryessa Change alignment from Mabury Road to Berryessa Road between Berryessa BART Station and Capitol Avenue; increase frequency on weekends; add extended evening hours 7 days/week.P P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15-30 min 15-30 min 6:30a - 11:00p 20-40 min 7:30a - 10:00p 20-40 min 62 Good Samaritan Hospital - Sierra/Piedmont Replace with Route 61. 63 Meridian Change southern end from Almaden Expressway/Camden Avenue to Meridian Avenue/Blossom Hill Road; increase weekday midday frequency.P P Local 6:00a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 8:00a - 7:00p 60 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min 64 McKee - Lincoln - Almaden Change downtown routing (Julian to 6th/7th and San Fernando); extend route to Camden in Almaden Valley.P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15-30 min 15-30 min 6:30a - 12:00a 30 min 7:00a - 11:00p 30 min Extend route to Camden in Almaden Valley. 65 Kooser/Blossom Hill - Downtown San Jose Discontinue segment north of downtown San Jose; reduce frequency.P P Local 6:00a - 6:30p 60 min 60 min ————The draft plan proposed to discontinue Route 65. 66 Milpitas - Oakland - Monterey - Snell Change alignment to serve Milpitas BART Station; weekday frequency changes by segment; move to 10th/11th Streets from 1st Street.P P Frequent 5:00a - 12:00a 15 min 15-30 min 6:00a - 12:00a 20 min 6:00a - 12:00a 20 min 68 Monterey - South County Decrease midday frequency south of Santa Teresa Light Rail Station; increase midday frequency north of Santa Teresa light rail station.P Frequent 4:30a - 12:00a 15 min 15-30 min 5:00a - 12:00a 20 min 5:00a - 12:00a 20 min 70 Jackson - Flickinger - Morrill Modify alignment to connect to Berryessa BART Station; decrease frequency north of Berryessa BART station; discontinue service between Eastridge Transit Center and Capitol station, some riders in that segment may use Routes 71 or 42. P P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15-30 min 15-30 min 6:30a - 12:00a 20-40 min 6:30a - 10:00p 20-40 min 71 Piedmont - White Change northern end from Great Mall to Milpitas BART Station; decrease weekday peak period service and increase Sunday service; extended to Capitol light rail station.P P Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 6:30a - 10:00p 30 min 7:30a - 9:00p 30 min The final plan moves its southern end from Eastridge to Capitol light rail station. 72 McLaughlin Increase frequency on weekday midday and weekends; add extended evening hours 7 days/week.P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15 min 15 min 6:30a - 12:00a 20 min 7:30a - 11:00p 30 min Reduce Sunday daytime frequency from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes; change southern end from Capitol light rail station to Monterey & Branham. See Route 246 See Route 27 See Route 27 New New See Route 61 Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 41 7.3.g Alignment Change Frequency Change Span Change Class Span Peak Frequency Midday Frequency Span Frequency Span FrequencyProposed Change (current service vs. final plan)Route Change from Draft Plan to Final Plan Weekday Saturday Sunday 73 Senter Change southern end from Capitol Expressway/Snell to Monterey Road/Branham Road; increase weekday midday and weekend frequency; add extended evening hours 7 days/week.P P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15 min 15 min 6:30a - 12:00a 20 min 7:30a - 11:00p 30 min Reduce Sunday daytime frequency from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes. 77 King - Lundy Change northern end from Great Mall to Milpitas BART Station; change southern end of route to Eastridge Transit Center via Tully Road rather than Rigoletto Drive; serve Berryessa BART station; increase weekday midday and weekend frequencies; add extended evening hours 7 days/week. P P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15 min 15 min 6:30a - 12:00a 20 min 6:30a - 11:00p 30 min Reduce Sunday daytime frequency from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes. 81 Moffett Field - Downtown San Jose Replace Moffett Field to De Anza College segment with new Route 51; replace De Anza College to Santa Clara Caltrain Station segment with revised Route 53. 82 Westgate - Downtown San Jose Discontinue; some segments of route replaced with Routes 56, 66, and 68. 83 Almaden New route based on current Route 13, provided on an interim basis prior to implementation of on- demand service for Almaden Valley; revised alignment would serve Blossom Hill (Oakridge Mall), McAbee, and Camden. P Local 6:30a - 6:30p 60 min 60 min ————The draft plan proposed to discontinue Route 13. 85 Gilroy New two-way loop route in Gilroy; replaces Routes 14, 17, and 19.Local 6:30a - 6:30p 60 min 60 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min Was called Route 96 in draft plan; also minor alignment changes to facilitate connections with Route 68. 86 Gavilan College Replaces Route 18; increase frequency.P Local 7:00a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min ————Was called Route 97 in draft plan. 87 Morgan Hill Renumber Route 16 to Route 87, provided on an interim basis until a more effective flexible transit solution can be implemented; no other changes proposed.Local peak only 60 min ————— Draft plan proposed a reduction in service to school- oriented trips only. Final plan would maintain current service until flexible solution can be implemented. 88 Palo Alto VA Hospital - Middlefield/Colorado Scale back to school trips (to be called Route 288) for Gunn High School. 89 California Avenue Caltrain - Palo Alto VA Hospital No changes proposed.Local 6:30a - 6:30p 30 min 60 min ————The draft plan proposed to discontinue Route 89. 101 Camden/Highway 85 - Palo Alto No changes proposed. Express ———— 102 South San Jose - Palo Alto No changes proposed.Express ———— 103 Eastridge Transit Center - Palo Alto No changes proposed.Express ———— 104 Penitencia Creek Transit Center - Palo Alto Change alignment to serve Milpitas BART Station rather than Great Mall Transit Center.P Express ———— 120 Fremont BART - Lockheed Martin Transit Center/Shoreline Discontinue due to extension of BART to Santa Clara County; explore options for inter-county partnership service with AC Transit. 121 Gilroy Transit Center - Lockheed Martin Transit Center No changes proposed.Express ———— 122 South San Jose - Lockheed Martin Transit Center No changes proposed.Express ———— 140 Fremont BART Station - Mission College/Montague Discontinue due to extension of BART to Santa Clara County. 168 Gilroy Transit Center - San Jose Diridon Station No changes proposed.Express ———— 180 Fremont BART Station - Great Mall - Eastridge Discontinue due to extension of BART to Santa Clara County. 181 Fremont BART - San Jose Diridon Station Discontinue due to extension of BART to Santa Clara County. 182 Palo Alto - Bailey Road/IBM No changes proposed.Express ———— 185 Gilroy Caltrain Station - Shoreline - San Antonio No changes proposed.Express ———— 201 DASH Shuttle: Diridon Station - Downtown San Jose - San Jose State University Replace with Rapid 500; change alignment to Santa Clara Street.See Route 500 1 trip each peak period 3 trips each peak period 7 trips each peak period 9 trips each peak period 1 trip each peak period New See Routes 51 and 53 7 trips each peak period 4 trips each peak period 2 trips each peak period See Route 56 See Route 288 2 trips each peak period Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 42 7.3.g Alignment Change Frequency Change Span Change Class Span Peak Frequency Midday Frequency Span Frequency Span FrequencyProposed Change (current service vs. final plan)Route Change from Draft Plan to Final Plan Weekday Saturday Sunday 246 Milpitas High School - Yellowstone/Landess School-oriented service (formerly Route 46), based on school bell schedules.Special ———— 247 Milpitas High School - Park Victoria School-oriented service (formerly Route 46/47), based on school bell schedules.Special ———— 251 St. Francis High School - Downtown Mountain View School-oriented service, based on school bell schedules; afternoon service only.Special ———— 255 Fremont High School - Lakewood Village School-oriented service (formerly Route 55X), based on school bell schedules.Special ———— 256 Willow Glen High School - Tamien Station - Monterey/Alma School-oriented service (formerly Route 82), based on school bell schedules.Special ————Was called Route 282 in draft plan. 266 Santa Teresa High School - Bernal Road School-oriented service, based on school bell schedules; afternoon service only.Special ———— 287 Live Oak High School - Monterey & San Martin School-oriented service, based on school bell schedules; afternoon service only.Special ———— 288 Gunn High School - North Palo Alto School-oriented service (formerly Route 88), based on school bell schedules, plus one afterschool extracurricular trip; to follow former 88, 88L, 88M alignments.Special ———— Add one additional trip an hour or two after the afternoon bell time to accommodate afterschool activities; modify alignment to follow existing route. 304 South San Jose - Sunnyvale Transit Center Discontinue due to low ridership; some current riders may use Routes 66, 68 or 20. 321 Great Mall Transit Center - Lockheed Martin Transit Center Discontinue due to low ridership; some current riders may use Routes 20, 59, or Orange line. 323 De Anza College - Downtown San Jose Upgrade to Rapid 523 and extend western end to Lockheed Martin Transit Center and eastern end to Berryessa BART Station; increase Sunday frequency. 328 Almaden/Via Valiente - Lockheed Martin Transit Center Discontinue due to low ridership. 330 Almaden/Via Valiente - Tasman Drive Discontinue due to low ridership. 500 Diridon - Berryessa BART Rapid Replaces DASH shuttle; 7-day a week service; connects Diridon Station to downtown San Jose, San Jose State University, and Berryessa BART Station. Rapid 4:00a - 1:30a 10 min 15 min 6:00a - 1:30a 20 min 8:00a - 1:30a 20 min Add additional stop at Almaden Boulevard. 522 Palo Alto Transit Center - Eastridge Transit Center Increase weekday frequency (to be implemented in April 2017); add extended evening hours 7 days/week; start earlier AM service on weekends.P P Rapid 5:00a - 11:00p 12 min 12 min 6:00a - 11:00p 15 min 6:00a - 10:00p 15 min Reduce frequency of some weekend early morning and evening service from every 15 minutes to every 20 minutes; extend Sunday service to 10 pm. 523 Lockheed Martin Transit Center - Berryessa BART Station Create new Route 523 which would connect Lockheed Martin Transit Center, Downtown Sunnyvale, De Anza College, Vallco, Valley Fair, Santana Row, Downtown San Jose, Mexican Heritage Plaza and Berryessa BART Station. Rapid 5:00a - 10:30p 15 min 15 min 6:00a - 10:30p 15 min 7:00a - 10:00p 15 min Extend Sunday service to 10 pm. Green Old Ironsides Station - Winchester Station Change name to Green Line. Change northern end to Old Ironsides Light Rail Station; increase weekday frequency to 15 minutes all day. P P Light Rail 5:00a - 12:00a 15 min 15 min 6:30a - 12:00a 30 min 6:30a - 12:00a 30 min Blue Alum Rock Transit Center - Santa Teresa Station Change name to Blue Line.Light Rail 4:30a - 1:00a 15 min 15 min 5:00a - 1:00a 15 min 5:00a - 12:00a 15 min Purple Almaden Station - Ohlone/Chynoweth Station Change name to Purple Line.Light Rail 5:30a - 10:30p 15 min 15 min 8:00a - 10:00p 15 min 8:00a - 10:00p 15 min Orange Mountain View Transit Center - Alum Rock Transit Center Create new Orange Line to connect Downtown Mountain View with Alum Rock Transit Center; operate at 15-minute frequency all day on weekdays.Light Rail 5:00a - 11:30p 15 min 15 min 6:30a - 11:30p 30 min 7:00a - 11:30p 30 min Yellow Downtown San Jose - Santa Teresa Station Express Service Change name to Yellow Line. Change northern end from Baypointe Light Rail Station to St. James Light Rail Station; increase peak period span of service. P P Light Rail ———— 3 trips before and 4 trips after school 1 trip after school 5 trips each peak period 1 trip before and 1 trip after school # of trips varies by school schedule 1 trip before and 1 trip after school 1 trip after school 1 trip after school # of trips varies by school schedule See Route 523 New New New Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 43 7.3.g Routes Currently Serving City Routes to Serve City in Proposed Plan Campbell 26, 27, 37, 48, 49, 60, 61, 62, 65, 82, 101, 328, 330, Green 26, 27, 37, 56, 60, 61, 65, 101, Green Cupertino 23, 25, 26, 53, 54, 55, 81, 101, 182, 323 23, 25, 26, 51, 53, 55, 56, 101, 182, 523 Gilroy 14, 17, 18, 19, 68, 121, 168, 185 68, 85, 86, 121, 168, 185 Los Altos 22, 40, 52, 81, 522 22, 40, 51, 52, 522 Los Altos Hills 40, 52 40, 52 Los Gatos 27, 48, 49 27 Milpitas 46, 47, 66, 70, 71, 77, 104, 140, 180, 181, 321, 330, Blue 20, 47, 60, 66, 70, 71, 77, 104, 246, 247, Blue, Orange Monte Sereno 48 27 Morgan Hill 16, 68, 121, 168, 185 68, 87, 121, 168, 185 Mountain View 22, 32, 34, 35, 40, 52, 81, 120, 185, 522, Green 20, 21, 22, 40, 51, 52, 185, 251, 522, Orange Palo Alto 22, 35, 88, 89, 102, 103, 104, 182, 522 21, 22, 89, 102, 103, 104, 182, 288, 522 San Jose 10, 12, 13, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 31, 37, 39, 42, 45, 49, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 81, 82, 101, 102, 103, 104, 122, 140, 168, 180, 181, 182, 185, 201 DASH, 304, 321, 323, 328, 330, 522, Blue, Green, Purple, Yellow 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 31, 37, 39, 42, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 83, 101, 102, 103, 104, 122, 168, 182, 185, 201 DASH, 266, 282, 500, 522, 523, Blue, Green, Orange, Purple, Yellow Santa Clara 10, 22, 23, 32, 55, 57, 58, 60, 81, 121, 140, 304, 321, 323, 328, 330, 522, Green 20, 21, 22, 23, 53, 55, 57, 59, 60, 121, 522, 523, Green, Orange Saratoga 26, 37, 53, 57, 58 26, 37, 51, 53, 56, 57 Sunnyvale 22, 26, 32, 53, 54, 55, 120, 121, 122, 304, 321, 328, 522, Green 20, 21, 22, 26, 53, 55, 56, 255, 522, 523, Green, Orange Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 44 7.3.g amount of service amount of service Route Population % Low Income % Minority Bus Trips (Annual)Population % Low Income % Minority Bus Trips (Annual)All People-Trips Low Inc People-Trips Minority People-Trips Low Income Minorities 10 Santa Clara Transit- Metro Airport 3,808 35.2%63.0%20,280 -77,226,240 -27,165,231 -48,631,440 35.2%63.0% 12 San Jose Civic Center - Eastridge 42,899 42.4%90.4%2,090 -89,658,910 -38,008,044 -81,048,110 42.4%90.4% 13 Almaden & Mckean- Ohlone / Chynwth 17,515 13.9%49.3%3,060 -53,595,900 -7,455,702 -26,413,920 13.9%49.3% 14 Gilroy Trans Ctr - St. Louise Hosp 4,231 64.2%86.0%4,560 -19,293,360 -12,389,317 -16,593,840 64.2%86.0% 16 M. H. Civic Ctr - Burnett Ave 7,536 25.1%55.9%1,785 -13,451,760 -3,370,145 -7,521,990 25.1%55.9% 17 Gilroy Trns Ctr - Mntry & Ls Animas 6,096 65.1%86.4%4,450 -27,127,200 -17,655,099 -23,433,700 65.1%86.4% 18 Gilroy Trans Ctr - Gavilan College 5,011 50.6%79.4%4,590 -23,000,490 -11,627,179 -18,263,610 50.6%79.4% 19 Gilroy Trans Ctr - Wren & Mantelli 12,767 33.1%68.1%5,890 -75,197,630 -24,921,899 -51,231,220 33.1%68.1% 20 Sunnyvale - Milpitas 19,301 22.3%76.6%10,710 206,713,710 46,104,338 158,347,350 22.3%76.6% 21 Middlefield 81,365 21.9%58.0%9,120 742,048,800 162,484,871 430,628,160 21.9%58.0% 22 Palo Alto - Eastridge 118,549 29.7%68.0%31,820 118,463 29.7%68.0%26,413 -643,265,961 -190,347,897 -438,411,574 29.6%68.2% 23 De Anza Col - Alum Rock Trans Ctr 65,510 35.2%75.0%27,785 76,784 37.2%78.1%22,445 -96,778,470 396,127 -19,581,570 -0.4%20.2% 25 De Anza Col - Alum Rock Trans Ctr 85,910 37.9%76.8%27,485 48,990 45.2%79.0%24,885 -1,142,120,200 -344,642,704 -850,490,285 30.2%74.5% 25L Williams 30,778 21.3%67.4%11,344 349,145,632 74,504,260 235,456,064 21.3%67.4% 26 Sunnyvale / Lockheed - Eastridge 83,909 22.6%64.7%11,950 16,167 42.3%90.7%20,748 -667,279,634 -84,465,046 -344,359,642 12.7%51.6% 26L Curtner - Campbell 32,135 15.8%42.4%11,049 355,059,615 56,101,796 150,421,086 15.8%42.4% 26L Curtner - Campbell Weekend 28,276 16.9%41.1%11,049 312,421,524 52,863,127 128,533,017 16.9%41.1% 27 Good Sam Hosp - Kaiser San Jose 41,488 19.3%52.2%7,530 61,923 17.5%44.4%9,542 278,464,626 42,865,735 99,144,420 15.4%35.6% 31 Evergreen Valley Col - Eastridge 19,248 30.3%90.1%9,060 14,897 24.5%87.5%8,234 -51,724,982 -22,865,105 -49,853,402 44.2%96.4% 32 Sn Antonio Shop Ctr - Sta Clara Tc 56,096 21.7%63.0%7,945 -445,682,720 -96,784,480 -280,800,135 21.7%63.0% 34 Sn Antonio Shop Ctr - Downtown Mv 26,881 28.3%59.8%1,530 -41,127,930 -11,644,544 -24,594,750 28.3%59.8% 35 Dntn Mtn View - Stanford Shop Ctr 37,998 20.6%49.4%9,500 -360,981,000 -74,358,485 -178,315,000 20.6%49.4% 37 West Valley College - Capitol Lrt 31,856 19.0%46.7%7,140 31,856 19.0%46.7%3,060 -129,972,480 -24,667,718 -60,653,280 19.0%46.7% 39 The Villages - Eastridge 18,656 18.0%85.7%6,455 19,232 18.5%85.8%4,050 -42,534,880 -7,332,200 -36,399,435 17.2%85.6% 40 Foothill Col - La Avenida & Shor 20,748 24.1%52.9%9,480 26,714 22.8%53.0%7,972 16,272,968 1,057,366 8,823,500 6.5%54.2% 40 Foothill Col - La Avenida & Shor Weekend 25,534 23.7%54.6%696 17,771,664 4,218,846 9,711,288 23.7%54.6% 42 Kaiser Sj - Evergreen Valley Col 43,585 31.9%82.9%5,140 40,753 32.2%83.4%3,060 -99,322,720 -31,374,483 -81,801,720 31.6%82.4% 45 Alum Rock Tc - Penitencia Ck Tc 25,196 34.0%83.3%3,315 -83,524,740 -28,381,386 -69,578,535 34.0%83.3% 46 Great Mall - Milpitas High School 25,879 20.3%83.8%5,850 -151,392,150 -30,806,097 -126,886,500 20.3%83.8% 47 Great Mall - Mccarthy Ranch 15,508 21.0%87.1%9,795 20,735 21.1%85.1%10,168 58,932,620 12,551,949 46,963,013 21.3%79.7% 48 Los Gatos - Winchester LRT 15,556 15.7%32.1%5,235 -81,435,660 -12,785,983 -26,143,590 15.7%32.1% 49 Los Gatos - Winchester LRT 16,122 16.3%30.7%5,125 -82,625,250 -13,437,125 -25,363,625 16.3%30.7% 51 Grant - Moffett 27,751 9.5%49.2%5,100 141,530,100 13,415,516 69,615,000 9.5%49.2% 51L Saratoga - West Valley College 21,034 14.7%71.9%3,060 64,364,040 9,493,068 46,258,020 14.7%71.9% 52 Foothill College - Dwntown Mtn View 13,001 13.2%44.1%6,375 13,143 13.2%44.0%6,630 4,256,715 510,835 1,813,305 12.0%42.6% 53 Wv College- Sunnyvale Trans Ctr 43,300 13.5%66.6%3,060 55,437 16.9%61.4%6,630 235,049,310 44,340,521 137,366,970 18.9%58.4% 53 Stevens Crk - Santa Clara Caltrain 21,573 19.1%57.1%468 10,096,164 1,929,938 5,762,952 19.1%57.1% 54 De Anza College - Lockheed 24,409 20.4%67.1%8,990 -219,436,910 -44,743,677 -147,229,230 20.4%67.1% 55 De Anza College - Great America 50,024 19.9%69.9%12,600 48,412 20.1%68.9%10,220 -135,531,760 -25,681,291 -99,536,080 18.9%73.4% 56 Wolfe - Hamilton 72,719 20.9%61.3%10,556 767,621,764 160,312,902 470,575,924 20.9%61.3% 57 West Valley Coll - Great America 34,485 19.6%62.6%10,580 35,278 19.7%62.7%19,775 332,771,150 65,588,680 209,415,190 19.7%62.9% 58 West Valley College - Alviso 45,289 19.9%66.4%5,865 -265,619,985 -52,907,009 -176,460,255 19.9%66.4% 59 Monroe - Grt America - Alviso 27,466 31.0%64.7%9,692 266,200,472 82,397,606 172,323,760 31.0%64.7% 60 Winchester Tc - Gt America 37,049 32.2%59.0%14,955 38,137 28.0%62.0%21,780 276,556,065 54,474,996 188,086,755 19.7%68.0% 61 Good Sam Hosp - Sierra & Piedmont 56,501 29.5%67.6%9,500 34,867 32.5%63.8%19,815 154,130,105 66,290,951 77,949,825 43.0%50.6% 61L Berryessa 14,732 22.1%86.2%9,931 146,303,492 32,367,764 126,103,838 22.1%86.2% 61T Bascom/Union Turnaround 14,637 17.1%37.0%9,542 139,666,254 23,896,900 51,708,098 17.1%37.0% 62 Good Sam Hosp - Sierra & Piedmont 52,180 26.5%64.2%10,250 -534,845,000 -141,614,105 -343,118,750 26.5%64.2% Current Service (FY16-17)Proposed Final Plan (FY18-19)Change from Current Service to Proposed Final Plan demographics of population served (within 1/4-mile)demographics of population served (within 1/4-mile)people-trips (population x trips) change borne by Title VI communities (highlighted cells greater than area avg) Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 45 7.3.g amount of service amount of service Route Population % Low Income % Minority Bus Trips (Annual)Population % Low Income % Minority Bus Trips (Annual)All People-Trips Low Inc People-Trips Minority People-Trips Low Income Minorities Current Service (FY16-17)Proposed Final Plan (FY18-19)Change from Current Service to Proposed Final Plan demographics of population served (within 1/4-mile)demographics of population served (within 1/4-mile)people-trips (population x trips) change borne by Title VI communities (highlighted cells greater than area avg) 63 Almaden Expy - San Jose State 43,043 23.4%50.7%7,530 35,787 26.4%52.6%8,489 -20,317,947 4,312,880 -4,764,785 -21.2%23.5% 64 Almaden Lrt - Mckee & White 54,316 35.7%68.5%16,705 33,757 47.0%83.9%18,901 -269,307,723 -24,622,334 -86,738,747 9.1%32.2% 64L Lincoln - Almaden 31,143 17.4%48.7%11,964 372,594,852 64,831,408 181,577,628 17.4%48.7% 65 Kooser & Blossom Hill- Dntn S. J.57,982 31.3%61.2%4,845 38,211 32.9%61.3%3,060 -163,997,130 -49,377,843 -100,292,520 30.1%61.2% 66 Kaiser San Jose - Milpitas / Dixon 80,193 30.6%76.5%18,935 69,401 34.2%76.4%21,658 -15,367,597 50,207,269 -14,280,686 -326.7%92.9% 66L Main - Abel 16,927 21.5%84.6%18,598 314,808,346 67,761,261 266,174,576 21.5%84.6% 68 Monterey Hwy - San Jose Diridon 67,516 37.1%74.9%20,995 46,059 37.4%77.4%21,768 -414,886,108 -151,095,053 -285,218,330 36.4%68.7% 68L South County 22,978 35.7%69.2%18,708 429,872,424 153,324,507 297,457,200 35.7%69.2% 70 Jackson 88,364 32.8%90.2%20,010 29,568 43.1%94.4%20,835 -1,152,114,360 -313,632,224 -1,013,434,695 27.2%88.0% 70L Flickinger - Morrill 24,196 21.0%85.8%10,209 247,016,964 51,766,208 212,061,348 21.0%85.8% 71 Eastridge- Great Mall / Main 48,934 30.9%87.7%13,840 86,827 32.2%87.8%10,649 247,374,163 88,273,055 217,561,404 35.7%87.9% 72 Senter / Monterey - Downtown San Jose 65,507 41.5%84.7%16,665 66,002 41.4%84.6%19,936 224,141,717 91,297,930 189,463,804 40.7%84.5% 73 Snell & Capitol - Downtwn San Jose 50,681 43.2%79.8%14,805 47,271 45.2%79.9%19,936 192,062,451 102,224,268 154,498,666 53.2%80.4% 77 Eastridge - Great Mall / Main 41,928 40.0%92.5%15,245 40,866 39.3%92.4%19,844 171,752,544 62,831,674 158,007,672 36.6%92.0% 81 Moffett / Ames Ctr - San Jose State 79,673 19.7%57.5%7,890 -628,619,970 -123,642,680 -361,606,590 19.7%57.5% 82 Westgate - Downtown San Jose 46,444 33.2%58.8%8,935 -414,977,140 -137,816,017 -243,818,280 33.2%58.8% 83 Almaden & Mckean- Ohlone / Chynwth 17,716 13.9%49.2%3,315 58,728,540 8,143,744 28,916,745 13.9%49.2% 85 Gilroy 19,561 41.8%73.9%4,050 79,222,050 33,115,763 58,538,700 41.8%73.9% 86 Gavilan College 5,778 50.3%78.6%6,630 38,308,140 19,287,548 30,113,460 50.3%78.6% 87 Morgan Hill 7,536 25.1%55.9%1,785 13,451,760 3,370,145 7,521,990 25.1%55.9% 88 Vets Hosp - Middlefield & Colorado 16,317 8.1%46.9%5,100 -83,216,700 -6,722,468 -39,066,000 8.1%46.9% 89 California Ave Ctrn-Vets Hospital 4,587 12.5%37.7%5,865 -26,902,755 -3,358,425 -10,140,585 12.5%37.7% 89 Cal Ave - VA Hospital 3,988 12.8%37.3%1,530 6,101,640 780,174 2,276,640 12.8%37.3% 89 Cal Ave - VA Hospital Peak 4,465 12.5%37.3%3,060 13,662,900 1,709,400 5,101,020 12.5%37.3% 101 Camden & Hwy 85 - Palo Alto 19,822 20.3%53.1%1,530 19,822 20.3%53.1%1,530 0 0 0 0.0%0.0% 102 South San Jose - Palo Alto 10,287 15.9%55.0%4,335 10,287 15.9%55.0%4,335 0 0 0 0.0%0.0% 103 Eastridge - Palo Alto 10,026 42.9%77.5%2,295 10,026 42.9%77.5%2,295 0 0 0 0.0%0.0% 104 Penitencia Trans Ctr - Palo Alto 21,034 17.2%74.8%1,020 21,034 17.2%74.8%1,020 0 0 0 0.0%0.0% 120 Fremont Bart - Lockheed Martin 754 21.8%59.2%3,315 -2,499,510 -544,382 -1,478,490 21.8%59.2% 121 Gilroy Trans Ctr - Lockheed Martin 7,348 33.8%64.2%5,355 7,348 33.8%64.2%5,355 0 0 0 0.0%0.0% 122 South San Jose - Lockheed Martin 23,962 24.3%71.6%1,020 23,962 24.3%71.6%1,020 0 0 0 0.0%0.0% 140 Fremont Bart - M. College & Montague 9,585 21.8%77.0%1,785 -17,109,225 -3,729,948 -13,167,945 21.8%77.0% 168 Gilroy Trans Ctr - San Jose Diridon 9,511 38.3%65.0%4,080 9,511 38.3%65.0%4,080 0 0 0 0.0%0.0% 180 Great Mall / Main - Fremont Bart 10,932 36.3%92.1%8,160 -89,205,120 -32,351,284 -82,187,520 36.3%92.1% 181 San Jose Diridon - Fremont Bart 6,866 34.0%66.2%22,000 -151,052,000 -51,307,726 -100,034,000 34.0%66.2% 182 Palo Alto - Ibm / Bailey Ave 5,852 10.7%67.5%765 5,852 10.7%67.5%765 0 0 0 0.0%0.0% 185 South County North Bayshore 26,651 29.1%61.1%2,295 26,651 29.1%61.1%2,295 0 0 0 0.0%0.0% 200 Baypointe Lrt - Mountain View Lrt 11,745 19.4%63.2%730 17,092 20.8%67.8%730 3,903,310 938,898 3,040,450 24.1%77.9% 201 Downtown Area Shuttle (Dash)6,886 40.0%63.9%17,850 -122,915,100 -49,188,081 -78,522,150 40.0%63.9% 246 Milpitas school trips 19,186 21.7%83.2%1,440 27,627,840 6,002,602 22,988,160 21.7%83.2% 282 Willow Glen school trips 16,256 33.2%61.2%720 11,704,320 3,886,068 7,158,240 33.2%61.2% 288 Palo Alto school trips 16,320 8.1%46.9%540 8,812,800 711,747 4,137,480 8.1%46.9% 288L Palo Alto school trips L pattern 14,168 10.1%49.8%360 5,100,480 515,811 2,539,080 10.1%49.8% 288M Palo Alto school trips M pattern 12,243 13.1%49.9%360 4,407,480 578,131 2,201,040 13.1%49.9% 304 S. San Jose - Sunnyvale Trans Ctr 43,062 33.2%74.1%2,805 -120,788,910 -40,132,608 -89,496,330 33.2%74.1% 321 Great Mall / Main - Lockheed Martin 11,199 23.4%72.9%765 -8,567,235 -2,000,736 -6,243,930 23.4%72.9% 323 De Anza Col - Downtown San Jose 26,292 29.0%68.2%19,280 -506,909,760 -146,869,486 -345,478,320 29.0%68.2% 328 Almaden Valley - Lockheed Martin 40,766 17.3%51.8%1,275 -51,976,650 -8,979,649 -26,919,075 17.3%51.8% Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 46 7.3.g amount of service amount of service Route Population % Low Income % Minority Bus Trips (Annual)Population % Low Income % Minority Bus Trips (Annual)All People-Trips Low Inc People-Trips Minority People-Trips Low Income Minorities Current Service (FY16-17)Proposed Final Plan (FY18-19)Change from Current Service to Proposed Final Plan demographics of population served (within 1/4-mile)demographics of population served (within 1/4-mile)people-trips (population x trips) change borne by Title VI communities (highlighted cells greater than area avg) 330 Almaden Valley - Tasman Drive 46,264 19.1%56.0%2,805 -129,770,520 -24,781,547 -72,674,745 19.1%56.0% 500 Rapid 500 9,777 39.4%72.9%31,897 311,856,969 123,009,357 227,489,404 39.4%72.9% 522 Rapid Palo Alto - Eastridge 66,510 33.6%73.7%22,365 56,996 31.3%72.8%26,982 50,369,922 -17,144,647 23,227,209 -34.0%46.1% 523 Rapid Sunnyvale - St Crk - BART 55,724 31.9%73.2%23,070 1,285,552,680 409,819,483 940,425,480 31.9%73.2% 900 Ohlone / Chynoweth - Almaden 3,954 26.9%50.1%22,990 3,954 26.9%50.1%22,990 0 0 0 0.0%0.0% 901 Alum Rock-Santa Teresa Via Baypoint 51,801 29.3%75.1%26,040 51,801 29.3%75.1%26,040 0 0 0 0.0%0.0% 902 Mountain View - Winchester 41,609 28.0%62.0%19,880 -827,186,920 -231,671,849 -512,943,760 28.0%62.0% 902 Old Ironsides - Winchester 31,931 29.8%65.4%22,175 708,069,925 210,709,121 463,080,525 29.8%65.4% 903 Alum Rock Mtn View 32,910 26.0%76.1%19,747 649,873,770 168,781,366 494,326,651 26.0%76.1% 904 Santa Teresa Peak 11,704 28.9%61.9%3,060 11,704 28.9%61.9%3,060 0 0 0 0.0%0.0% All Changes 1,171,506 26.1%68.0%696,185 1,115,260 26.0%68.3%775,475 -519,687,525 -64,043,031 -316,330,564 12.3%60.9% Low Income Minority Change Borne By 12.3%60.9% Area Average 23.5%65.3% Delta -11.2%-4.5% Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 47 7.3.g ru o w et aud ua ta i n a 102 101 102 102 102 101 328 328 102 168 182 328 328 328 328 103 102 330 330 330 330 330 101 328 101 328 102 103 182 102 103 182 120 104 104 104 120 104 120 200 122 122 321 321 330140140 330 120 104 120 168 182 121 121 121 121 168 168 121 182 328 328 121 122 103 103 103 103 104 104 104 304 304 304 304 122 122 304 304122 304 304 122 328 122200 104 182 103182 103 182 182 104 102 102 103 182 102 103 104 200 200 304 328 102 104 168 48 49 48 53 37 37 13 13 39 51 51 53 53 51 5134 34 88 88 88 88 58 58 58 58 45 46 46 48 48 58 53 58 58 37 3749 49 13 71 71 71 71 25 26 26 82 64 64 64 6463 63 63 65 65 27 27 61 61 61 62 62 26 26 2626 27 26 26 26 26 81 81 57 57 57 57 57 57 60 60 60 32 32 32 252525 25 61 62 62 54 55 40 52 40 52 89 89 35 40 32 35 32 32 54 26 26 55 55 60 60 81 81 828282 31 31 27 27 42 62 61 180 180 81 54 55 27 65 42 42 42 42 82 63 65 61 62 61 71 180 61 62 47 47 180 180 47 180 180 55 55 25 37 37 37 89 27 63 77 77 66 66 66 66 77 77 66 73 66 68 68 68 66 68 73 68 68 73 73 77 70 70 70 72 22 70 22 72 70 70 70 72 72 70 22 22 22 22 22 2323 72 10 23 181 181 181 181 10 64 25 25 25 25 522 522 522 522 522 522 A ba ba SJ City College Kaiser Medical Center El Camino Hospital O’Connor Hospital Regional MedicalCenter Valley MedicalCenter Kaiser Medical Center GoodSamaritan Hospital Stanford Hospital Veterans AffairsHospital Stanford University SCU SJSU Evergreen Valley College West ValleyCollege Mineta San Jose Airport Mission College m o n t e r e y s e n ter tully w h ite curtner hill sdale sara t o g a ela v y n n u s - a g o t a r a s tn a r g ef l o w homestead reed kc e b n e l l o h ma r y stevens creek m c la u g h l i n mcke e alum r o c k hoste tter la f a y e t t e ot i u q oin o t n a n a s al m a evelyn spr i ng e r fremont ma th i l d a sara t o g a re t s e h c n i w blossom hill aborn calaveras abel milpitas mccarthy lan dess m eridian na i d i r e m campbell hamilton williams prospect allendale stelling parkmoor will o w k e y e s ba s c o m a lmad e n hillsdale capitol snell senter kiely co t t l e santa teresa monterey bascom el camino real university mid dlefield fo o t hill el m onte fab ian rengstorff miramon te shoreline moffett central maude java fair o aks duane arques tasman great america bower s monroe el camino real lawren ce a g n ew montague 1 s t scott 1st d e la cr u z mission california bernardo remington de a nz a sun ny vale-sar atoga tantau bollinger poll ard santa c ruz winchester main los gatos union leigh c a m d e n camden santa teresa branham winfield y erb a buena c a pit o l quimby murillo delta san felipe the villages ki n g sto rysanta clar ajulian oc ala ja c k s o n p ie d m o n t park vic t o ria m o rril l oa k la n d l u n d y broka w m a b ury na glee t a y l or coleman e sc u ela b erryessa h e d ding flic kin g er hom er the ala m e da linc ol n charlesto n a ra s tra d e ro la f a y e t t e sa n t o m a s Morgan Hill m ainh a le d u nn e m o n tere y c o ch ra n e burnett tennant Gilroy 1st 6th 8th mo nte re y welburn thomas m a nntelli san ysid ro a r r o y o 1 0t h wren 3rd kern 19 19 18 18 68 121 168 14 14 14 17 17 Gilroy 168 121 168 121 16 16 68 68 Morgan Hill Other Transit Services Title VI Communities VTA Weekday Route Frequencies Current Plan Peak Only Every 60 minutes Every 30-59 minutes Every 20 minutes Every 15 minutes or better Rapid: every 15 minutes and limited stops VTA light rail TC VTA Transit Center Caltrain / ACE commuter rail Future BART Low Income Low Income and Minority Minority ba Transit Service and Title VI Communities Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 48 7. 3 . g AC217 AC217 523 523 523 523 523 523 522 522 522 522 522 522 500 500 288 288L 288 288M 282 282 266 266 255 255 251 247247 246 246 89 83 83 83 77 77 77 77 73 73 72 72 72 71 71 71 71 71 71 70 70 70 70 68 68 68 68 68 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 65 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 63 63 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 60 60 6059 59 59 57 57 57 57 56 56 56 56 56 56 55 55 55 53 5353 53 52 52 51 51 51 51 51 51 47 47 47 42 42 42 42 40 40 40 39 39 39 37 37 37 31 31 27 27 27 27 27 26 26 26 26 26 26 2525 25 25 25 25 25 23 23 23 23 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 21 21 21 21 20 20 20 ba ba SJ City College Kaiser Medical Center El Camino Hospital O’Connor Hospital Regional MedicalCenter Valley MedicalCenter Kaiser Medical Center GoodSamaritan Hospital Stanford Hospital Veterans AffairsHospital Stanford University SCU SJSU Evergreen Valley College West ValleyCollege Mineta San Jose Airport Mission College m o n t e r e y s e n ter tully w h ite curtner hill sdale sara t o g a ela v y n n u s - a g o t a r a s tn a r g ef l o w homestead reed kc e b n e l l o h ma r y stevens creek m c la u g h l i n mcke e alum r o c k hoste tter la f a y e t t e ot i u q oin o t n a n a s al m a evelyn spr i ng e r fremont ma th i l d a sara t o g a re t s e h c n i w blossom hill aborn calaveras abel milpitas mccarthy lan dess m eridian na i d i r e m campbell hamilton williams prospect allendale stelling parkmoor will o w k e y e s ba s c o m a lmad e n hillsdale capitol snell senter kiely co t t l e santa teresa monterey bascom el camino real university mid dlefield fo o t hill el m onte fab ian rengstorff miramon te shoreline moffett central maude java fair o aks duane arques tasman great america bower s monroe el camino real lawren ce a g n ew montague 1 s t scott 1st d e la cr u z mission california bernardo remington de a nz a sun ny vale-sar atoga tantau bollinger poll ard santa c ruz winchester main los gatos union leigh c a m d e n camden santa teresa branham winfield y erb a buena c a pit o l quimby murillo delta san felipe the villages ki n g sto rysanta clar ajulian oc ala ja c k s o n p ie d m o n t park vic t o ria m o rril l oa k la n d l u n d y broka w m a b ury na glee t a y l or coleman e sc u ela b erryessa h e d ding flic kin g er hom er the ala m e da linc ol n charlesto n a ra s tra d e ro la f a y e t t e sa n t o m a s 87 87 68 68 Morgan Hill m ainh a le d u nn e m o n tere y c o ch ra n e burnett tennant 86 86 85 85 68 86 86 68 85 85 Gilroy 1st 6th 8th mo nte re y welburn thomas m a nntelli san ysid ro a r r o y o 1 0t h wren 3rd kern Other Transit Services Title VI Communities Every 60 minutes peak only Every 60 minutes plus 30 minute peak VTA Weekday Route Frequencies FINAL PLAN School trippers Municipal shuttles Every 60 minutes Every 30 minutes peak only Every 30 minutes Every 30 minutes plus 15 minute peak Every 15 minutes or better Rapid: every 15 minutes or better and limited stops VTA light rail TC VTA Transit Center Caltrain / ACE commuter rail Future BART Low Income Low Income and Minority Minority ba Transit Service and Title VI Communities Attachment G: Service Equity Analysis Page 49 7. 3 . g Proposed Final Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors Item 7.3 2 Phase II Outreach 9 Public Meetings 5 Webinars 85 Presentations 3,300 riders reached by multi-lingual street team Over 3,000 comments received 3 34 Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan Modify Route Alignment Minor Adjustments to Service Restore Service or Add Stops 20 21 232325 27 27 31 37 42 51 53 56 57 59 64 64 6571 72 72 73 77 83 89 96 87 288 522 522 523 500 Increase Service Level 4 The Final Transit Service Plan… •Expands the frequent network •Increases frequent transit access for 160,000 people, 150,000 jobs •Enhances light rail system •Links transit network with Milpitas and Berryessa BART Stations •Increases weekend service levels •Shifts ridership/coverage balance from 70/30 to 83/17 5 The Final Transit Service Plan… •Projected to increase bus ridership by 8-10 percent •Projected to increase light rail ridership by 10-15 percent •Projected to increases paratransit trips by over 21,000 annually •2 active paratransit clients’ homes outside of service area •20 paratransit service clients’ homes now in extended service area •Causes no Title VI disparate impact to minority communities •Causes no Title VI disproportionate burden on low-income communities •Increases transit access for minority and low-income communities 6 Next Steps •Implementation •Marketing and Information Campaign •New System Map and Timeguides •Express Bus Study •Transit Sustainability Policy Update and Service Performance Monitoring Questions nextnetwork.vta.org 7 8 Advisory Committee Comments •Appreciate Outreach •Interest in Measure B uses for innovative, first/last mile services •Want greater definition of Core Connectivity Program •Want clarity on timing of Measure B transit funding availability •Cities are already thinking about Measure B uses •West Valley Senior Mobility •South County Mobility Service •Palo Alto City Shuttle •Almaden Valley On-Demand Service 9 Project Goals 1)Increase Ridership 2)Improve Cost-effectiveness 3)Connect to BART 10 Project Timeline Feb 2016 Transit Choices Report Jun 2016 Transit Alternatives Report (Network Concepts) Summer 2016 Outreach Phase I Nov 2016 Board Direction for 85/15 Draft Plan Jan 2017 85/15 Draft Plan Released Jan-Feb 2017 Phase II Outreach April 2017 Proposed Final Plan Released May 2017 Board Adoption of Final Plan Late 2017 Service Changes Coincide with the Start of BART Service 11 Reallocation of Service Hours 12 Boardings Per Revenue Hour (Weekdays) Non-Express Bus Routes 13 Subsidy Per Ride (Weekdays) Non-Express Bus Routes 14 Expand Frequent Network 22 6423 70 25 B P Current Frequent 522 Current Rapid 72 26 57 60 61 66 68 73 77 O G New Frequent 523500 New Rapid 15-minute, all-day frequency on weekdays 15 Enhance Light Rail System 16 +15% +12% -6% More Weekend Service 17 Connections to BART Stations 18 4 routes + express 3 routes 14 routes 23 routes 9 routes Service Hierarchy 19 Expanding Potential Transit Market Near the Frequent Network 20 Ridership Projections Compared to current service plan… 15 to 20 percent increase in light rail ridership 8 to 10 percent increase in bus ridership 6 Months 70% 12 Months 80% 18 Months 90% 24 Months 100% Ridership takes about two years to materialize. 21 Paratransit Impacts 21,000 more annual trips 2 active clients homes outside of service area 20 active clients homes move to extended area 22 Title VI Equity Analysis on final plan conducted independently by NWC Partners no disparate impact on minority populations no disproportionate burden on low-income populations Title VI Equity Analysis 23 Final Plan Map Text 24 Final Plan Map Text 25 Final Plan Map Text 26 Core Connectivity Program •Grant program to develop innovative mobility solutions •Two-year grant cycle •Call for projects •Local match requirement •Guidance for project proposals •Policy Considerations •Types of eligible projects –new, innovative, first/last mile, etc. •Level of subsidy per ride 27 Expand Frequent Network Eastridge Berryessa BART Lockheed Martin Great America Milpitas BART Santa Teresa Win c h e s t e r Ba s c o m Bo w e r sExisting Frequent Service 28 Diridon Station Eastridge Transit Center Palo Alto Transit Center Increase Rapid Services Existing Rapid Service Service Better Matched to Demand 29HOUR OF DAY BUSES IN SERVICE Amount of Service in Final Plan 30 FY16-17 APPROVED (EXISTING) 169,367 1,601,277 207,124 1,601,277 FY18-19 PROPOSED (FINAL PLAN) ANNUAL SERVICE HOURS LIGHT RAIL BUS 31 32 Lockheed Martin Diridon Station Berryessa BART Station Eastridge Transit Center Palo Alto Transit Center De Anza College Valley Fair/ Santana Row Sunnyvale Caltrain Vallco Increase Rapid Services CAMPBELL CUPERTINO LOS ALTOSLOSALTOS HILLS LOS GATOS MILPITAS MONTE SERENO MOUNTAIN VIEW PALO ALTO SAN JOSE SANTA CLARA SARATOGA SUNNYVALE GILROY MORGAN HILL Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community 0 1 2 3 4 50.5 Miles Service Maintained or Adjusted Up/Down New Service Discontinued Service FY18-19 Transit Service PlanNew Service and Discontinued Service Areas with new service and areas that would lose service, compared to current service May 1, 2017 Board of Directors Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1927 RE: South Santa Clara County: Next Network Plan Santa Clara Valley Transportation Board Members: On behalf of the City Councils and communities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy, we want to thank the VTA Board and staff for your continued outreach on the Next Network Plan (Plan) to discuss the reasons for revising the ridership/coverage percentages and as importantly, the impacts to South Santa Clara County (South County). We appreciate how you listened to our feedback on the Plan and accordingly made some adjustments to minimize the impacts to South County’s service levels. Furthermore, we are excited about continued collaboration with VTA on the Plan and for the new opportunities we now have with the passage of Measure B in November 2016, including streets and road repair and expanding our CalTrain service. We concur with the Plan’s goals of increasing transit ridership and improving efficiency as these are necessary for the long-term sustainability of VTA service. The cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy also strongly believe there is a timely opportunity to advance VTA’s “Solutions that move you” slogan in South County with the Board’s consideration of the Plan. As such, we are formally requesting that as part of the Board’s adoption of the Plan, VTA commits to immediately begin working with Morgan Hill and Gilroy to discuss innovative ideas that further transform VTA and simultaneously enhance service in South County. This formal action would be a signal to South County residents that VTA recognizes service level enhancements are needed, though the current model is not conducive to achieving that collective goal. Through Measure B funding, we ask that South County becomes a high priority for funding of innovative mobility models and expanding mobility options and fares for the most vulnerable population. South County has begun to discuss different approaches to maximizing public investment by utilizing non-traditional transportation models (eg. Uber, Lyft, volunteer programs, senior housing developments, etc.). We recognize that having VTA committed to working with our communities will be critical to successfully serving South County. VTA brings much needed expertise and experience that will undoubtedly assist in creating a service plan and funding strategies that we can all be proud of and model in other areas with similar transit service challenges as South County. Thank you for the opportunity to collaborate and we look forward to working with VTA as partners into the future. We would be happy to further discuss our request at your convenience. Sincerely, Steve Tate Roland Velasco Morgan Hill Mayor Gilroy Mayor Steve.Tate@morganhill.ca.gov Roland.Velasco@ci.gilroy.ca.us Transit Service Plan Comments Page 1 of 17 From: Anna Ma Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 6:26 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: VTA88, 88L and 88M bus services Hello! I am writing to you to consider the current VTA88, 88L and 88M bus schedule services. We are very disappointed to know that you are going to discontinue the current VTA88, 88L and 88M service. The proposed 288 limited service is inadequate to serve Gunn students' needs. My kids are taking afternoon buses on every school day. Sometimes she will take a later bus because of the school sports schedule. Could you please provide the city with bridge funding when service cuts are introduced in order to minimize erosion of student bus ridership? Can VTA request Measure B funds to support the bus service when it becomes available? The traffic in the city has already been bad. We would like VTA to provide more bus schedules so we don't need to drive kids around so the less traffic will made. Please reconsider your decision and not reduce the schedules. Thanks! -anna From: Vish Saxena Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 7:10 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: Bus route 88 & 88L is a lifeline Dear Board as a parent of two school aged kids, I have no way to drop both my kids at the same time. .Luckily the VTA bus route exists and my daughter takes it virtually every day to get to school. Making cuts to this route means 10s of exasperated parents on our streets causing more mayhem and lack of safety for kids. I strongly request you to not make cuts to the bus route which is a lifeline. Thanks Vishal Transit Service Plan Comments Page 2 of 17 From: James Lee Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 3:03 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: Please do not cut bus on all 88 line To Whom It May Concern, Please do not cut any bus on 88 lines, weekday daily during school time my family needs the 88 badly and can not leave it without it. cheers, and Pray The Lord. James Lee From: Olga Enciso-Smith Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 9:28 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: Public Hearing Dear Board , I take VTA from time to time . I trust that the service of the 48 and 49 line to LG will continue. Some users are people who work as caregivers , cleaning houses, servers, busboys, and some are Seniors like me , others are handicapped. I was hit by a car while walking at the parking lot of Trader Joes in LG when a car speeding hit me and fractured my back. I had to rely on public transportation. On Sat. i had a meeting at the SJ Presbytery on N. First St near Hedding, from the Winchester Sta. I took the LR. These services are much needed for people who cant drive and don't have a car. I trust that a major campaign to educate the public about the value of Public Transportation is done asap so more people get out of the freeways. They are driving dangerously as you may know the statistic probing the increase in deaths and accidents. Thank you, Olga Enciso Smith Social Entrpreneur Los Gatos, CA 95032 Local and Global Commerce From: M Carmen Rodwell Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:16 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: Cuts to VTA line 88 in Palo Alto. Dear VTA Board Members, My son will be a Junior at Gunn next school year and we were very disappointed to learn that the bus line that was going to take him there is going to be taken away. Transit Service Plan Comments Page 3 of 17 Many members of our community are counting in this vital public service to make sure our children gate safely to Gunn at times of the day when traffic is very busy and rushing with car that are in a hurry to get to their destination without paying much attention to bikers or pedestrians. Please consider maintaining this very vital service to our community and guarantee we have a safe way for our children to go to High School. The proposed 288 limited service is inadequate for the need of our Gunn students. I think VTA should provide the city of Palo Alto with bridge funding when service cuts are introduced in order to minimize erosion of student bus ridership. (As we understand it, there will be a gap in time between when cuts are made and Measure B funds become available, we need VTA help to bridge this gap.) The city of palo alto should also receive Measure B funds (when they become available) to support a lower cost City of Palo Alto Shuttle route expansion to fill service gaps that the VTA cuts will create. Gunn PTSA has spent years promoting alternative commutes, including the VTA bus, cultivating high bus ridership among students. I hope VTA will reward those efforts by continuing to work in partnership with us to create a local transit network that works well for PAUSD students, work commuters and residents. Sincerely, Carmen Rodwell MD Greenmeadow Palo Alto, CA From: ChickenWaterer Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:26 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: VTA Route 88 Cut Sirs: I'm writing to let you know that I'm very disappointed that the VTA is cutting the 88, 88L and 88M service in Palo Alto. My son currently rides this route to Gunn High School and his sister would be taking the same bus next year when she enters as a freshman. This line is very helpful to parents like me because it gets the kids to school during the winter months when rain and cold weather make biking to school impossible. As a working parent, I don't have an alternative to the bus. If you would, please provide our town with measure B funds to support a shuttle bus that can act as a replacement for the 88 and also provide Palo Alto with bridge funds to help the city maintain Transit Service Plan Comments Page 4 of 17 bus service during the time period between the end of the 88 service and the start of bridge funding. Thanks in advance for your consideration Mark Delman Parent From: douglas ward Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:36 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: Gunn HS cross town bus NEEDED Hello VTA, The bus from Gunn HS to midtown Palo Alto is a VERY important part of our day. Please don't stop this route. If we don't have it, we have no way to get to school other than a 40 minute walk. Douglas Ward From: douglas ward Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:39 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: VTA88, 88L and 88M bus Gunn HS Dear VTA secretary, Bus routes to and from Gunn HS are desperately needed for my TWO children. Buses # VTA88, 88L and 88M are the only way they can get to school on most days or walk 40 minutes. Please provide FUNDING for this essential service in Palo Alto. Sincerely, Douglas Ward From: Anne Marie Hallada Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 1:47 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: GUNN HighSchool Bus Routes Dear Board Secretary: I am writing to let you know about my concern and disappointment over discontinuing the VTA88, 88L and 88M service. I have spoken with other parents in the area who are concerned that the proposed 288 limited service is inadequate to serve the needs of the students. Transit Service Plan Comments Page 5 of 17 Our son will be starting Gunn HS next year and we have been planning on having him take the bus since his hearing impairment makes biking an unsafe option for him. With 3 additional children in the district at two other schools, my own work as an Instructional Aide at a PAUSD school, and my husbands commute in the opposite direction it will make driving very difficult. My understanding is that the VTA may be able to to provide the city with bridge funding when service cuts are introduced before Measure B funding becomes available. Palo Alto students are our future VTA riders and with our next generation being so environmentally conscious, I think it makes sense to work with the school to support these young and future riders. Did you know that fewer kids are in a rush to get their driving licenses these days? They are more accustomed to sharing rides, taking public transportation, or using other driving services like Uber. Thank you for your consideration and for continuing to look into this issue. -- Anne Marie Bredehoft-Hallada, MPH Health Education Consultant From: Winston, Ethan Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 4:02 PM To: 'Jerry Li' Subject: Complaint Against Removal of VTA Bus 181 Mr. Li, Thank you for your most recent comment regarding Route 181, which in addition to serving Santa Clara County residents, also currently serves Alameda County residents as it makes it way to the Fremont BART station. Route 181 was established to build a base of riders for the BART extension to Santa Clara County being built by VTA. A peripheral benefit was for the time it would be running it would also be available to serve Fremont residents. Unfortunately, sales tax revenue generated by Fremont residents goes to AC Transit, rather than VTA, so VTA is not able to provide that service indefinitely. (VTA is the public transportation provider for Santa Clara County, while AC Transit is the public transportation provider in Fremont). Specifically, Route 181 is being discontinued so the resources it requires can be reallocated to better serve Santa Clara County residents, who, through sales tax revenue, pay the portion of transit operations costs not covered by fares. In a previous e-mail you noted “tens of thousands” commuters depend on Route 181 and will be adversely impacted. That number, unfortunately, is inflated and inaccurate. In addition, the new Transit Service Plan Comments Page 6 of 17 BART service, combined with multiple express bus lines whisking riders downtown, will be an upgrade in service for most patrons. The number of individuals being impacted is much smaller and primarily consists of the Fremont residents who live outside the VTA service area along the Route 181 corridor. In that previous e-mail you also estimate an additional annual cost of $3,000 in your personal transit expenses. While I am unsure of the methodology used to reach that number, I did want to suggest you visit the 511.org website for other commuter alternatives available to you. Financial subsidies exist for van pools and car pools, for example. In addition, employers with more than 50 employees are required by the regional air resources board to help subsidize employee commute expenses, as is San Jose State University. Adobe, for example, is a major downtown San Jose employer who assists its employees with transit costs, including employees currently utilizing Route 181. Finally, EcoPass is a financial product unique to VTA and each agency sets its own fare discount policies. I suspect south bay commuters, employers and educational institutions will approach BART seeking discounted fares. VTA, however, does not have the ability or legal authority to require BART to offer such fares, either to Santa Clara County residents, or to individuals who live outside our service area. VTA appreciates your current patronage of our services and regrets a complex set of factors does not allow us to continue operating Route 181 in Alameda County. Sincerely, Ethan Winston VTA Community Outreach From: Jerry Li Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 5:08 PM To: Winston, Ethan Ethan, The general public is negatively affected by the proposed changes. Many of which are complaining and against your committee's decisions. We the people, have valid concerns that are not addressed by you, much less the document you linked in the previous email. I am requesting you to do your due diligence, as required by your position, to respond to the concerns expressed by the people. You are in your position to appropriately address issues, not ignore them at your convenience. Regards, Jerry Li Transit Service Plan Comments Page 7 of 17 On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Jerry Li wrote: Ethan, I appreciate your response to the concerns voiced by all riders who will be displaced by the removal of the VTA Bus Line 181. But, you have not addressed the glaring fact that most Eco Pass cards do NOT cover BART fares. Thus, most displaced riders will be forced to pay an additional $3,000 plus per year to commute to and from their destinations. Also, have you read the news regarding strong of BART robberies at Oakland stations? There is nothing preventing something similar from happening to riders forced to use the BART to the Berryessa Station, everyday. Link to news article: www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-50-to-60-teens- swarm-11094745.php What does your administration have to respond to the fact that your changes will negatively affect all riders? Regards, Jerry Li On Apr 24, 2017 9:45 AM, "Winston, Ethan" wrote: Mr. Li, Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the changing public transportation options for travel between Alameda County and San Jose State University and other destinations. From the San Jose/Berryessa BART Station, SJSU students and staff will be able to travel on Rapid 500, which will have an estimated travel time of 12 minutes between the station and downtown. Rapid 500 will depart the Berryessa Station every 10 to 15 minutes during the service day. A longer discussion of the issue can be found in Attachment 5 of the memo going to the VTA Board of Directors in May. Here is a link to that document: http://bit.ly/2pyI2FS. The discussion regarding The Rapid 500 line begins on page three, while the Fremont express bus discussion begins on page five. Ethan Winston VTA Community Outreach From: Jerry Li Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 4:59 PM To: Board Secretary Subject: Complaint Against Removal of VTA Bus 181 Hi Elaine, I am following up on our phone call earlier today regarding the removal of the VTA Bus Line 181 that travels between Fremont and San Jose. Transit Service Plan Comments Page 8 of 17 At San Jose State University, there are over 1,300 students and employees who use line 181 to commute to and from campus on a daily basis. That means over 1,300 students and employees will be forced to find other methods of commuting to the campus in downtown San Jose. The Berryessa Bart station is planned to open at the end of 2017. But, it is a significant distance from the Berryessa Bart station to downtown San Jose. Commuters are forced to find a bus that goes from the station to their destinations. They are just one subset of tens of thousands of commuters who rely on the VTA Bus Line 181 to travel to and from work. Furthermore, commuters are forced to pay extra on transportation fees to be able to work or pursue an education. On average, the extra fees required to travel to and from work equate to over $3,000 dollars a year. $3,000 is a significant amount of money for students and workers who have to use the public transportation system. Since most university provided Eco Pass Clipper cards do not cover Bart tickets, professors and students with limited budgets are forced to lower their quality of life to afford transportation to and from school. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Jerry Li From: Ruth-Anne Siegel Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 4:15 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: Do not cut the VTA88, 88L or 88M service! VTA board members, My children have used the 88L bus for all the years they went to Gunn. Now, my youngest is on her way to high school and will use this bus to get to/from school when she goes to Gunn. Based on the years my older children used the bus, I can’t imagine how my daughter would go to/from school before she gets a license. Her father and I both work and it’s a horrible drive on Arastradero with so many cars both ways. Please reconsider what reducing the amount of buses would do to the traffic, the environment, and the quality of life in our city. Thank you. Ruth-Anne Siegel Transit Service Plan Comments Page 9 of 17 From: Hsia Lin Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 4:38 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: VTA Route 88 To Whom It May Concern, I teach first grade at Palo Verde Elementary School. I requested that my 8th grade daughter attend Gunn High School next year specifically because the 88 currently runs along Louis Road where my school is located. My daughter has had two scary bike accidents during her three years attending JLS Middle School. Once, she was knocked to the ground and hit her head when a driver in a parked car opened his door. Just this past November, another biker swerved into my daughter and knocked her over. My daughter fell face-first into the road and two of her front teeth were knocked loose. The thought of my daughter biking across Alma and the train tracks to get to Paly from my elementary school made me nervous enough to apply to Gunn, so she could take the bus instead. Since I found out about the possibility of the changes to the route of the 88, I have been very anxious about the impact this change would have on my morning commute if I have to drive my daughter to Gunn and get to my school on time. I live in Redwood City and the commute from 101 is always unpredictable, let alone the traffic within the city limits once we get here. I am desperately hoping that service is not cut because the 88 is provides an important service to so many Gunn students and their families. Thank you for your consideration. Kind Regards, Lynn Lin From: Laam Wong Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 6:44 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: Please keep VTA88, 88L & 88M Dear VTA Board, Our children are graduating from JLS and going to Gunn this coming Fall 2017. We live across town from Gunn at East Meadow and Louis Road, we are counting on the VTA bus for our children to go to Gunn, especially during adverse weather days. We are very disappointed that the VTA is discontinuing VTA88, 88L and 88M service. The proposed 288 limited service is really inadequate to serve our needs. We hope VTA Board can provide bridge funding when service cuts are introduced in order to minimize erosion of student bus ridership. Transit Service Plan Comments Page 10 of 17 We also hope VTA Board can provide Measure B funds when it become available to support a lower cost City of Palo Alto Shuttle route expansion to fill service gaps that the VTA cuts will create. Gunn PTSA has spent years promoting alternative commutes, including the VTA bus, cultivating high bus ridership among students. please reward these efforts by continuing to work in partnership with Gunn PTA to create a local transit network that works well for PAUSD students, work commuters and residents. Sincerely Laam From: Sofus Macskássy Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 7:41 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: this is what I am sending to VTA, please do so tonight if you can Dear VTA Board, Our children are graduating from JLS and going to Gunn this coming Fall 2017. We live across town from Gunn at East Meadow and Louis Road, we are counting on the VTA bus for our children to go to Gunn, especially during adverse weather days. We are very disappointed that the VTA is discontinuing VTA88, 88L and 88M service. The proposed 288 limited service is really inadequate to serve our needs. We hope VTA Board can provide bridge funding when service cuts are introduced in order to minimize erosion of student bus ridership. We also hope VTA Board can provide Measure B funds when it become available to support a lower cost City of Palo Alto Shuttle route expansion to fill service gaps that the VTA cuts will create. Gunn PTSA has spent years promoting alternative commutes, including the VTA bus, cultivating high bus ridership among students. please reward these efforts by continuing to work in partnership with Gunn PTA to create a local transit network that works well for PAUSD students, work commuters and residents. Sincerely, Sofus Macskassy Transit Service Plan Comments Page 11 of 17 From: 宽辰 Gmail Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 11:24 AM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: Please do not reduce 88bus frequency To whom it may concern, I am a Gunn student, taking bus everyday between home ,close to Onlone and school, bus 88 has accompanied my school years since JLS middle school years. I need the transportation and schedule flexibility as school activities, sometimes, kept me late for going back home, so the cut on bus may result inconvenient, which one of my parent needs to leave work early to pick me up as biking distant is far from my home. I sincerely asking your support for maintaining the service, thank you. Kenton Kenton LeeFrom iPad From: Jarrett Mullen Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 9:10 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: I Support the Next Network Dear Chair Bruins and the VTA Board of Directors: As a San Jose State Alumni and someone who works, visits family, visits friends, and rides transit, in Santa Clara County, I support the proposed VTA next network and urge you to approve the plan. The plan will greatly expand transit access to places where it is used the most, making it more possible than ever to use fewer or no personal cars without sacrificing as much freedom. However, please remember the service constraints were dictated by a fixed bus service operations budget. More than $1 billion from measure B is earmarked for wasteful and ineffective expressway widening, a portion of which could be redirected to expand bus service and implement spot improvements to speed up our new bus service Thank you for your time and service. Regards, Jarrett Mullen Transit Service Plan Comments Page 12 of 17 From: Ed Dunn Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 10:35 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: Please do not reduce VTA88, 88L and 88M routes Hi, Please do not reduce VTA88, 88L and 88M routes. My son is planning to make great use of both morning and afternoon routes. He plays sports and will want variable times in the afternoon. Also, he'll want to hang out with friends and then have more than 1 option in terms of when to take bus home. Like many families, both my wife and I work so having a bus option would really help. Also, please use bridge funding to help fill the needs. Thank you for your consideration, Ed From: Mary Ann Michel Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 11:25 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: Route88 Routes from 101 to foothill Expressway and 280 are limited in Palo Alto Arastradero Road is one of them. I'm sure you understand the amount of traffic involved around the high school. we need the bus help. North county is poorly served by VTA. We voted for the extra money I don't think it's too much to expect two buses north of San Antonio 35 and 88 please keep the school bus running and 35 as planned. As always I think 15 minute intervals between buses would improve ridership. MAMichel From: VTA Rider < > Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 4:48:22 PM > To: Jeannie Bruins > Cc: VTA Rider > Subject: VTA's Final Plan for Fall 2017 > > Dear VTA Chairperson and Councilmember Jeannie Bruins: > > VTA's final plan for fall 2017 is very flawed. > > I ask that the VTA Board delay voting on a final plan. > > I also ask that the express light rail line not be named the yellow line. The color yellow has been associated with East Asian and East Asian Americans; it has not always been associated in a positive way. > Transit Service Plan Comments Page 13 of 17 > Alternatives to the yellow line name include the gold line (both the light rail systems of Los Angeles and Sacramento have gold lines; neither has a yellow line), the platinum line, the aqua line, and the teal line. > > Attached is my presentation regarding the final plan. Also attached is a spreadsheet which classifies most VTA routes by their boardings per revenue hour for weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays for the first half of the current fiscal year. > > I hope to send two plans for VTA routes prior to Thursday's VTA Board meeting. > > If you have any questions, feel free to phone me. > > Thank you. > > Sincerely, > > James Nakamura From: Savas Komban Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 9:45 AM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: Regarding the discontinuation of VTA88, 88L and 88M Hi, I am a new resident in Palo Alto, I moved with my family last year. After visiting several cities in the Bay Area, we chose to live in Palo Alto especially due to its excellent environment for our kids. Transportation to school is an important matter for us and I recently learned that VTA is considering to discontinue VTA88, 88L and 88M which directly affects our Gunn freshman. The alternative service offered with 288 does not seem to serve for our transportation needs. As I understand, there will also be a time gap after the introduction of these proposed service cuts, I kindly ask you to re-evaluate the topic to figure out alternative methods to keep our children unaffected. Sincerely, Savas Komban (650) 924 5504 From: Maria Abilock Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 10:43 AM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: VTA 88, 88L & 88M lines cut-backs Dear VTA Board, Transit Service Plan Comments Page 14 of 17 I've been following the service change proposals for the VTA 88 lines over the past year and I am disappointed to see the service cuts proposed with the new 288 lines. The service is inadequate for students who have after school activities or prep periods and can arrive to school later. If you continue with these cuts, please provide Palo Alto with bridge funding and allocate Measure B funds to make-up the service loss. The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership has been actively promoting alternative transportation to Gunn HS, including the VTA bus service. In fact, just last week, the JLS Middle School PTA and Safe Routes to School Partnership promoted the VTA bus lines to graduating 8th graders as a viable alternative commute to Gunn. My own son learned about the VTA bus lines at the same event last year and as a result has taken VTA 88 M to school. Because of the bus and bike options, I have never driven him to Gunn HS. Thank you, Maria, Palo Alto resident Parent of Gunn 9th grader From: Guy Livneh Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 1:09 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: palo alto - bus line 88/288 Dear VTA board members, I’m really sad to learn about the severely reduced service for line 88 . The 288 line is really not enough as it does such a small number of trips. Our kids stay in school for longer hours. I am a cancer survivor, recovering from a stem cell transplant, and it’s hard with my schedule to drive my kids (i also have a compromised immune system hence i can’t come to the VTA related meetings), so I have to write this by email to get my voice heard. I have my 2nd daughter going to Gunn high school, soon to have a 3rd daughter join. We rely on public transportation for their commute, since we live in Midtown Palo Alto which is very far from school. My daughters have many classes and activities after school that make them stay, they really need more available times for the bus line, sometimes they need to come back at 4,5 or even 6 from school. Even today an hour between the buses is a lot to wait, since many times my daughter is stranded for 55 minutes just because she was late - but at least we got something, soon we will either have to find a way to drive her or get her a cheap car. I understand it might be hard to keep 3 separate lines, but at least keep one solid line with a service throughout the day. More buses might encourage more kids to use the bus. Also I do not believe public transportation should be a business, we should strive to let people without means be able to function in society without private cars. Transit Service Plan Comments Page 15 of 17 We try to educate our kids to be good citizens, use public transportation, and be active in our community. Telling them now we need to find a cheap car for them as soon as possible because the public bus system fail them is really sending our young generation the wrong message. I know budgets are tough to get by, but really, not providing kids with public transportation to school is sending such a strong message about how our society looks like. Yes, many richer Palo Alto parents will shrug it off, get their kid a car and forget about it. But I am sad to think this is our society now. I hope you will consider this request. Thanks a lot, Guy Livneh From: nodiamonds Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 1:22 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: Please DO NOT cut 88 line bus service It is essential to our children's commutes to school. Philippe Alexis From: sarit schube Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 2:27 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: VTA 88 Bus Service Board Members-- I am writing to youas a Palo Alto resident whose son will be attending Gunn high school next year. I am counting on his being able to take the bus to school. I am extremely disappointed with the VTA proposal to cut the 88, 88L, and 88M bus lines that serve Gunn, since the new 288 school tripper route will not cover 88L. Limiting bus service hours to 7:00 AM-8:00 AM and 2:00-4:00 PM instead of all day long will affect my son's ability (and other students' abilities) to get home following after school sporting events and classes. My son, for example, will be playing water polo and will have both morning practices and afternoon games beyond school hours. At a minimum, I ask that VTA provide the city with bridge funding when service cuts are introduced in order to minimize erosion of student bus ridership. Also, I ask that when Measure B funds become available, please use them to support a lower cost City of Palo Alto Shuttle route expansion to fill service gaps that the VTA cuts will create. Transit Service Plan Comments Page 16 of 17 Gunn PTSA has spent years promoting alternative commutes, including the VTA bus, cultivating high bus ridership among students. I sincerely hope that VTA will reward those efforts by continuing to work in partnership with Gunn to create a local transit network that works well for PAUSD students, work commuters and residents. Sincerely, Sarit Schube From: Karim Dabbagh Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 3:30 PM To: Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org> Subject: Palo Alto VTA bus line changes To the VTA board, It is with regret that I learned about the cuts to an important service you were providing to my two kids who go and come from school (Gunn HS) by bus many times a week, specially when I am not able to pick or drop off. The 88 bus lines were an expected community service we relied on. I am hoping you will be doing your utmost to support continued funding to alternatives to those changes, including bridge funding for the local Palo Alto city bus service that is a poor remedy to the vital service you are removing. This is to urge you to continue to support our local community and the ability to allow community members to move around town as they need. Best wishes, Karim Dabbagh ____________________________________________________________________________________ From: Kirk Nangreaves Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 4:49 PM To: Board Secretary Subject: Re: Contacting board members Dear VTA Board, I'm a huge supporter of the Next Network plan (and Jarred Walker's work in general) but the Light Rail component of this plan has been handled in a fashion that is neither transparent nor honest. I think this needs to be discussed before moving forward. The draft proposal clearly shows 15‐min light rail frequencies, 7‐days a week (see picture below). I attended 3 of the community feedback sessions, and each time they made a point of highlighting this, it was very popular as you can imagine. It's also fundamental to the concept of a frequent core network. Transit Service Plan Comments Page 17 of 17 However, in the final plan for the Green and Orange LRT lines, service has been reduced to 30‐min frequencies. This change was quietly made after the last public feedback meeting. The Final Plan memo to the Board even says (Page 5): That is patently untrue. The final plan shows a dramatic service reduction (cutting 50% of weekend service on the affected lines, as compared to the plan that was presented to the public). This reduction was made with zero public feedback because it was done quietly after the feedback period had closed. And the memo to the Board lies about it. I am always hesitant to use the word "lie" but facts are facts. This seems neither honest nor transparent, and so I wanted raise it before the Board meeting this week. I believe it needs to be openly discussed and I would like to see service on these lines restored to the draft plan (or, at least, reopen the comment period for Light Rail so that this can be discussed openly with the community). Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or wish to discuss further, my email is and my cell is . Thank you! Kirk Nangreaves From: meg minto Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 8:41 PM To: Board Secretary Subject: VTA 88 Wednesday, May 3, 2017 Hello, Once again I am begging you not to cut the 88, 88L, and 88M lines as severely as you seem to want to cut them, and to operate the lines that you do continue bi-directionally. I am a senior living in Midtown Palo Alto very near 101. I work at two different part-time jobs, one in Menlo Park, and one at Stanford often in the evenings and on weekends I also do volunteer work at Stanford. I use the 88 daily to get to the VA in time to take the 7 a.m. Stanford VA shuttle over to the Stanford Medical Center, and I often take an 88 back at 9:01 a.m. from Arastradero and El Camino. I very frequently take the 88 from East Meadow to Charleston to go to the library and from East Meadow to Colorado to get medications at CVS and to shop over there. I have not been able to get reconciled to the idea of having much less service on this line. I do admit that people are not using the line as much as we would like them to, but I keep thinking that things will change, and ridership will pick up. Our population is increasing, the parking situation is a nightmare that gets into the news very frequently, and we are rapidly aging and would like to be able to maintain our independence with VTA's help. I know Palo Alto has asked you to provide money for them to operate small municipal shuttles - and Palo Alto is thinking that these shuttles would solve some of the problem. That's true--they would be a partial solution, and at this point we are desperate to have more of our options preserved than we would have if you take away as much of the 88 as you are thinking of taking. Still, more of your buses would be preferable, especially because of the economical access your fixed routes provide for those needing paratransit (again, an expanding population in the coming years). Please preserve as much as possible of the 88 and let it be bi-directional. I am afraid that if the cuts are too deep people will give up altogether, and that in fact this may be the direction that we run a serious risk of going in at this point. Thank you, Margaret Minto From: goldhabergordon Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 9:15 PM To: Board Secretary Subject: Cuts in VTA88 service (which has served Gunn High School) Dear Board Members, VTA's 88 line (88, 88L and 88M service) has provided an important resource for Gunn High School students who depend on it to avoid car commutes which would add congestion, pollution, and waste of energy. The proposed 288 limited service would not enable students to get to school earlier than the standard start time, or stay to various times after the standard end time, as participants in musical and theater groups and sports often do. I urge you not to cut this service. If you do cut the service, I understand that there may be an effort to have Palo Alto extend shuttle service. This could be partly supported by Measure B funds, but those will not be available immediately. I ask that you provide Palo Alto funding to bridge the time between any cut of service you make and when Measure B funds are available. Otherwise, student bus ridership, which has been cultivated over years of effort, will be lost and will not return. I also ask that you support making Measure B funds available to enable a reasonably-priced City of Palo Alto Shuttle route expansion to fill service gaps that any VTA cuts will create. An expensive shuttle will not retain robust student ridership, based on a recent survey. Sincerely, David Goldhaber-Gordon Father of a Gunn freshman ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Goldhaber-Gordon Professor of Physics and Director, (permanent forwarding) Center for Probing the Nanoscale Stanford University Address for letters or packages: Administrative Associate: David Goldhaber-Gordon Clora Yeung Geballe Laboratory for Advanced Materials McCullough, Rm. 331 From: Catherine Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 9:21 PM To: Board Secretary Subject: Cuts to Gunn High school service lines = VTA88, 88L and 88M All, Hi. I write to request that you do not approve service cuts tomorrow. I am disappointed that despite all the mtgs. community outreach/surveys, you plan to discontinue VTA88, 88L and 88M service. The proposed 288 limited service is inadequate to serve Gunn students' needs. Should you opt to go ahead anyways, please provide the Palo Alto with bridge funding when service cuts are introduced in order to minimize erosion of student bus ridership. (As we understand it, there will be a gap in time between when cuts are made and Measure B funds become available; we need VTA help to bridge this gap.) I also write to request that you make Measure B funds (when they become available) to support a lower cost City of Palo Alto Shuttle route expansion to fill service gaps that the VTA cuts will create. (67% of surveyed Gunn students said they would be less likely to ride the bus if VTA's proposed changes were implemented.) Gunn PTSA has spent years promoting alternative commutes, including the VTA bus, cultivating high bus ridership among students. We hope VTA will reward those efforts by continuing to work in partnership with us to create a local transit network that works well for PAUSD students, work commuters and residents. Cheers, ccb From: Andy Dugacki Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 10:50 PM To: Board Secretary Subject: VTA88, 88L and 88M buses Dear VTA Board Member, I'm sending you this email as a plea to keep VTA88, 88L and 88M buses that serve our Palo Alto community. These lines are of an extreme importance to us. For some of us this is the only way to get our kids to and from Gunn High School. Honestly, I'm not sure how will my kids get to school if these lines are eliminated. I understand that you need to look at your bottom line, but you must also know that 67% of surveyed Gunn students said they would be less likely to ride the bus if VTA’s proposed changes were implemented. I'm sure you agree that is quite a large number. Bottom line is we need to have these buses, and if the needs of community are not met then we would expect VTA to work responsibly, as a good corporate citizen, with the City of Palo Alto to find alternative solutions including Measure B funds and bridge funding to get our kids to and from Gunn High School. Thank you in advance for your consideration! Andreja Dugacki Gunn High School Parent From: Srdjan Kovacevic Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 12:20 AM To: Board Secretary Subject: keep 88, 88L and 88M service Dear VTA Board Members, I'm writing to express my serious concern about our children safety if you discontinue VTA88, 88L and 88M bus service. Those buses represent a safe option to get to/from Gunn school for many students. If these lines are discontinued, that would mean hundreds more cars on the road as well as more bikers, making it more dangerous for bikers who need to share the road with other traffic. The proposed 288 limited service is simply not adequate to serve Gunn students' needs. For students who attend tutorials, or any other after school activity (e.g., sports, drama and similar), that will not be a viable option. That would mean that many students, whose parents cannot drive them, will not be able to participate in those programs. For instance, my children, who often stay after school, would be impacted. If you do proceed with service cuts, I ask that you support alternative options that would alleviate the loss and serve the need of Palo Alto community. I expect VTA to work responsibly, as a good corporate citizen, with the City of Palo Alto to implement alternative solutions. At minimum, this would include providing bridge funding to the city when service cuts are introduced in order to minimize erosion of student bus ridership. Measure B funds, when they become available. I sincerely hope you will reconsider your decision and consider how it will impact our community! Best, Srdjan Kovacevic Gunn High School Parent From: Yannick Lau Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 7:52 AM To: Board Secretary Subject: VTA bus 88 cut impacts Gunn srudents Dear Board Secretary, I am very disappointed in the planned service cut for bus 88. It serves a critical need for Gunn students during school year and summer for getting to Gunn from Palo Verde neighborhood. The bus route offered an option to driving and biking. I do hope you reconsider the cut. If funds are needed from measure to bridge the gap, I am all for it. Thank you. Kim Lau (Parent of a Gunn student) From: Chwick, Karen L Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 8:18 AM To: Board Secretary Subject: SAVE OUR VETERAN'S VTA BUS SERVICE Many of our veterans depend on public transportation that will take them to the Palo Alto VA with direct and consistent service. Please do not eliminate the 88; this would greatly affect our veteran’s ability to receive health care (if they are unable to use public transportation to the Palo Alto VA Medical Center). Thanks. Karen Chwick Karen L. Chwick, LCSW, OSW-C Senior Social Worker Oncology/Hematology United States Department of Veterans Affairs From: Kristen Flaten Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 10:11 AM To: Board Secretary Subject: [spam] Bus Line 181 Concerns To Whom It May Concern, My name is Kristen Flaten and I am a third year accounting student at San Jose State University. I am deeply concerned after hearing the recent news of the possible removal of the 181 bus route. The removal of the 181 bus route would be harmful to not only me, but also thousands of individuals. According to data from VTA’s Open Data Portal, in 2016, there were over 318,000 riders who rode VTA bus route 181. Over 96,000 riders entered the bus at the stop located at the Fremont Bart Station. And, over 65,000 of the riders exited the bus at the 2nd & Santa Clara stop in San Jose. Removing the VTA bus route 181 will displace over 100,000 individuals who rely on the line to commute to San Jose. Personally, I utilize the services of the 181 line to get to school and work every week. My daily commute begins with a BART ride from Pleasanton to Fremont, then I take the 181 route from Fremont to San Jose. I share this route with many students and faculty members. Without this route, thousands of commuters would be left without affordable, convenient transportation to their jobs and education. The Berryessa Bart station in San Jose is planned to be in service at the end of this year. The new station will allow commuters to take the BART from Fremont to San Jose. However, the Berryessa Station is a considerable distance from downtown San Jose. Indeed, the VTA has announced a plan to replace the current Dash 500 shuttle service with Rapid 500 that will connect the Berryessa Bart Station to Downtown San Jose. However, commuters are still required to pay for BART fees which are not covered by Eco Passes given by employers and universities. The additional BART fees could add a potential $2,500 or more per year for commuters who use BART to travel to and from San Jose. For students and employers, $2,500 can be a significant financial burden. This increase could be especially detrimental for students with limited budgets, like myself. In addition to the financial stress, the period of time between the proposed removal of line 181 and the opening of the Berryessa BART station leaves thousands without a transportation solution. Questions are beginning to arise regarding compensation and availability of alternate routes during that time period. Commuters are scrambling to find answers to to ensure they can continue to work and attend school. After presenting my arguments and concerns, I ask that the VTA Board of Directors does not follow through with removal the 181 bus line. Referring back to the data from VTA’s Open Data Portal, what will you do to alleviate the burden on the 100,000 plus commuters if the 181 line is removed? It is important that the thousands of students and employees maintain access to affordable, convenient, and safe transportation to their destination. I graciously ask that you consider my concerns. Thank you for your time, Kristen Flaten From: Jenny Niklaus Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 10:58 AM To: Board Secretary; jbruins; Cindy.Chavez; Ken.Yeager; sam.liccardo; Raul.Peralezjohnny.khamis; lan.diep; Charles Chappie Jones; dev.davis; larry.carrteresa.oneillSC; ghendricks; svaidhyanathan Subject: Advocating for DASH Dear VTA Board of Directors: I hope this email finds you well. I live and work in downtown San Jose and I am an Urbanist. I strongly support VTA’s move towards a higher-frequency, higher-ridership network. I encourage the Board to vote for a service plan that maintains the proposed 83/17 split, or as close as possible to this balance. I encourage the Board to commit to restoring DASH as a free service during the construction of BART in downtown and at Diridon. I understand the need to offer a high-frequency bus service between Berryessa BART station and Diridon Station. However, it is important to try to maintain and grow transit ridership (to and from Diridon) and minimize impacts to downtown businesses during the construction. I appreciate staff incorporated many of our comments about Routes 10, 60 and school- oriented service into the proposed plan. I appreciate the addition of better east-west connections in the county to create more of a grid-network. I encourage VTA to move forward with a fare policy that simplifies fares by reducing the number of ticket types significantly and by making it possible to transfer between modes and operators without having to pay twice. I understand that this involves many choices and tradeoffs, but these choices cannot be avoided if we are to build but a modern transit system that is more useful for more people for trips of all kinds. With declining ridership and revenues, it is important to do what we can to make transit the preferred way of getting around. Sincerely, Jenny Niklaus -- Take care, From: Liana Crabtree Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 1:31 PM To: Board Secretary Cc: svaidhyanathan; kami_tomberlain; geoff_wright; ChelseaB; jshearin; mbiyani; ebradley Subject: Request for VTA Route 23 adjustment to improve service for CHS students Dear VTA Board of Directors, As you consider bus route changes as part of the BTA Next Network redesign for Fall 2017, please consider routing EASTBOUND Route 23 from De Anza College to the Alum Rock Transit Center through Stelling/McClellan/De Anza to Stevens Creek. Include Route 23 stops at existing Route 55 locations, including stop #s: 60697, 60698, 60699, 60700, 62312, 62313, 62314 (#62314 is existing; no change). Expiring Route 323 already follows the route I am requesting, though it does not stop at all on McClellan or De Anza and has only one stop on Stelling. Route 23 is the main bus route connecting Cupertino students to Cupertino High School (CHS). Adding Route 23 stops at De Anza/Pacifica (#62312) and De Anza /Rodrigues (#62313) provides more transit options for students living near the southwestern and western edges of the CHS attendance area. While Route 25 runs along Bollinger and can also be used to connect Cupertino students to CHS, Route 25 does not run often enough to be a compelling commute option for most students. Students who are stretched thin on time and are not looking to arrive early to their classes, but then can't afford to arrive 30-40 minutes late either. Thank you for your consideration of my request for an adjustment to the EASTBOUND Route 23 to include stops along Stelling/McClellan/De Anza. Sincerely, Liana Crabtree Cupertino resident P.S. I am disappointed to see Route 23 weekday service reduced from every 12 minutes minutes to every 15 minutes. Reducing bus service in a community that is already deeply underserved by public transit is an unfortunate step backward in our shared interest in getting people out of cars and into other modes of transport. Sent from my iPhone From: Kelly Snider Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 2:15 PM To: Cindy.Chavez; lan.diepjbruinsdev.davis; sam.liccardo Cc: Board Secretary Subject: Please support Next Network tonight - keep DASH - and reduce FARES for Kids and Adults! Dear Cindy, Lan, Jeannie, Sam, and Dev: I hope this email finds you well. I live in San Jose D6, and my 12-year-old son rides VTA Light Rail and the #22 Bus from school to our home several days a week (it's expensive!). I am also a member of SPUR’s policy board in San Jose, and I strongly support VTA’s move towards a higher-frequency, higher-ridership network. I encourage the Board to vote for a service plan that maintains the proposed 83/17 split, or as close as possible to this balance. PLEASE RESTORE DASH as a free service during the construction of BART in downtown and at Diridon. I understand the need to offer a high-frequency bus service between Berryessa BART station and Diridon Station. However, it is important to try to maintain and grow transit ridership (to and from Diridon) and minimize impacts to downtown businesses during the construction. PLEASE DEVISE a fare policy that simplifies fares by reducing the number of ticket types significantly and makes it possible to transfer between modes and operators without having to pay twice. And make it FREE for 12-18 years old during school days - more of our students would take bus/tram to school if it didn't cost so much! THANK YOU and your staff for their hard work in preparing the Next Network Plan, their extensive outreach and their thoughtful consideration of SPUR’s comments over the last several months. Sincerely, Kelly Snider Pershing Avenue