HomeMy WebLinkAbout0259.091· ,
May 9, 1991
HONORABLE CIT~ COUNCIL
Palo Alto, california
SHD'rlLl FEASI 81 LITY STVOX
Members of the Council:
BACXGROUND
r
STANFORD RESEARCH PAR'
This is an informational report, no Council action is required.
As a condition of approval for a new office building on Page Mill
Read betveen Hansen Way and Hanover street, Varian, Inc. bas
conducted a study to determine the feasibility of operating a
shuttle service. between the Stanford Research park, california
Avenue CalTrain Station, and other selected areas, to facilitate
and encourage the use of public transit and other non-drive alone
.odes of travel. included as Attachment 1 is a copy of the Shuttle
Feasibility study -Final Report (January 1991), prepared by crain
and Associates, Inc. tor Varian, Inc.
PRIMARY FIMpINGS AND QQNCI~ION5
A. current transit se.rvice betveen the California CalTrain
station ana Stanfora Research Park is generally adequate to
meet the needs of employees currently commuting on calTrain~
Althougb there ~r. some gaps in the Route 24 schedule, the
Route 88 scheaule is well coordinated with train schedules.
B. The major deficiency in existing county Transit service is the
absence of service to F.esearch Park firms located on Deer
Creek Road.
c. The study, which included a survey of 124'000 employees at
Lockheed, Varian, Alza, Xerox, and P.ewlett Packard (with 3,300
respondents) f found considerable interest in a commute shuttle
(two-thirds of respondents) and a noon hour shuttle (one-half
of respondents}.
CIIR: 259,91
,
r ~
t ,-,
~
,
\ ,
/
-------------....;..--~
D.
E.
o o
Probable ridership is ~ore than 300 passengers per day for a
commute shuttle, with noon hour shuttle ridership exceeding
350 rider. per day.
Four commute period shuttle service concepts., 'With varyinq
~ervice levels and coveraqe area, vere evaluated. All of the
alternatives assume commute period shuttle service operation
from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and rrom 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
1.. ReplAcement S,ryicelBigh Covfiraqe Shutt:.e service
replaces County Transit Routes 24 and 88 to CalTrain
Station during the commute periods. Expanded coverage of
Research Park. Cost of shuttle service:
lO ainute headway
15 .inute beadway
$ 228,O~ to $ 311,000 annually
$ 152.,000 to $ 233,000 annually
2.. ReplAcement Service/Similar Coverage -service similar to
alternative 1 without expanded coveraqe. Cost of
service:
10 minute headway
15 minute headway
$ 114,OO~ to $ 154,000 annually
$ 76,000 to $ 116,000 annually
3. SUpplemental Service/Expanded Coverage -county Transit
Routes 24 and 88 remain, shuttle vould provide coveraqe
of poorly served areas of Resaarch Park. Cost of shuttle
service:
4.
10 minute headway
15 minute headway
$ 114,000 to $ lS4 t OOO annually
$ 76,000 to $ 116,000 annually
~S!.lu,!pp"l'l~em,!",e~DlJt~a~l~-,:S"epry~ .. i c~e"/~Sc"..h"ie":dI!J!U~l;,e,:---:·,=,,G~ p ,i 11 • Shut tl e
service vould fill gaps in the existing county Transit
schedule to improve the worst bus-train connections.
Cost of shuttle service:
variable headway $ 38,000 to $ 77 r OOO annually
F. Tbree noon period shuttle service concepts 'W'ith varyin<j service
leveltil and destinations (Downtown Palo Alto: California Avenue;
and Town and Country Village). All altl?matives assume
noontiae shuttle service operation tor a two hour midday
period.
CIIR:259:91 5/9/91
Page 2
,
" /
'\
-.!..:.--'
1~ Downtown Palo Alto, California Avenue and Town' Cquntry -
Noontime shuttle service from Stanford Research Park to all
three destinations. Cost ot shuttle service:
10 .inute h~adway
1S minute headway
$ 133,000 to $ 168,000 annually
$ 89,000 to $ 122,000 annually
2. DoWDtgwn Pllo Alto and Town , Country -Noontime shuttle
servioe trom Stanford Research Pa~k to Downtown Palo Alto
and Town and Country with a stop at (rather than service
along') the California Avenue business district~ Cost of
shuttle service:
10 minute headway
15 minute headway
~ 117,000 to $ 151,000 annually
$ 88,000 to $ 106,000 annually
3. Dovntown Palo Alto Direct via Alma Street -Noontime shuttle
servioe froD Stanford Research Park direct to downtown palo
Alto with no.service at Town and Country Village. Cost or
Shuttle service:
10 minute headway $
15 minute headway $
BS,OOC'to ~ 118,000 annually
S7~OCO to $ 88,000 annually
G. Given the current economic c1 imate and the pendinq reg tonal
control mea.sures for vehicle usage, indications a.re that
Stanfor~ Research Park employers would be reluctant to embark
on an experimental s.huttle s.ervice without conclusive evidence
that existing transit service is inadequate.
H. county Transit is not receptive to discontinuing service on
Routes 24 or 88 in exchange 'for shuttle service, because
service provided in the Research Park is an integral part of
overall service prOVided elsewhere by these routes4
I. County Trar~it acknowledges opportunities and a villingness to
consider an adjustment to selected Route 24 transit trips to
provide limited service to the Deer Cre~k Foad area.
SUMKARY
Within the context of the current service provided by County
Transit Routes 24 and 88, there appears to be high user interest,
limited service need, .and no financial support :for a shuttle
service between the Stanford Research Park and California CalTrain
Station~ county Transit staff will be evaluating potential demand
and ways to include transit service to the Deer Creek Road work
sites within the County's existing route structure.
'5/9/91
Page 3
•
\'
.~'j-
"
--.:..
/
--~-----
o o
A8 programs and aeaaures continue to evolve in order to address
congestion Management Agency and Bay Area Air Quality Management
Dist.rict requirements and requlations, inte.re&t in .and support tor
high quallty shuttl~ service connecting people with available and
e:xpanding transportation and otller services is likely to increase ..
This study docwaent provides a useful reference and resource as
appropriate opportunities become evident.
Respectfully sub .. i tted.
~kTdt:'Jd~
MARVIN L. OVERWAY
Chief Transportation Official
KEIINETH R. SCHREI BER
Director of Planninq and
community Environment
Assistant City Manager
Attachment: 1. Shuttle Feasibility Study -Final Report
(January 1991)
cc: Planning Commi& s ion
Architectural Review Board
Stanford University -Zera Murphy, Andy Doty, Julia Fremon
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce -Edie Dorosin
California Avenue Area Development Association
Stanford Research Park Companies
Stanford Research Park Transportation Coordinators
Golden Triangle commuter Network
CKR:259:91 5/9/91
Page 4
SIllJ1."1'L8 I'DSIBlL:I'fi S1'Ut)Y
Final l\eport
Prepared for:-
Va.z::ian, Inc.
Prepa.red by:
Crain ~ Associates. Inc&
January 1991
/
o
!rABL3 OJ' COII'rZNTS
Section
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Table
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
INTRODUCTION
SHUTTLE SURVEY
Summary of Findings
Survey Methodology
Survey Response Rate
Employees' Existing Commute
Interest in the Noontime Shuttle
Potential Shuttle Ridership
SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
Summary of Findings
Commute Shuttle ~ternatives
Shuttle ~ternatives .
Noontime Shuttle Service
SHUTTLE ~LUATION
Summary of Findings
Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Process .
Analysis of Alternatives
county Transit Service to Deer Creek F.oad
Conclusions
List of Tables
Response Rate
Commute Mode of Respondents Who Use the
Same Mode 5 Days a Week . . . .
Respondents' Round Trip,s Per Weelc by Mode
Train Users' Arrival and Departure
Times at California Avenue
Train Users' Mode of Travel Between
Station and Work Site
B~s Users by Route
Arrival Time
i
1-1
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-5
2-14
2 -21
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-2
3-9
3-16
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-3
4-6
5-1
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-7
2-7
2-6
•
Table
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-13
2-15
2-16
2-17
2-18
2-19
2-20
2-21
2-22
2-23
2-24
2-25
2-26
2-21
3-1
0'1. ... '.V
'l'JUlLZ OF CONnN'l'S
(Conl;inuecl)
List of ~ables (Contipued)
Departure Time
Frequency of Commute Shuttle Use
Estimated Daily Shuttle Rouno
Trips by S&~ple Employees
Highest Probably Oaily Round
Trips for All Employees
Shuttle Use by Train Riders
Shuttle Use by Bus-using Train Riders
Intended Shuttle Use by Daily Commuters
Shuttle Users' Work Ho~rs
Maximum Fare for Shuttle users
and Frequent Shuttle Users
Most P~pular Noontime Destination
Maximum Wait Time
Frequency of Noontime Shuttle Use
aighest Probably Daily
Round Trips for All Employees
Co~ute Mode of Noontime Shuttle Use~s
Lunchtime Shuttle Destinations
Pref~rred Maximum Fare of
Noontime Shuttle Users
Maximum Fare Preferences by Level
of Use of Noontime Shuttle
Use of Commute Shuttle by Noon Shuttle Riders
Estimated Daily Round Trips for Commute Shuttle
Estimated Daily Trips fc~ NOOGtime Shuttle
Combined Costs of Commute and Noon Shuttle
at. Alternative Headways . _ _ _ . . . . .
2-9
2-10
2-11
2-11
2-12
2-13
2-13
2-14
2-15
2-15
2-16
2-17
2-11
2-ld
2-19
2-20
2-20
2-22
2-24
3-3
..
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
4-1
4-2
4-3
Figure
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
o
TABLZ 01' CONTEN'l:S
(Continued)
o
List of Tables (Cgntinued)
~~ality of Meets Between County
Transit and CalTrain .. 4 ~ •
Wait Times for Train-To-Shuttlel
Shuttle-to-Train at Alternate Shuttle Headways
Comparison of Shuttle Service and County
Transit by Percentage of Meets Within
Wait Time Limits ..... ~ . . ~ 4 •
Estimated Commute Shuttle Annual Operating
Costs at Alternative Beadways .....
Shuttle -Gap Fill-With Custom Headways
Estimated Noon Shuttle Annual Operating
Costs at Alternative Headways
Route 24 Ridership
Current and Alternative Route 24 Schedules
from California Avenue CalTrain Station
Potential Cal Train Comm~ters at
Deer Creek Road Employers
List of Fiaures
Existing County Transit Service
Alternative 1;
(High Coverage)
Replacement Service
Alternative 2;
Cover)
Replacement Service (Similar
~ternative 3~ Supplemental Se~vice
(Expanded Coverage) 4 ~ ~ • • ~
Estimated Commute Shuttle Annual Operating
Costs at Alternative Headways .. ~ ~ ~ ~
Noon Shuttle Alternative 2: Downtown via
Town & Country Village
Noon Shuttle Alternative 3: Downtown
Direct via Alma ~ . . .
, .'~; .:.
.-.. -""
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-10
3-15
3-17
4-8
4-9
~-lO
3-4
3-)2
3-13
3-14
3-10
3-20
3-22
•
/
.• ~
This report describes a study to determine the feasibilit~t
of operatinq shuttle service between the Stanford Research Park
and the California Avenue CalTratn Station. The study was
conducted by the Varian Corporation during 1989 and 1990. The
findinqs of the study are summari~ed as follows.
The Shuttle Feasibility Study was conducted as a condition
of approval by the City of Palo Alto tor a new plant facility
constructed by Varian. The objective of th~ study was to deter
mine if a transit shuttle connectinq the Cal Train Station at
California Avenue with Stanford Research Park could provide an
incentive for more employees to ride Cal Train and thereby reduce
traffic conqestion in and around the Research Park.
Employees at Lockheed, Varian, Alza J Xerox and Hewlett
Packard were surveyed to determine the level of interest in a
shuttle and ~tential ridership. Approximately 3,300 of 12,000
employees at these companies responded to the survey. More than
two-thirds (2,325J expresse~ an interest in a commute shuttle.
Most were employees who now use CalTrain; however, 7\ were solo
drivers who WQuld consider using CalTrain. Few persons who now
carpool or vanpool have any interest. Probable shuttle ridership
is more than 300 passengers per day.
Employees were also asked about their interest in a noon
hour shuttle operating from the Stanford Research Park to
downtown Palo Alto, Town' Country Village, Ot California Avenue.
About 50' of respondents (1,S64) expressed interest in a noon
i
•
hour shuttle4
350 ride.rs per
f"-
Based on the re$ponses l probable ridership is over
day and could be as high as aoo riders per day.
Four commute-hour shuttle s~rvice concepts were analyzed.
All were designed to provide aptimu~ schedule connections ~ith
northbound and southbound trains at California Avenue and direct
routes to most employers. Tw~ alternatives ~ould replace County
Transit Route 24 and Route 88 with either equivalent coverage of
the Stanford ~esearch ~ark or expanded coverage t~ Deer Creek
Road. If operated by a private operator these would cost from
$116 1 000 to $311,000 annually depending on the frequency of
service operated. Two other alternatives would supplement County
Transit service either with additional schedules or with the
expanded coverage to Deer Craek Road~ Additional schedules would
cost $38~OOO to $77,000 per year if privately operated, depending
on service frequency. Expanded coverage would cost $76,000 to
$154,000 depending on service frequency. No fares were presumed
in these estimates. If fares were c~arged, the cos~s would be
lower.
Noon hour shuttle service alternatives ranqed in cost from
S28,000 to $133,000 depending on routing, destination and service
frequency.
county transit is not receptive to discontinuing service on
Route 24 or Route BS in exchange for shuttle service~ Service
provided in the Research Park is an integral part of overall
service provided by these routes~ Current transit service between
the California Avenue Cal Train Station and the Stanford Research
Park was determined to be generally adequate to meet the needs of
Research Park employees currently commuting on CalTrain.
ii
.
o
Stanford Research Park employers are not likely to provide
fundinq for a shuttle unless the existing transit service is
found to be inadequate 4 There is little enthusiasm for replacing
-free-County Transit service with a costly ~huttle system if
service improvements are marginal. There is unlikely to be
support for a noon-hour shuttle because it is not essential to
the work ccmmute. Although there are some gaps in the Route 24
schedule, the Route 88 schedule is generally ~el1 coordinated
with train schedules.
The major deficiency in County Transit service is the
absence of service to firms located on Oeer Creek Road.
Improvements should focus on this area. there ~ resources for
providing service along Oeer Creek Road. County Transit will
consider shifting selecte~ Route 24 transit trips from the
Veterans Hospital to Deer Creek Road to serve Deer Creek Road
employers if sufficient evidencE of demand can be shown.
COIIrCLOsl:ONS
The study found that there is interest in improved transit
service between the California Avenue CalTrain Station and the
Stanford Research ParK. A survey of employees at five firms
showed significant interest in a shuttle which would provide more
convenient connections with train service.
The study also found that there is interest in a noun hour
shuttle to key destinations outside the Stanford Research Park.
Employees expressed significant interest in such a service, and
the interest was expressed not only by those who commute by
transit but by auto users as well.
The interest expressed by surveyed employees if'. improvements
to commute hour cor~ections to Cal Train and in a noon hour
shuttle indicate that opportunities could be further explored in
these areas although this was not within the scope of this Study.
Improvements that reduce the wait time for bus-train connections
iii
•
----~-~-~--------------------......
. -. .., of •
G r
at the California Avenue Cal Train Station and reduce travel time
to work sltes are key to encouraging ~ore employees to commute on
C.lTrai~. Availability of noon hour shuttle service to popular
·off campus· destinations ~ill provide an added incentive for
employees to leave their cars at home and commute by bus or
t.rain.
The Shuttle Feasibility Study concluded that i.t is not
feasible to replace the existing transit service provided by
County Transit between the California Avenue CalTrain Station and
the Stanford Research Park with a dedicdted shuttle. The reasons
are as .follows.
Neither the Santa Clara County Transit District nor
Stanford Research Park employers are villing to develop a
shuttle bus service as lonq as existing County Transit
service is adequate to meet commuter needs.
The current transit link between Cal Train and the
Reseacch Park provided by County Transit Route 88 and
Route 24 is generally adequa~e. Although there are
several schedules on Route 24 and one schedule on ROute
as ~here wait times for the bus-train connection could be
improved l service to the Research Park is relatively
direct and there are sufficient trips to provide
connections with almost all northbound and southbound
trains.
For County Transit to abandon the existing routes in
favor of a dedicated Research Park Shuttle would
dislocate transit service in the area because the routes
serve other locations besides the Cal Train Station.
County Transit is not interested in providing funding
support for a dedicated shuttle route under these
circumstances, and a shut.tle would probably ha';e to be
funded largely or exclusively by Stanford Research Park
employers.
Given the current economic climate and the pending
regional control measures for traffic and transportation,
Stanford Res~arch Park employers are reluctant to embark
on an experimental shuttle service without conclusiVe
evidence that existing transit service is ir.adequate~
However, the study also concluded that the absence of
transit service to Deer Creek Road at the south end of the
Stanford Research Park is a potential deficiency, and that
shuttle service should be provided at this loca.tion if demand
iv
c i:::';
'6;i'c'-
-;-0...
-',.' o~·:,
war~ant$. County Transit can operate service with extra Route 24
trips diverted from the Veterans Administration Hospital.
Preliminary analysis conducted in the study indicates tnat there
may be demand lor shuttle ser~ice. A conclusive determination
will be made by County Transit after surveying employees at Deer
Creek Road work sites.
v
,.
1. I1l'raODtlCrrON
The Shuttle Feasibility Study ~as undertaken to determine
vhether these is a nead for a shuttle bus connection between the
Stanford Research Park and the Cal Train Station at calif~rnia
Ave:n'.,le. The purpose of the study was to satisfy the conditions
of an Environmental Impact Report filed by the Varian Corporation
with the City of Palo Alto to construct a new plant facility a~
Hanover Street and page Mill Road. ~he conditions specified that
a shuttle service would be investigated as a mea~s of reducing
peak hour traffic congestion in and around the Stanford Research
ParK by providing an incentive for employees to co~~ute by
Cal'I'rain.
As initially conceived, the study focused on improved
commute hour transit connections bet~een both the CalTrain
Station and the page Mill RClad/El Ca.Jl\ino Real Park-and-Ride lot
and the Stanford Research Park. However, the scope ~as later
expanded to test the feasibility of a noon h0ur shuttle as well.
The study was conducted in two parts. The first part was to
survey Stan~ord Research Employees to determine the level of
interest in both a commute hour Shuttle service and a noon hour
shuttle service, A technical advisor~ committee of Transpor
tatic!", Coordinators from the major firms was assem:bled to assist
iI', ~~eveloping and conducting the survey. The Transportation
Coordi."l3tor3 reviewed the survey questionnaire, prepared intro
ductory letters to e~plain the purpose of the s~rvey to their
employees, and coordinated the distribution and collection of
survey ~estionnaires~
The second part of the study ~as to determine whether a
Shuttle service was feasible. If found to be feasible,
operational, management and funding plans would be developed to
implement the shuttle~ A key factor in determining feasibility
vas whether the Chief Executive Officers of major firms in the
Stanford Research Park would underwrite the shuttle. To enable
1-1
;j' ,
-."'
o
CEO's to make an informed decision, service concepts and
operating costs were developed for the shuttle and Santa Clara
County Transit was consulted to determine how the shuttle
concepts would impact County Transit routes. County Transit
determined that existing transit service was generally adequate
to serve the Stan~ord Research Park and that there ~as no
rationale for subs~itutinq a dedicated shuttle O~ significantly
expanding existing service. At the same time, soundings by
Varian Corporation of Stanford Research Park employers revealed
that there was little enthusiasm for funding experimental transit
service in the face of an uncertain economy and pending regional
transportation control measures. CEO's were never formally
consulted about shuttle service alternatives; however, the
conclusion seemed plain that a significan~ change from present
service would have no support at the present time. As a
consequence, a dea~cated Stanford Research Park shuttle in place
of the present transit service was found to infeasible.
This report is divided into the five sections. Section 2
following the Introd.uction describes the findings of the st.;rvejo'
of Stanford Research Park employees~ Section 3 p~esents the
alternative service concepts developed to pro-.,1'ide shuttle service
at commute hours and at the noon hour. Section 4 describes the
evaluation of the alternatives. Section 5 presents the
conclusions of the study.
1-2
-.',
• !
~ •
--~-----~ ---------~-----------
.~ ..
2 • SlltJT'rLZ SURVSY
This section presents the findings of an employee survey to
gauge the degree of employee interest in a commute hour shuttle
bus connecting Stanford Research Park (SRP) to the California
Avenue Cal~rain station and a noon hour shuttle connecting SRP to
California Avenue, the Town , Country Shopping Center, and
University Avenue in Palo Alto.
~ or FIXI)IIIGS
3,326 employees were surveyed at five companies with an
employee base of 12,000, giving a response rate of 27%.
2,325 employees expressed an interest in a commute
shuttle from CalTraln to SRP. Estimated ridership for
such a shuttle ranges from a low of 178 round trips pe=
day to a high of 776 round trips per day.
Most probable ridership trom a commute shuttle is 317.
However, actual ridership will depend significantly on
how existing County Tra~sit service to SRP (via routes
24 and se is i~proved.
~S\ of train riders and 82\ of train riders who use
County Transit to get to work indicated they would use
the shuttle~
Upwards of 154 drive alone co~rnuters intend to use the
shuttle. Presumably these individuals will switch to
train or bus to take advanta~e of it.
Carpool and vanpool users are least likely to use the
shuttle~
Fares of 25¢ and 50¢ rank equally as a tolerable cost
for a on~-way trip.
1,864 employees expressed an interest in a noontime
shuttle. Desired destinations in order of preference
were California Avenue, University Avenue, and Town &
Country Village.
Estimated ridership for a noontime shuttle ranges from a
lov of 361 round trios per day to a high of a78 round
trips per day.
2-1
."
i t
o o
Noontime shuttle users express a strong preference !".ot
to wai.: more thar, 5-10 minutes for service.
Like the commute shuttle fares of 25¢ and SO¢ rar.k
eq~ally as tolerable costs for a one-way trip.
SORVE! MBTIlODOLOGY
The survey was a joint effort by Crain , Associates a~d the
companies participating in the Sbuttle Feasibility study.
Crain' Associates prepared the questionnaire with the assistapce
of a committee of company transportation coordinator54 The
companies were responsible for distributing and collecting the
questionnaires 4 Five companies participated in the survey:
1. Lockheed
2. Xerox
3. Varian
4. Alza
5. Hewlett Packard
Employees
1,000
400
4,000
600
6.000
12,000
The survey instrument ~as a self-administered questionnaire
of twelve questions printed on two sides of a legal size sheet of
paper. Questions were arranged in three groupG. The first group
asked for information about the commute to provi.de background
data with which to assess the response to the shuttle questions.
The second group began with a brief description of the features
of the commute shuttle, followed by questions related to
prospective usage, maximum desired cost, maximum desired wait
time, and reasons for interest. The third group of quest.ions
began with a description of the noon hour shuttle, followed cy a
question about desired destinations at noen, prospective usage,
maximum desired cost, maximum desired wait time, and reasons f~r
interest. A sample questionnaire is contained in Appendix A.
2-2
I
I
j , ,
'.
---' .
The survey wa~ to be conductad in October J but the Lorna
Prieta earthquake on OCtober 17 caused a month delay~ Most of
the participating co~panies vere able to complete the survey by
October 17. aewlett-Packa::rd was net able to d.istribute the
questionnaire until ~fter the earthquake. The post-earthq~ake
timing may have influenced the way Hewlett-Packard employees
responded to the questionnaire. It ~culd be expected that those
who filled out the questionnaire after the earthquake would be
more ~avorably disposed to the shuttle option given the vital and
prominent role that public transportation played in providing
commute service in the aftermath of the earthquak~. The findings
show that Hewlett-Packard employees are significantly mere
enthusiastic about the shuttle options than employees from th~
other companies, but it is not clear how much is due to the
increased interest in public transportation resulting from the
e~rth~~ake and how muc~ is due to ether factors~
The survey distribution procedure was designed to ensure
that all employees were given an opportunity to fill out a
questionnaire. A cover letter signed by the company CEO or other
executive officer was attached to the questionnaire, and ques
tionnaires were distributed through company mail systems to each
employee. Hewlett-Packard used a different approach. Due to the
larq:e: number of employees and the difficulty of using the company
mail system to send a questionnaire to each employee, only small
facil:' ::ies -were a~~le to mail a questlonnaire to eacr. employee.
At large facilities questionnaires were placed at mail stations
with a cover let~er inviting ~ut not directin9) employees to
fill out a questionnaire.
StlltVl!:Y RlI:SPONSB RAn
The response rate from the survey was 27.1\, meaning that of
the 12,000 questionnaires distributed, 3,326 {or 27.7%} were
completed and returned. The response rate differed considerably
2-3
. !
-----------------
Q £:}
by company, as shown in Table 2-1. Lockheed had the highest
response rate with 54% of employees completing a questi~nnaire+
Hewlett Packard ha~ the lowest response rate ~ith 14% ~esponding.
The low response rate at Hewlett Packard may have been caused by
the indirect method used to distribute the questionnaire and the
fact that the Cover letter vas in the form of an invitaticn
rather than a formal r~que~t.
c9"'P any
Lockheed
Xerox
Varian
Aha
Hewlett Packard
'rAlILIi 2-1
RBSPOlfSll: !IA'l'II:
Questionnai:re~ Questionnaires
Oistributed Completed
1,OnO S.C
.00 1.3'
4.000 1,521
600 271
~ -ill
12,000 3,326
Response Convers:ion
Rate Factor
54.0\ 1.85
34..2\ 2.92
3e.O' 2.63
45.2' 2.21
!.W! 6. S9
2;.6\ 3.62
The response rate gives the proportion of employees ~ho
responded ~o the questionnaire. The inverse of the response rate
is the factor by which the results have to be expanded to equate
to the total employee population. In other ·,.,ord.s if the response
rate were 25%, the inverse of 25\ or 100/25 = 4 would be the
expansion factor used to apply the survey results to all
employees.. Predictions of employee behavior that are based en
the opinions of a sample of employees are only as good as the
validity of the sample. The smaller the sample the less likely
it is to represent the views of the papulatioI1 as a .. hole unless
distribution and collection are carefully controlled. Without
rigid control over the sample selection, there is no way to
control ~ampling error. The sample was essentially ·self
selected-in this survey because employees responded voluntarily~
The randomness of the response was controlled to some degree by
the use of a cover letter formally r~questing each employee's
response. However, Hewlett Packard did nat make the communica
tion as formal as others did and Hewlett Packard employees ~ere
2-4
•
fie
.~"'"~
.. ./
,:~
probably more likely to have filled out a questionnaire for
reason~ of personal interest than employees of other companies.
Therefore, their responses may not be as representative of all
employees as the responses fra~ other firms~
Respondents were asked how they get to work now. The
responses show that the commute mode for SRP e~ployees is typical
of mid-peninsula suburban commuters: the vast majority drive
alone to work. A small number use a variety of other modes
including carpool/vanpool, train, bus, motorcycle, bicycle, and
walking. Table 2-2 shows the number of survey respondents who
commute by a particular mode a full five days per week, that is
the confirmed users. Driving alone is by far the most co~on at
82\ followed by carpool/vanpool at 8.5' and bus at 4.B%.
TABLE 2-2
COiMO 1& MODI: OF RESl'OND2N'l'S WHO
USlI nm S1IHI!: MODB 5 DAYS A WEl:It
Mode Number
Drive alone 1,991
Carpool/vanpool 207
Train 51
Bus 118
Motorcycle 17
Bicycle 35
Walk ~
2,429
Percent
B2.C\
8.5
2.1
4.8
0.7
1.4
J....L
99.9\
Table 2-3 shows the distribution of commute mode when all
types of comm~te patterns are included. For example, some
respondents commute by car one day a week and carpool four days a
week. Table 2-2 shows the results as round trips per week rather
than individuals to normalize for the use of different modes.
2-5
=,,=r;:::-~--"------------.-.-_.-
...
\
, ,
t
o
UlILE 2-3
IIZSPONDlm'l'S' !IOOND
nIPS PER WZXX BY MODE
Drive alone
Carpoo1 Ivanpool
Train
Bus
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Walk
No. of Trips
11,885
1,701
449
1,012
174
544
165
15,930
,.,., ,. :. "
Percent
74.6'
10.7
2.8
6.4
1.1
3.4
1.0
100.0\
Drive alone accounts for a slightly smaller share of total
trips, and all the other modes have a proportionately greater
share. Still, dziving alone accounts for three-~~arters of all
commutes of the employees surveyed.
The train was used by 127 respondents. Table 2-4 shm.'s the
most common times of arrival and departure at the California
Avenue Cal Train Station by these individuals. In th~ morning,
the 7:45-8:14 period is the most popular arrival interval with
8:00 a.M4 being the Single most common arrival time (not shown).
In the evening the 4:45-5:14 period is the most popular departure
time and also the average (i.e., 50th percentile or median)
depart ure time.
Train users typically get to work by taking the bus or
walking from the California Avenue Station. Table 2-5 shows the
number of respondents using each mode. Of those who take the
bus,S, take Route 88 and 8 take Route 24.
BuS was used to get to and from SRP by 237 respondents.
Most use County Transit Routes 1011 103, 104, and 22. The
distribution by route is shown in Table 2-6.
2-6
•
c
TULZ 2-t
"f'RADI OSZilS' ARlUV1L AJn)
DllPlUl'1'tlJ<Z rIMEs AT CJU,IrORIIIll AVENUE
l.RRIVAL DEPARTURE
Interval I:ia.. -'-Int§:rvstl ~ -'-
5:50-6:14 a .ma
6:15-6:44
6,~5-7 :14
7 :15-7:44
7:45-8:14
8: 15-8: 44
8:45-9:15
TOTAL
Median interval
Modal interval
14 n.o, 2:25-3:14 p.m~
16 12.6 3:15-3:44
24 18.9 3:45-4:14
25 19.7 4:15-4:44
28 22.0 4:45-5:14
13 10.2 5: 15-5: 44
_7 -U.. 5:45-6:14
127 99.9' 6:15-. :44
After 6 :44
TOTAL
7:15-7:44 Median interval
7:45-8:14 Modal interval
TULZ 2-5
!'RllDI l1SZ1\S' MOilB OF '!"RAVEL
l!B~1IEBJiI S'l'ATIOl'I AND WOIUt SITE
6 4.7\
5 3.9
17 13.4
14 11. 0
38 29.9
23 19 .1
13 10.2
6 4.7
-2 ...2.,L
127 99.8%
4:45-5:14
4: 45-5:14
Mode No. of Users Percent
Sus
Bilee
Walle
Other
Route
22
24
88
101
104
300
304
DB
7F
58
4
52
--2
127
nELB 2-6
Bl1S l1SERS BY IIOOTB
No. of Users
39
22
10
82
37
37
13
22
_5
278
2-7
47.9\
3.3
43.0
5.B
100.0%
Percent
14 .0\
7.9
3.6
29.5
13.3
13.3
4.7
7.9
~
100.0%
./'. / .';".
A;riv.l/Departure Time
Respondents were asked when they normally begin ~ork and end
work. Most SRP employees begin work between 6:45 a.m. and
8:45 a.m. and end between 3:15 p.m. and 6:15 p.m. Tables 2-7 and
2-8 show the distribution of arrivals and departures respectively,
by half-hour increments. Within the basic commute periods ~he
distribution by half-hour intervalS is relatively flat. The median
arrival time (the 50th percentile arrival time} is within the 7:15-
7:44 a.m. interval. This in~erval is also the mode of the distri
bution (the highest value). The median departure time is within
the 4:45-5:14 p.m. interval. As with the arrival time, the median
interval is also the modal interval, meaning it is the most popular
arrival interval~
Inter""al
BEFORE 6:45 a~m.
6:45-7:14
7:15-7:44
7:45-8:15
8:15-8:44
8:45-9:14
9:15-9:44
9:45-10:14
Median Group
Interval
BEFORE 3:15 p.m.
3: 15-3: 44
3:45-4:14
4: 15-4: 44
4:45-5:14
5:15-5:44
5:45-6:14
6:15-6:44
6: 45-7: 14
AFTER 7:14
Median Group
rABLI: 2-7
ARlUVAL TIME
7:15-7:44
Number
394
565
588
55)
573
217
49
---'-2.
3,034
rABLI: 2-8
DEPARTORlI TDIE
4:45-5:14
2-8
Number
216
356
383
368
528
474
351
116
59 __ 8_3
2 1 934
Percent
13.0\
18.6
19.4
18.2
16.9
7.2
1.6
--L2.
100.0%
Percent
17.4%
12.1
13.1
12.5
18.0
16.2
12.0
4.0
2.0
~
100.0\
..
--~-----------------
.-
o
Frequency of Use
Respondents were asked how frequently they would use the
commute shuttle. Nea=ly three-quarters responded that they had
no interest in it. The other one quarter indicated they would
ride it at some level of frequency. Table 2-9 shows the
distribution of frequency of use.
'U.BLZ 2-iJ
I'RZQClmCYOF COMHl1'rE SB:O't"I'I& tlSE
Freguen):v
3-5 days per week
1-2 days per week
More than once/month
Less th~~ once/month
Never
No. of Responses
295
176
193
-ill
2,325
Average Daily -Intended-Shuttle Ose
Pprcent
9.2\
5.5
6.0
7.1
100.0\
The responses from the frequency-ai-use question were
converted to daily round trips using the following conversion
factors:
3-5 days per ~eek
1-2 days per week
More than once/week
Less than oncei.-eek
(One month
( round trips per week average
1.5 round trips per week average
2 round trips per month
1 round trip per month
4.333 weeks)
Using these conversion factors and respondents' frequenc.l'
of-use responses, it was estimated that the sample population
would make 317 round trips per day on a commute shuttle based on
their freq~ency-of-use responses.
Table 2-10 shows the round trips by company and the rate of
use by the sample population. Noteworthy is the high rate of
usage by Hewlett Packard employees.
2-9
-,-----~----"""""
'UBIJI 2-10
ZSTDATZO DAILY SIIllT'rLB i!OOND rRIPS
BY SAMPLE EMPLOYElE5
Lockheed
Xerox
Varian
Aha
Hewlett E'ackard
Total
Averaqe Daily
Round Trip
37
11
104
27
138
317
Daily Round Trips Per
100 Sample Employees
6.9
B.O
6.8
10.0
16.1
Highest Probable Shuttle Ridership for All Employees
Average daily shuttle use was facto!'ed up from the su.ntey
sample to the total employee population using company factors
based on the survey response rate (see page 2-4). Table 2-11
shows the average number of daily round trips that would be made
by employees of each company. It should be noted that these
values are based on intended frequency-of-user and may not
reflect actual usage. It should also be noted that the behavior
ot the total employee population may not mirror the behavior of
the sample population~ ~ noted above, the Hewlett Packard
sample may have yielded a more positive view of the shuttle than
is warranted for the company as a 'Whole, and the estimated use
rates may therefore be overstated. For these reasons the values
below are stated as -highest probably~ use. Ac~ual use will
probably be lower. Noteworthy is the particularly high rate of
use by Hewlett Packard employees.
Train Riders
Employees who commute by train are very enthusiastic about
the shuttle. Sixty-four percent (64') indicated they would use
the shuttle to get from the train station to work. Table 2-12
shows the surveyed train users by frequency of train use and
level of interest in the shuttle.
2-10
t
o
TlUILI 2-U
IlIGlIBS'l l'lIO!WlUl DAJ:L ...
l<OO1fIl nul'S roa Al.t. 1!MPt.onllS
(;;Q&RMY
Locltheed
~;:¢. ..
vad;m
Ai ....
n.,wlett packard
Total
Days pet Week
pf :train t1!!e
1
~
3 • 5
Total
Average C~i1y
~!i)UQd Trips
70
34
279 .2
Wl.ll
1,H9
No. of
Train RiAArs
21
1
15
21
.....ll
127
Caily ROQno Trip. Per
lQO Si!WJ?l~ tmp!oye"s
70
l5
7Q
103
1;1
No. of l=tiders
Wh.o ~olJ.ld tJss
Sl",ClUls 1-5
Rays pet W,ek
74.1\
51.<%
80.0\
5~ .3\
~,
640 E;%
Many trai~ riders V$e a hus to qe~ from th~ tr~in st~~ion to
wo~k+ Sin~e tbey ar~ pr~sumably served by ~~is~in9 ~o~nty
~~~sit $e~vi~eJ their ~~$pOASe to the shuttle is of particular.
int.erest ~ Not.ewo:r-thy is the fact. that the}' ar~ .even mox:'e int.et-
est*o in the shuttl~ than train riders as a vhGie; more than 80t
in~!eated they would use the ghuttl~, as shown in Tabl~ 2-13.
',if; .
-------~-c ----~.
o
rAIILI: 2-13
S~ USZ BY BUS-USING ~H RIOZRS
All Train
Riders
Bus-Using
Train Riders
Total Users
Surveyed
127
58
No. of Rl~~rs
Who Would Use
Shuttle 1-5
Days oer Week
82
Ch~racteris~ics of Would-Be Shuttle Users
Current COmmute
Percent
64. 6.
82. n
Not surprisin-gly., drive alone commuters make up the largest
group of would-be shuttle users. Table 2-14 shows that 75\ of
e~ployees who intend to use the shuttle now drive alene. This
number is not much different from the percentage of drive-alone
employees in the full sample~ However., in absolute terms, it
represents a significant reduction in solo driving. These same
154 drivers are 7.7% of all employees in ~he sample who drive
alone five days per veek. To the extent that the 7.7% reduction
will apply to th~ entire employee base, a significant reduction
in vehicular travel will results. It is possible that the rate
of shuttle use ~il1 not be as high as 7.7% across the board given
that survey respondents are probably more enthusiastic about the
shuttle than thos~ who chose not to respond, but even a 5%
reduction would proouce a significant reduction in use.
2-12
~----
;-j
'-'-.'
'1'A8LlI 2-14
rN'1'ZNDlID SI!11'l"'1'IJI: O"SII: BY DAILY COMNtTrZRS
5 Day per We~k
Commuters
'Nho Will Use Commuters Percent of 5 Day
Drive Alone
Carpooll
Vanpool
Train
Bus
Shuttle 3-5
Dal!:~ l2er We!i!k
HQ.... per!;;ent
154 75.5
6 2.9
29 14.2
....l2 -----L.l
204 100.0
Shuttle users' Work Hours
5 Days Commuters Who
eer Week. Will Use Shutt~~
1,931 7.7\
207 2.9%
51 56.6%
1.ll 12.7\
542 37.6%
Potential shuttle users tend to start ~ork later ar.d end work
later than other employees. Table 2-15 shows tne distribution of
shuttle users' arrival and departure times in half-hour intervals.
The interval in ~hich the median value lies is the same for shuttle
users as non-shuttle users, but the interval when the mgst
employees arrive (the modal interval) is a balf-hour later. A
possible explanation for this difference may b~ that shuttle users
are more apt to be white colla~ workers with flexible ~ork hours
than blue collar ~orkers with fixed work hours.
'rABLE 2-1S
SIW'1"l'Li: O"SERS' WORII: BOOAS
ARRIVAL DEPARTURE
Interval No. Percent Int-erval ~ Percent.
Before 6:45 42 9.4% Before 3; 15 19 4.4%
6:45-7:14 83 18.5 3:15-3:44 46 10.6
7 :15-7: 44 89 19.9 3:45-4:14 54 12.4
7:45-8:14 16 17 .0 4: 15-4: 44 £4 14.7
8:15-8:44 113 25.2 4:45-5:14 61 18.6
8:45-9:14 33 7.4 5:15-5:44 90 20.6
9:15-9:44 6 1.3 5: 45-6:14 49 11. 2
9: 45-10: 14 3 0.7 6:15-6:44 21 4.B
After 10 :14 _3 ~ 6:45-7:14 8 1.8
448 100.0\ After 7;U _4 0.9%
436 100.0%
Median interval 7:15-7:44 Median interval 4:45-5:14
2-13
.-.... -,
Maximum. Fare
Respondents asked ho~ much they ~ould be willing to pay to
use the commute shuttle. There is an even split between those
who would be willing to pay 25¢ or SOC, with both groups
accounting for two-thirds of all responses to this question.
Enthusiastic shuttle users (i~e., those who would use it 1-5 days
per week) are more willing to pay the higher fare of soe.
Table 2-16 shows the maximum fare preference of both categories
of users.
Maximum
Fare
Free
10¢
25¢
35¢
50¢
75¢
S1. 00
'1'ABLZ 2-H
MAXIMlIM r AlUI !'Oil SKllTTLB USERS
lUID I'IUI:QOZNT SIIO'rTLE OSZllS
Employees Who Would
All Potential Use Shuttle At
Shutt.le Y§~rs Least Once a WeeJc
N2..:. Percent l{Q..:. Percent
65 7.8' 49 9.0\
53 6.3 39 7.1
277 33.1 157 28.8
48 5.7 31 5.7
291 3L7 230 42.::'
54 6.4 25 4.6
2.Q. ----hQ ...l.2. ---L2
838 100.0% 546 100.0%
Noontime Dest.inations
To determine where the noontime shuttle should go, employees
were asked where they most commonly go at the noon hour and were
given a choice of three locations which a shuttle could serve:
California Avenue, Town , County Village Shopping Center, and
University Avenue. Half the respondents (49.6-\' indicated that
2-14
'~ .. . 1l"
c
none of these destinations interested them. The other half were
most interested in California Avenue, followed by University
Avenue and then Town' Country Village. Table 2-17 shows the
distribution of responses among these destinations.
TABI.IIi 2-1 7
lIOn POl'tr".AR BOOllTna: DBSTlllArION
California A~enue
University Avenue
~o. of Responses Percent
Town & Country Village
H7
433
-.lll
53.2
25.9
J.L.j,
100.0% l,H9
Maximum Wait Time
In response to the question, "What Is the MaxirnlJ£ll Time You
Would Wait For a Shuttle Bus?-, 91\ of employees checked five or
ten minutes. Only a small percentage would yait 15 or 20
minutes, as Shown by the distribution in Table 2-18.
5 minutes
10 minutes
15 minutes
20 minutes
Frequency of Use
~ 2-18
IGIXDItIM WAIT :rna:
No. of Responses
1,088
1,264
180
--.ll
2,536
Percent
42.5
49.3
7.0
--L1.
100.0%
Respondents were asked how frequently they would use the
noontime shuttle. Forty percent responded that they had an
2-15
."
/
/ ._"--
o 0
interest in it. Sixty percent indicated that they ~ould ride it
at some level of frequency. Table 2-19 shows the distribution of
frequency of use.
'UBLlI: 2-19
!'RltQOlmCY or )lOOIII'I'IJa: S= USE
No. of
Fre~enc:t Responses P~rcent
3-5 Cays per Week 127 6.8
1-2 Days per Week 572 30.7
More Than once/Month 738 39.6
Less Than once/Month --E2 22. S
1,864 100.0%
Average Daily -Intended Shuttle Use-
The responses from the frequency-of-us~ question were
converted to daily round trips using the same conversion factors
shown on page 2-4 for the commute shuttle. Using these
contrersion factors, it was estimated that the sample populatio~
would make 361 round trips per day.
Highest Probable Noontime Shuttle Ridership For All Employees
Average daily shuttle use for the survey sample 'irias factored
to create an estimate of ridership for the total population of
employees surveyed. As with the commute shuttle estimatas, tne
factors were based on the survey response rate at each company.
Table 2-20 shows the average number of daily round trips that
would be IIl,ade by employees of each company. The same caveats
that apply to the Commute shuttle apply here. Round trip values
are based on intended frequency-of-use and may not reflect actual
usage. Also, the total employee population may not behave the
same as the sample population. The values for Hewlett Packard
are a particular concern because the response rate was small, and
less centrol was exerted over survey distribution and collection.
2-16
o
UJlt.E 2-20
Bl:Glll:S'r PIlOlIULZ DAILY
ROOND rRJ:PS rOil AI.L EMPLOHE:S
Company
Locy.,heed
Xerox
Varian
Aha
Hewlett Packard
Total
Total Daily
Round Trips
14?
42
322
7?
~
1,493
Characteristics of Would-Be Noontime Shuttle Users
Commute Mode
Noontime shut~le users are not significantly different from
the sample as a whole. The pe%centage of drive alene cowmuters
is slightly less than the overall
other modes are slightly larger.
mode of potential shuttle users.
sample, and the percentages in
Table 2-21 shows the commute
UBI.E 2-21
COMMOTE MODJ[ or
HOOIl'l'DIB SlW'1"1'LE USERS
Drive Alone
Carpool (Vanpool
Train
Bus
Mcto::cycle
Bicycle
Walk
5GB
98
48
65
2B
42
..li
665
2-17
Percent
65.?
11.3
5.5
7.5
3.2
4.9
-L.§.
100.0\
•
.. ' .. "
--------~-------
-~-------.
o o
N9QDtime Pestination
Potential shuttle users choose to go to the same places as
the sample as a ~hole. Of the three choices available,
California Avenue is the top priority, University Avenue second
priority, and Town' Country Village third priority.
Destination choice was cross tabulated by intenaed frequency
of use to determine if frequency has any effect on choice of
destination~ University Avenue and Town & County Village ranked
slightly higher ~onq 3-5 day per week users than it did among
the total sample and California Avenue ranked lo~er. However,
California Avenue was still the clear choice of destination.
Table Z-22 shows these findings.
rABLB 2-22
LONCB'l'na: SII1ITTIJ!: DI!:SUNArIONS
None
Intended Frequency California University Town & of the
Qf Use Avenue Avenue Country Three Total
3-5 days per week 41. 7% 33.3\ 21. 0% LO% 100.0\
1-2 days per \ieeJt 47.1\ 30.5\ 18.8\ 3.5\ 100.0\
More than once/month 44. 0\ 27.7\ 15.5% 12.8\ lOO.O\
Less than once/mont.h 29.U 13.6" 8.5\ 48.8% 100.0\
Wait Time
The maximum wait times found tolerable to wiJuld-be shuttle
users 'Were compared with the responses of the sample as a whole.
No significant difference was found. Shuttle users are no more
or less likely to want five-or ten-minute service frequencies
than non-users.
2-18
•
-~---~--~---~----
Maximum Fare
Shutt.le users are no different from ~on-userS in their fare
preferences~ The vast majority prefer a maximum 25¢ or 50¢ fare,
with the number split abvu~ ~~enly between the two. Table 2-23
shows shuttle users' fare preferences.
Fare
Free
10¢
25¢
35¢
50¢
75¢
$1. 00
TABU 2-23
PRlD'ZlIIIZD MAXIMtlH PARI:
OJ' NOOJI'l'rM& SlI1l'l."1'Ll!! USERS
8(
105
652
10 ~
677
lOB
~
1.,810
Percent
4.6\
5.8
36.0
6.0
37.4
5.0
4.1
100.0%
However, employees who intend to use the noontime shuttle
frequently have a si9nifica~tly greater preference for the 25¢
fare than infrequent users. Conversely, the least frequent users
are willing to tolerate a higher fare than the frequenc userS.
The explan~tion of this difference may be as simple as the fact
that frequent users see a greater total outlay for shuttle fares
and wish to mini~ize the cost of each trip. Infrequent userS, on
the other hand, are not sensitive to fare because it is only an
occasional expense. Table 2-24 sho~s the different preferences.
2-19
r' ,
G
2 < • ,
·~ ..
o
rABLII: 2-24
MlIXIHIlK J'ARll PRErllR.l£NCllS BY
LEVEL OJ' OS& OF NOOIn'IME SIIO'rTLE
More Than than Less
Fa:-e J-~ D!lY§ 1-2 Da:l~ QnceLMo. QncelMo.
FREE 12.7\ 4.H 3.8\ 4.4\ $0.10 7.9\ 6.8% 5.H 4. 0% $0.25 42.9\ 38.0% 34.4\ 34.1\ $0.35 5.6\ 7.0% 5.6% 5.7% $0.50 23.n 33.9% 40.5% 41. 0% $0.75 4. Sl 6.8% 5.7% 5.7% $1. 00 2.3% 3.4\ 4.3% 5.1\
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.Do
Use of Commute Shuttle by Noon Shuttle Riders
Employees who intend to use the noontime shuttle are also
likely to use the commute shuttle. Further, a strong correlation
exists between frequency of use on one shuttle and frequency of
use on the other. Forty percent of emFloyees who would use the
noontime shuttle 3-5 days per week will also use the commute
shuttle 3-,5 days per week. A similarly strong relationship
exists for users at other levels of frequencies. Table 2-25
shows these findings.
'rJUU.I; 2-25
USB OF C<N«J'rlI: SIIOTTU B. NOON SIItJ'I'TLB IUDBRS
3-5 DIIXlI(Wlt • 1-3 Oaxs fWk. , C!LcelMo. < On<=eiMo. ~ !::It.1Il
.~. '-5 day:;!!.,II:. u.:n !I.n 5.o, 4.H 3!t. 1, :00.0. Sh-.:t.tl. 1-2 clays/wk. li.U U.H !I.S' 5.7' 5:. . 9~ "-JO.O" > OI'le./lXl. "1. !141 _.n ll.H So.n '3.H 100.0t < one_lIDO. 7.311 2.U 4.0' 21.1\ '4." 100.0' Never 4.H loU l.U 2.0' !II. 2. 100.0'
2-20
.-
-.
Two mlmDerS were produced. by the survey analysis which
provije a starting point for analysis of sh~ttle ridership:
1,46~ and 1,4~) -highest probable-daily round trips fo~ the
commute shuttle and tne noontime shuttle respectively. Several
assumptions are b~ilt into these nu~rs which make them
optimistic, hence the use of the qualifier -highest p~obable.~
the purpose of this section is to establish an estimated range cf
ridership, 5tartinq with t.he lowest a:nount likely to ':Jccur, and
then to establish a most probable level for design purposes.
Commut e Shutt Ie
There are three reasons why commute shuttle ridership is
likely to be lower than the -highest probable estimate of 1,469
daily round trips. One reason is that the total employee base of
12,000 employees may not use the shuttle at the same rate as the
sample employees~ A second reason is that the ~ntentions of the
sample employees are not likely to equate to actual shuttle use~
A third reason is that Cou~ty Transit already provides service on
the routes that would be served by a shuttle ~ If emploJo'ees are
not willing or able to use existing service, which is relatively
convenient, it is questionable whether they will use a shuttle.
Table 2-26 shows a range of r~dership estimates which
ir.corporates discounts to reflect the lawer ridership ex?ec-
tat ions indicated by these factors. The estimates are given for
each company to allow ridership to be related to company location
and thereby to the location on a potential shuttle route.
The -lov· ridership shown in TaDle 2-26 is based on a subse~
of the employees in the su~vey sample who said they would use the
shuttle 3-5 days per week. The subset is individuals who commute
3, 4, or 5 days per ~eek by the same mode. It is assumed that
these individuals will only make three (3) trips per ~eek, or an
average of 0.6 trips per day. Thus there are four discounts
built into the ridership estimate;
2-21
"
,
~ 2-26
II:S1'DQ.ftIl DAILY ROONO TRIPS FOR COHM!I'1'I: SIlUTTLZ
Low Most High
Estimate 1 Probabl~2 Estimate 1
Lockheed 18 37 70
Xerox 6 11 3(
Varian 79 lOt 279
Alza 14 27 62
Hewlett PackarD -il. 138 ill
178 317 776
1 Subset of sample population, un expanded to total employee base.
Assumes shuttle users are 3, 4, or 5 day commuters by the same
mode, and those who intend to use the shuttle )-5 days per
week. Assumes 3-5 day intended use equates to 3 days actual
use.
2 Subset of sample population, unexpanded to total employee base.
Assumes conversion of survey responses to average daily round
trips as follow:
3-5 days per week 4 round trips per week average
1-2 days per week 1.5 round trips per week average
More th~~ once/week = 2 round trips per month
Less than once/week = 1 round trip per month
COne month = 4.333 weeks)
l Survey response expand&d to total employee ~ase.
Packard expansion factor discounted from 6.99 to
of tour other companies). Assumes conversion of
responses shown above (2).
2-22
Hewlett
2.4 (average
survey
~ .... :r
1.
2.
3.
4.
o o
Ridership is based only on the survey sample, une~panded
to the total employee base of 12,000.-
Individuals who intended to ride only 1-2 days per ~eek O~
less frequently are dropped.
Individuals ~ho use multiple modes to ge~ to wo~k are
dropped.
The range w3-5 day· is assumed to mean 3 days of use.
The MMost Probable-ridership estimate is also based on survey
responses alone, unexpanded to the total employee base of 12,000.
The subgroup used in this estimate was not as restricted as that
used in the lov estimate. ~l frequenc~es ot use were cQunted,
including -Less than once a month,· using the conversion factors
shown in the table and on page 2-9 of this report. There was no
disc~unt for multimode commuters; all survey respondents wbo ~tated
they would use the shuttle vere included.
The -high-estimate is similar to the figure of lJ 469 given
above. Survey results are extrapola~ed to the entire employee base
of 12,000 using the expansion factors given on page 2-4. The
exception is that Hewlett Packard ridership has been expanded by a
sma~~er factor to account for sample bias. Instead of using the
6.99 factor based on the survey response rate, a 2.4 factor was
used which is the a7erage expansion [actor of the other four
companies.
These ridership estimates have to be taken in the context of
existing County Transit service between the Caltrain station and
SRP... c ...... 'trently, some 60-15C Caltrain riders use Rout.e 24 and Rou.te
88 each day to qet to and from SRP. Some of these riders stated in
the survey that the would prefer a shuttle to county Transit
service, but by no means all WOUld. Thus, it is not clear hov
existing ridership and eseimated shuttle ridership should be mixed
to prodUCe a COmbined total. The answer probably depends on how
*The theo~y behind USing the unexpanded sample is that only
employees vho are genuinely interested in the shuttle filled ~ut
the questionnaire, and those who did not fill out the
questior~aire ~ould nat use it.
2-23
•
./ .
much more convenient service will become if shuttle service is
instituted.
Ngop Shuttle
Factors that effect the ridership estimate fer noontime
shuttle use are the intentions-versus-use issue and the expansion
factor used to extrapolate the survey findings to the total
employee base.
Table 2-27 gives a high and low estimate for noontime shuttle
use. The low estimate is based on the intentions of survey
respondents alone, unexpanded to the total employee base of 12,000.
As with ~he commute ridership estimate, it is assumed that
individuals who take the time to fill out a questionnaire are the
most likely users, and that nan-respondents are not interested.
While this ignores other reasons why employees r.eglected to respond
to the survey, it provides a conservative criterion for a lo~-end
estimate ..
TABU: 2-27
ICS'i'DQ'rBl) DAlLY nIPS FOIl 1l00llTIMJ! SIlU'1'TLIC
Low High
Estimate Estimate
Lockheed 76 1(7
Xerox 14 42
Varian 118 322
Alza 33 77
Hewlett Packard 121 290
Total 361 878
The high estimate is based on an expansion of the survey
responses to the total employee base of 12,000, similar to the
procedure used to general the estimate of 1,493 daily noontime
shuttle trips given above. The difference is that a smaller
expansion factor ~as used for the Hewlett Packard estimate to
2-24
o
account for apparent sample bias in the survey. Instead of a
factor of 6.99 based on the Hewlett Packard survey response rate, a
factor of 2~4 ~as used which is the average of the responses from
the other companies.
2-25
This section presents routing and sched~lin9 concept
alternatives for a Stanford ~esearch Park (SRP) shuttle.
The objective of this analysis was to develop operating
schemes fer serving potential demand fo~ shuttle service
indicated by the Shuttle Survey conducted in Eall 1989. The
schemes provide a oasis for discussion with County Transit and
Cal~rain about methods for enhancing service between trains and
the SRP. The schemes also s~ow the cost of operating shuttle
service, so that the pote~tial benefits can be measured against
cost.
The Shuttle survey focused on commute hour service to
Ca.lTrain, and noon-hour service to popular ·off camp-us·
destinations. Planning commute hour shuttle service is complex
because County Transit already provides good service from the
CalTrain Station to SRP on Route 24 and Route 88~ This report
shows how better service could be provided either by
(1) rep~acing County Transit routes with a shuttle bus or (2) by
supplementing County Transit schedules with -gap-fill-schedules
to remedy the worst bus-train connections. A third optior. is to
supplement County Transit route coverage by offering shuttle
service to the southern extremities of the Research ParK, for
example to Deer Park Road.
Noon-hcu~ shuttle options are relatively straightforward.
Three places are popula~ lunch hour destinations for Researc~
Park employees: California Avenue, dawnto~n Palo Alto, and
Town , Count~y Village shopping center, in that order. Various
routing schemes were developed for serving those destinations
singly or in Combination.
Routing schemes for each shuttle alternative are described.
Annual operating costs are based on an hourly cost of S25 per
3-1
-.. '
.-'~----
~,.
o o
vehicle service hour and assumptions about operating speeds,
frequency or service, route length, cycle times and daily hours
of operation.
~ or I'ntDIRGS
Table 3-1 shows the cost of all commute and ncontime shuttle
alternatives, individually and in combiuation. The annual cost
of a commuter shuttle would range from $38,ODO to $311,000
dependinq on the level of service provided. The lower cost buys
only supplemental schedules to County Transit existing Route 24
and Route 88 service. The higher cost would enable replacement
service to be provided by CaiTrain at lO-minute frequencies
during peak periods on weekdays.
The annual cost of a noontime shuttle ranges from $28,000 tc
$133,000. The lower cost would buy service operating at 30-
minute intervals to downto~n Palo Alto via Alma Street, but would
not include Town' Country Village. The higher cost 'alould enable
service to be provided at lO-minute intervals along California
Avenue to Town & Country Village, and to downtown Palo Alto.
If both commute hour service and noontime service are
operated, annual cost could be as high as $444,000. The $440,000
alternati\re assumes replacement ot County Transit service by a
shuttle at commute hours, and nOO:J.time service to California
Avenue, Town , Country Village and downtown Palo Alto at 10-
minute intervals~
Existing BUs-Train Schedule Coordination
The primary objecti .... e of the commute shuttle is to improve
the link between SRP and the CalTrain Station at Calif~rnia
Avenue so that more employees will commute on CalTrain. Figure
3-1 shows the County Transit routes operating between the
3-2
:;:.-
,/,.--:;. ,
/,'-" ,< '"<~ \:--,"-'
>' , ·,-~:_:c "
• ---• n i . ~ ----0
.~ "5' ~
I
! •• ~ -. -" --: .i o. --.;,: .-----! ~ • .. :;; -. 0 :0;; ~~ ;;;;;:: --· <~ .-• iz · o. .-.-;~ &i · . -.. .. · ". .. .. :
>.~ · .. .-'-:; -.. ---. .---~~ • Oz · .. --· .% " ~~ ~~ -, • " .-" i~ ~ • •
Sa-
• n . -.. --0 § ;:i : =::: .. ~~ -. f! • ~i~ ~
~~ " " ~;::: •• ::~ .. .. -IEh ~
~ t " .. 'z · 0-.. " iAO .-i 1: " ::.: -" · ... 0 --o 01-.-
Il ~.s !~ .. -; :::; .. -. · a1C ! !' -. .,
<0 .. ----~III ~ -. · '-." " .. :~ 3"-•• • ~::: ~2 --· ;~
i. --. .. .. .. "
., · .. .-j. .. . . ..
8'
<.
i~ -. .. -. ~ Zt '" --•• z.
•• zz •• i; ;:z 2:;:
~~ ~::: ..
!-.c • ! .!;: • • .. ~ E_ o. ~-.. .. -. 0-J. ; •• .. .. .. ,S :: ";P • · ~ ! " ~. " ~ . .. <. B • .. .; .-~ :-I. I • .. .. '" o! .. 0.: -. '. • . , .. .. • • .. ,i:!e •• ,i:! • 0-<-
". ~" !~
3-3
-~------------,-~ ------.------------
/'
"
o
LEGEND
/
••••• i Route 304
••••••• Route 24
r"". Route 88
, .. zz Route 88
"-
(Scheduled Trip< Only)
COYOTE HIll ROAD
EXISTING COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICE
3-4
"'---
.'
-.'
,/ ..
A f'
CalTrain Station &nd~RP! Route 24 and Route 88~ Coordination
of County Transit. schedules to Cal'rrain schedules is reasonably
qood, as indicated by the wait times for connections at the
Cal Train Station shown in Table 3-2.* In the morning co~~ute
hours, for example, train passengers arriving at 7:14 have a 4-
minute wait for the Route 88 bus and a 1-mir.~te ~ait for the
Route 24 bus. However, passengers arriving at 7:28 a.m. on
Cal train have an Il-minute wait for Ro~te 88 service and a 19-
minute wait for Route 24 service. In the afternoon, cc~~uters
takin9 trains at 4:25 p.m., 4:55 p.m., 5:23 p.m., and 6:25 p.m.
have good service on one or the other of the two routes.
Ho~ever, commuters taking the 5:05 p.m. train have to arrive at
least 15 minutes ahead of time to make a connection. In general,
Route 88 is better timed to meet train schedules than Rou~e 24.
Shuttle Design Objective
The objective for designing a shuttle service was to improve
the number of good -meets-between train and bus, in other wo~ds,
to achieve the highest possible number of good con~ections. To
determine the practical upper limit for good connections, various
shuttle frequenci~s were matc~ed with the Caltrain train arrival
and departure schedules. Frequencies of 10, 15, 20, and 30
minutes ver~ tested, ~ith 10 minutes being the most fre~~ent
service that can practically be supplied. The results are sho~n
in Table 3-3. A shuttle operating at la-minute frequency .... ·ould
meet all trains with a maximum wait of 7 minutes in the morning
and 10 minutes in the afternoon. None of the other operating
frequencies can achieve this level of good meets.
Table 3-4 summarizes the rate of good meets for each of the
four shuttle frequencies tested and compares them with pxisting
County Transit service at ~hree ~ait time standards: 5 minutes
or less; 10 minutes or less, and more than 10 minutes. The
shuttle performs better than Route 88 at every level as long as
*For purposes of this evaluation, a wait of 5 minutes is
considered good, a wait of 6-10 minutes is marginally adequate,
and a wait of more than 10 minutes is unsatisfactory~
3-5
•
~~c._------__
"
i
i , , ,
! Rout.. II~
'Trail1 5ch~ul. C-Clo~lc:w1:!1e
A.M. m ." '" .,. .,.
,]2 ,,. . " <5,
7.2 107
714 n8 ". 732
734 n,
7S5
BOO ,,, ." . ,.
132
83' 8JS
J~S
P.M:. ••• ."
.2' OS U. H.
4S' ,., 5ao
573 52'
52'
54' .52 '5'
••• 62' .,. OJ, .os
c
D&LI: 3-.1
~ t:. ~ :u"Z'IIImII'
~ 'D.AIbI:t'l .urD eJU.'fIADI
au-s Scbedule Trair.
lIoOJte n
~!.(lckwh.
5J.!! .
'" 71.
73'
m
BO •
'" .,. n,
<42
<S.
'18 ".
554
620 , ..
Rey;e H
m
742
,OS
9;34
30 ., .
417 ..,
<14"1
505
517
'"
S52
."
3-6
.... --._--
'.
Rout:~ ..
5
5 , • 5
S • 11
7 ,
5
• 11
3
1
0
Walt 'l"il'lle s
to ." Sll., to Train
Rou-=._ 2 • Route 88 Flout;. "
SO
" " ..
Jl
:0
7
H
10 ,
:0
3
10
2 ,
12 " • • , ,
; ,
15 " , • 7 ,
10 ,
" •
• , • • , • " Z6
.~.
I ~ (')
' ...... ".
"AlIL& 3-3
lIlU!' !'nIII:S ~oa i'RADI-ro-SII'O"1'TLE/
I 811tn'nJ1-ro--ftADI U ALi'BR>IAn SIIU'rl'LIl IIEAl>WAYS
a .. """, """"W),, RE.AOWA'f ilEAOWA~
A.X. 10 IIIJ.ru,lt.s JS IflinlJtl!'s ~o ,",1~~oe5 )0 i!'Iif!:ut..s
\
C&1Tc~1Z1 Sb.uu.le N.11mt.lI!:~ Sbuttle Kinu'tes Shut.t.le l'tirHlt.e, Shut.t l@ MLnl,ltes
Calif St..tieD Boa "elt. for .". Wait f?r ,,, Wait. '0' ,,. w,,':'t fc:-
A.rrivil ,!iae !2:tl!:!rt: Idn ~ ,geeartu:n Sbutt.lt'! De:eaF.l.lre Shuttle Deoarture Shut.tle
'" '0' • 'OS • '" 14 60. • <l' '15 , .,0 1 " " ". ." , , , ,
632 '" 3 m , '" , ." ,
<50 '" , 650 0 m , " <5,
70' 10S l 105 l 715 U 705 , n. 11. 1 '" • 1 " n, "5 1 7 7 1
132 735 l 3 l 3 ". 14' 1 1J:5. 1 135 1 73S 1
75. 155 0 150 10 7S5 0 "
,0' 8" l .0' , a l.5 13 ,OS ,
8" ." 1 '>0 11 11 1!
93' ." 3 3 3 ,
8" '35 1 8" 1 835 '!I 3': 1
P.". 10 _i!lute!l ~5 minute:!! 20 :Tllm.::::es 30 m.it::utes
C.l~ra1.tI Shuttl. Hinutes Sbut~le .MitHlte.s Shl'tt.:'e Hi~l,;'; • .s Shuttle Mir'H.lte!5
Calif St.atioD Btl:! Wait to, B" "ait '0' ,,, Wa.i.t: tor ,,, tisit. fo::
~2:!ISl:!rfII u_ ArrIval 'J'r:l~1:! A:-r~v.l Train .... rrillal '!rill ~.., Arti-"a! Trolin
.00 355 5 .00 .. O~ • 352
40' 20 <1, " .25 '2' 0 415 1C 420 422
4J5 lJ .,0 18 ... ..5 3 ... 3 440 , " .55 "5 0 ,. 15 4S2 3
,0' '" 0 5.0 5 SO: , II
523 51:1 , 515 • '20 3 :'2.('
52' '" 0 10 5
515 11 5JC' " ,46 5<, 1 '45 1 '40 , 14
552 '55 , 1 12 55' ,
600 ." ,. ,.0 0 <00 0 ,
'" '" 10 615 10 ," , r.~2 , ". 6" 3 13 , ,
6" 10 '" 15 . ., ." 0 .. , • "0 23
101 S55 , , .. , 700 652· ,
7O. '0' 3 "
3-7
o
'!'ABLJI 3-4
COMPAiliSON or SIWTTLZ SERVIClI AND COON'l'Y 'tRANSI'!'
BY .D.CZ!I'1'AGII or Mli:ETS IIn'SIN WllI'l' 'l'IMB: I.IHI'l'S
Length of Wait
5 minutes 10 minutes More than
or less 0= less lQ m~nut..e:il:
Shuttle
10 minute headway 89.3\ 100.0% 0.0\
15 minute headway 60.7% 89.3% 10.7%
20 minute headway 60.7% 75.0% 25.0%
30 minute headway 53.6% 67.9% 32.1\
County Transit
Rte 8S 50.0% 75.0% 25.0%
Rte 24 14.3% 46.H 53.6%
3-8
o '-.
frequency is 2Q minutes or less, and better than Route 24 no
matte~ what the service frequency 4 Measured against wait the
wait time standard of 5 minutes or less, the ~huttle could meet
the standard 89\: of the tiMe at lao-minute frequency, 61\ of the
time at 1S-minute frequency, and so forth. County Transit Route
8a achieves this standard only 50% ot the time and Route 24
achieves it only 14% of the time. When the wait time standard is
raised to 10 minutes or less, the shuttle fully meets the
standard at 10-~inute frequency 4 The conclusion from this
analysis is that a shuttle operating at lO-minute or 15-min~te
frequencies would provide clearly superior Cal Train connecLions.
Four alternatives were developed for improving the Cal Train
SRP connection:
1 ~ Replacement Service/High Cover-age. This alternative
assumes that an arrangement could be made whereby Shuttle
service would replace Route 24 and 88 to CalTrain during
the commute period. More extensive coverage of the
Research Park would be provided than now.
2. Replacement Service/Similar CQverage~ This alternative
is the same as Alternative 1 except that SRP coverage is
close to that of existing service.
3. Supplemental Service/Expanded Coveraae, This alternative
assumss that county Transit service would remain in place
and that the shuttle would provide coverage of poorl.:r~
served areas of SRP, for example Deer Park Road.
4. Supplemental Service/Schedule ~GaD Fill-, This alterna
tive would till gaps in the existing County Transit
schedule to remedy the worst bus-train connections.
All alternatives assume that shuttle service would operate
from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. weekdays.
Annual operating costs, and the operating assumptions on
vhich they are based, are shown in Table 3-5. Running times fo~
individual routes are expressed as high and low estimates since
no detailed planning has yet been done and precise running times
are not known.
3-9
-, .
-.
/
o
TULIi: 3-'
.S'!l"DA'l"Kf) C\MiIWfE SBtrl"'l'LB ANN"CAL
OPERA.'%'ntQ COS'l"S A'%' ALftiQU.'1'rvlI BU.DKAYS
ALTERNAUVE 1 ~ REPLAcna:.'I'T SERVICE pUGH COVERAGE): JI.oU'TE fl
BeadNay.:s Mileage Run Time Vehlele.s .eqd
!M.inu!i:!§! !Mile!lll High ~ !igh .!&!!
10 1.3 3i.S 29.2 • 3
lS 1.3 36.5 29.2 3 2
ALTERNATIVE 1: REP1.ACEMEN't SERVICE (HrGH COVERAGE): ROUTE 12
Eead:w~Y3
(Minut@s)
10
15
ALTEMA'l'IVE
Beadways
OOnutes)
10
15
Mileage
(Mile.!)
6.92
6.92
34 .5
34.6
27.1
21.7
2, REPLA.CF.MeN'T SERVICE
Mileage Run Time
(Hile!!!} Rigt: Low
6.65 33.3 26.6
6.65 33.3 26.6
Vehicles Reqd
!ligb ~
• 3
3
2
(SIMILAR COVERAGE)
Vehicles Reqd
!igh ~
• 3
3 2
AL'niUlATIVE 3: SOPPI.EMEN'rAL SERV1CE (EXPA."IDED CO·.!ERAGE)
Headway.,
(Minutes)
10
15
Mileage
!Miles)
6.68
6.68
33.4
33.4
26. i
26.1
Vehic 1e:! F.eqd
High ~
• 3
3
2
AL'fERNAl'IVE 4: SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICE (SCHEDtru "GAP FILL")
8eaclway~
Q:Unutes}
2.
Mileage
(Mile;; }
6.65 33.0
Venielu Reqd
High 1£!:.
27.0 2 1
Ar~ual Operating Cost
(S2S/V5R)
Righ ~
$l5S~ 763 S1H,-495
$116,822 576,330
~Jm~al Ope~ating Cost
{$2S/VSH,
liSA ~
$154,955
$116,216
Annual Operating Cost
{S2S/VSHi
High Low
5154,381
$115,766
$1l3~ 666
$75,779
Annual Ope~ating Cos~
(S2S/VSR)
High ~
$154,445
$115,83(
Sl13.705
$1'5 I S03
Annual Ope~atir.g Cost
($2S/VSH}
s..i.s.h ~
537,931
ANNeAL OPER. COS'f: • OF VEHICLES*,25/VSS*[AK BRS(2.5+1/2 OF CYCLE TIME)
+PK RRS (3+1/2 OF CYCLE !IHEI]*25S OAYS/YR
3-10
.... ~.
-,
•
--.-~---------------------
8
Followi~9 are descriptions of route
alternative.
r' "alignments
Alternative 1: Replacement Service lHigh Coverage)
for each
The High Coverage option is shown in Figure 3-2. The
shuttle would operate on two routes: one which serves the
northeastern area of SRP and the other which serves the
southwestern area. The advantage of having two routes is to
minimize circuity while providing high coverage. This is the
most costly option in that it requires two separate routes and up
to eight vehicles. Operating on lO-minute headways, shuttle
se~~ice would cost $228,000-$310,000 annually.
AJternativ~ 2: Replacement Service (Similar Coverage)
The replacement option (Figure 3-3) covers the areas
currently served by County Transit's 88 and 24 rout~s (with the
exception of segments of California Avenue and Hanover Stree~) ~
At lO-minute headways this service would have an annual cost of
$114.000-$154,000.
Alternative 3: Supplemental Service (Expanded Coverage)
~bis alternative provides service to areas no served by
County Transit. The route (Figure 3-4) runs from the calTrain
Station to Page Mill Road and then loops around Deer Creek Road
to Coyote Hill Road. At lQ-minute headways this service would
cost the same as Alternative 2, $114,OOO-$154 r OOO annually.
Alternative 4: Supplemental Service (Schedule ~Gap Fill·)
This alternative is designed to meet trains which County
Transit does not currently meet promptly. The shuttle would
operate on headways varying between 21 and 40 minutes, depending
on particular train schedules. The Shuttle buses would be routed
the same as Alternative 2 (Figure 3-3). The schedule for the
Shuttle is shown in Table 6. Only one vehicle is required to
operate this schedule, therefore this option has ttle lowest cost
of all the alternatives ($38,000-$77,000).
3-11
•
,
o
COYOTE HIll ROAD
fiGURE 3-2
ALTERNATIVE 1:
REPLACEMENT SERVICE (High Coverage)
3-12
F!GURE 3-3
ALTERNATIVE 2:
REPLACEMENT SERVICE (Similar Coverage)
3-13
FIGURE 3-4
".' . .
o
ALTERNATIVE 3:
SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICE (Expanded Coverage)
3-14
"'-------" .
, A.M. PEM
CdTuili Shuttl.
C.allf statioQ au.
Arrinl Time o.partl.l.re ,., 6,. ." '" <3, '" . ,.
7" 7.,
'" 12.
'32 132 ". 755 '" 'Q2 . ,. 8<7 • n .,.
n:sLl: 3-5
SJ«J1"'f'L3 .. GAl' .. :ILL·
Wl:'I'8 CUS"rOM mu.J)WAYS
Minl..t. ... beforo.
arrl~,~ of next: Ca.lIrain
Sbtl .. " Calif 5tatiorJ
!U!.!. lIl!!. !..Y..! De'Oarture Tim"!
• , " 1S , ., , • " 'DO , , , .
13 5 n
425
1 , " , .. ,. • 7 .55 , ]I 14 • 7 10
2. , • StlS , , ,. '" 52'
" • 3 546
3 11 I • 55, • l 2
10 I 0
6<.
'" '" '"
All heoilciwo!:ya .xe 251 lIlilIutes 1I)le.ept::
"159 27 mit:
5{)0 J6 mLn
S.(Q 40 min
1HZ 33 m.in
3-15
.... ':-:~ ...
•
P.~. 'LAR
M.inute, ",~i>;. befQre
Shut.tle t.r ... l.~ departu!"e on: ." Shtl e. " ~ m ~ lIl!!.
'50 l> lJ
42. 1 • • ,. , ,
" 5 ,
SOC S " " " , ,
" 1 • 54 • , 10 ,
" :6 :is
20 , • '" " , ,
19 • , .. , l 25 26
. .
i~-i:
.--~,
/ ..
o
The primary goal of the Noontime Shuttle is to provide quick
service to California Avenue, Town and Country Village and
University Avenue. Three alternatives w~re de~eloped. One of
the alternative operates on Califc~nia Avenue, two ~f the
alternatives provide service to TO·llm , Country Village, and all
three operate to downtown Palo ~lto. T~o routes are used to
serve the Research Park to minimize the number of stops along the
route, improve operating speed, and reduce route circuity while
providing good coverage.
Table 3-7 sho~s the operating COSL of each alternative and
the route miles, running times, vehicle requirements and headways
on which the cost is based.
Alternative 1: Downtown Palo Alto via California Ave. and Town &
Country Village
The shuttle survey shewed that California Aven":.le is the most
popular noontime destination of SRP employees surveyed. This
alternative operates on California Street a~ far as the Cal Train
station, and then operates to downtown Palo Alto on £1 Camino,
stopping at Town , Co~~try Village. Figure 3-5 shows the route
alignment. Operating cost ranges from $59,000 to 5133,000
depending on service frequ~ncy provided.
Alternative 2: Downt~wn Palo Alto via Town & Country Village
This alternative is designed to provide rapid service to
downtown Palo Alto but avoid the lengthy detour via California
Avenue. The shuttle is routed from Page Mill Road along E1
Camino Real to University Avenue with stops at California Avenue
and Town and Ccunt~y Village (Figure 3-€). Operating cost tanges
from $5~IOOO to S117,000 ar.nual1y, depending on se::-vice frequency
provided.
AL "rERNA'l' IVE
IlOOtt f1
a.&d""'Y3
fKinute.sl
10
15
20
30
SOU"I'E 12
.8'eadway:s
lMiputes)
10
15
20
30
ALTERNA1'IVE
ROO'rE fl
Heac1ways
(Migute,,}
10
15
20
30
ROO'l'.E ,.2
, --~ .
rA8LB 3-7
J:Sf'~ HOOlf SB'CT'l"LZ &DUAL Ol'ERA'l'ING
<:osrs lU' ALrDNArIVB I!EAD1IIAYS
" CONN'l'QWN VIA CALIrORNI1t .. AVE AND TOWN , COUNTRY
Annu&l Operating CO$t
Hileaqe >= Time Vehicles Reqd (S25/vSH}
~l!!s! Sigh ~ High 1.9..!! Sigh ~
!lI.02 45.1 36 .. 1 5 • $75,130 $S8~ 667
9.02 45.1 36.1 4 3 .$60,584 $44,000
!J. 02 45.1 36.1 3 > $45~ 438 $29,334
9 .. 02 45.1 36.1 > , $30,292 $29,334
Ann~al Operatinq Cost
Kileaqe Run Time Vehicles .... qd ($2S!VSH)
rKiles:l ~ !&!!: Bigh !&!!: Sigh 12!!
10.19 51..0 40.8 • 5 $92,740 S14~517
10.19 51.0 40.8 • 3 $61,a27 .$44,746"
10.19 51.. 0 40 .. B 3 3 .$46,:310 $44,746
lC.19 51.0 40.8 2 2 S30~ 913 $29,831
2, DOWNTOWN VIA TO~ ~ COUNTRY
~ .. ual Operating Cost
Kileaqe "un rime Vehicles Reqd ~S25/VSH)
(Kilepl ~ ~ High l£! High !:.2..!
8.43 42.2 33 .. 1 5 • $74,946 $58.166
8.43 42.2 33.1 3 3 $44,968 $43,624
8.43 4.2.2 33."'1 3 2 $44..-968 $.29,083
8.43 42 .. 2 33.' > 2 $29,978 $29~ Oe3
Annual Operating Cost
Beadway:s Kileaqe Run Time Vehicles Reqd (S25(VSH)
fl:f.inutes' oo1es) lU9:!! !&!!: High k9..!! High kQ.!!
10 t.6 48.0 38.4 5 • $76,500 559.160
15 9.' 48 .0 38.4 • 3 $61,200 $H,370
20 9.6 48.C 38.4 3 2 $45,900 $29,580
30 9 .• 41! • 0 38.4 2 2 :530,600 $29. sao
3-17
nBlJI 3-7 (Continued)
ALTERNAUVE 3: DOWN'rOWN ClRECT vu. ALMA 5l'
ROlnE f1
Eeadwap Mileage Ron
IJ.1!nutesl {Hiles} High
10 B. E"! 34 . .,
15 B.68 34.7
2. 8.68 34."1 3. 8.68 34.1
ROU'l'E .2
Headway" Mileage Run
'MinU1:el!!ll OOlesl Sigh
10 '.85 39.4
15 !J.S5 39.4
20 9.85 39.4
30 9.85 3~. "
Time
~
26.0
26.0
26.0
.26.0
Time
~
29.6
29. ,
29.6
2~.6
Vehicle" Reqd
Si:rh Lo.
• 3
3 2
2 2
2 1
Vehicles Reqd
R~ Lo~
• 3
2
2
3
2
2
1
o
Annual Op@rating Cost
(S2S/VSHj
High ~
$56~378 $42,400
.$43,784 $28,261
S2!J,189 $2-8,261
$29, IS!; $14,133
Annual Operaeinq Cost
(S25!VSH)
Righ ~
$59 .. 373
$H.5::~
$29,686
$29.686
$-12.960
$29,640
$28,'40
.514,320
OPERA3ING COST: f OF VEHICLES*$25/VSH·2HRS~(1/2 OF CYC~ TlME).2550AYS/YR
3-la
~ .• "<1;$1
FleURE J-.S
NOON SHUTfLE ALTERNATIVE 1:
Downtown via California and Town & Country Village
3-19
.~ ... ~ ...
---------.---------------,----...
o o
FIGURE 3-6
NOON SHUTILE ALTERNATIVE 2:
Downtown via Town at Country Village
3-20
""-::-:.-:--.. ------.------:---:-o-_~
-, ~-:
· .,'-.. -.\:
/' ,;.::; .. :,.,.--, ""'-'
"..-> ~~.
-"
Alternative 3: Downtown Direct via Alma Street
The objective of this alternative is to provide the lowest
cost service to downtown Palo Alto. The shuttle operates on Alma
Street instead of El Camino Real (Figure 3-7) and no service is
provided to Town' Country Village. Annual operating cost ranges
from $2S,OOO to $85,000 depending on frequency of service
provicied.
3-21 ---------_._-
o o
FIGURE 3-7
NOON SHUTILE ALTERNATIVE 3:
Downtown Direct via Alma
3-22
,-
,..;: .
-~-~ .----~-----
/
r,
4 . SlI"O'r'rLE xY1LtIA'I'ION
This section describes the process used to evaluate the
alternatives presented in Section 3. The evaluation process
involved defining evaluation criteria, evaluating t~e
alternatives, revising th~ alternatives based on the preliminary
conclusions, and developing a recommended alternative.
~y OF FINDINGS
Current transit service between the California Avenue
Cal Train Station and the Stanford Research Park is
generally adequate to meet the needs of Research Park
employees currently commuting on Cal Train. Although
there are some gaps in the Route 24 schedule, the Route
88 schedule is generally well coordinated with train
schedules.
The major deficiency in County Transit service is the
absence of service t.o firms located on Deer Creek F.oad.
Improvements should focus on this area.
Stanford Research Park employers are not likely to
provide funding for a shuttle unless the existing transit
service is found to be inadequate. There is little
enthusiasm for replacing ·free~ County Transit service
with a costly shuttle system if service improvements are
marginal. There is unlikely to be support for a noon
hour shuttle because it is not essential to the work
commute.
county transit is not receptive to discc·ntinuinq service
on Route 24 or Route 88 in exchange for shuttle ser".rice
because service provided in the Research Park is an
integral part of overall service provided by these
routes.
There ~ resources for providing service along Deer
Creek Road. County Transit will consider shifting
selected Route 24 transit trips from the Veterans
Hospital to Deer Creek Road to serve Deer Creek Road
employers if sufficient evidence of demand can be shown+
4-1
•
-~------------------------------
..
o o
The shuttle alternatives were evaluated 5.ccording to the
following criteria:
The 'Willingness of County Transit to augment or replace
eKisting transit service; and
The willingness of SRP employers to provide funding
support.
The support of County Transit was deemed es.sent-ial to the
development of the shuttle. County Transit provides the current
service to SRP from the Ca.lifornia Avenue Cal Train Station on
Routes 24 and 88. Any scheme to improve service ~ould have to
either replace or supplement these routes. Whether County
Transit would be willing to make changes and how extensive the
changes would be was the primary focus of the evaluation. The
kind of challqes County Transit would be asked to make to
implement SRP shuttle service include the following:
Either adjust e&isting transit schedules to better
coordinate with northbound and southbound train ar~ivals
and departures or replace existing local routes with a
dedicated shuttle serving SRP exclusively and providing
optimum schedule coordination with trains.
Provide funding support for the shuttle equivalent to the
level at which current local routes are funded.
Expand transit service to operate in unserved areas of
SRP or provide funds to operate a privately provided
service to these areas.
The support of SRP employers is also important to the
development of the shuttle or to equivalent improvements to
current transit service. Unless County Transit is able to fund
the improvements, employers will be called upon to provide
financial sUP90rt.
~-2
. "
". /
KVlU.OA'l'IOli PROCZ9S
The evaluation was accomplished in a s~ries of meetings
during the Spring and Summer of 19~O that included Varian, the
City of Falo Alto, County Transit, and the consultant. Much of
the evaluation centered aroun~ the ability and willingness of
County Transit to improve the transit link between Cal Train and
the SR? The process was driven by an understanding tha~
resourceS for providing improved shuttle service are scarce.
county Transit does not have the resources to add service in the
Research Park l and there was an increasing realization that SRP
employerS lIIo1Jld not fund improven:.ents unless a strong case could
be made that the existing service was inadequate. The result was
that the service alternatives were narrowed to a single no-cost
plan that County Transit could support and that ~as felt to be
acceptable to SRP employers. SRP employers were never formally
brought into the evaluation precess.
ANALYSIS OF ALftlUIArIVES
Replacement Service Alternatives
Two alternatives were designed to replace County Transit
service with a dedicated shuttle serving the Research Park from
the Cal Train Station. One offered the same service coverage as
the current County Transit routes. The other offered expa~ded
service coverage in the Deer Creek Road area. Both were designed
to provide better schedule connections with train arrivals and
departures than Route 24 and Route 88.
Replacing Route 24 and Route BB service with a dedicated
shuttle to the Research park is not in t.he interest c,f COU;1ty
Transit~ Both routes serve other parts of the County Transit
service area besides the Research Park, and the rOutes would have
to be entirely revised if this segment were discontinued.
County Transit enthusiastically supported the concept of
providing additional coverage of the Research Park offered by
4-3
•
-----------~---'--------
:_c ..
o o
Altern&tive 1 (-Replacement Service -High Cov~rage·) Much of
the remainder of the evaluation was devoted tc determining how
SllCh service could be provided.
Supplemental Service Alternatives
The supplemental alternatives provide for a new transit
operation in the Research Park to supplement the service supplied
by County Transit4 One alternative was aimed at adding coverage
in the Deer Creek Road area; the other alternative ~as aimed at
improving schedule connections between bus and train by filling a
gap in the current schedule.
county Transit supported the idea of adding coverage to Deer
Creek Road. Much of the evaluation focused on how this could be
accomplished with existing transit resources rather than bringing
in a new operator at additional expense.
Filling gaps in the current transit schedules as proposed in
Alternative 4 (·Suppl~~ntal Service/Schedule 'Gap Fill'-) was
found to be beth impractical and unnecessary. Employing an
independent operator to provide a few trips to fill scattered
gaps in County Transit schedules would be expensive and probably
unacceptable to employers because of the expenses involved.
F.ea:r:ranginq Route 24 and Route 88 schedules to eliminate the gaps
is impractical because other scheduling requirements drive these
routes. What flexibility there is has already been used to
improve schedules.
~he difficulty of filling gaps in County Transit schedules
and the cost of providing supplemental service refocused atten
tion on the quality of the existing bus-train meets. A consensus
developed that, with the exception of a single schedule, Route 88
provides good connections with trains in both directions. Route
24 has a number of schedule gaps which require a ~ait of more
than 10 minvtes to make the bus-train connection. However Route
24 is secondary to Route 88 in. serving the Research Park. The
conclusion was that the existing service is adequate for the
4-4
•
need,s of most commuters, and that while improvements would be
Made, they would be costly and the ratio of benefit to cost ~ould
be quite love
Noon Service Alternativas
Several schemes were devised for providing noon-hour
service. Different combinations of shuttle routes and service
frequencies were developed to create four alternatives.
The evaluation of the noon-hour alternatives indicated that
they were much lower priority than the commute-hour service.
Commute-hour service is essential for getting to work; however,
noon-hour service is regarded as secondary in importance. County
Transit does not have resources to provide such a service, and it
would have to he privately provided if it were operated at all.
The understanding of employers' inter~st in transportation
improvements was that a noon-hour shuttle would not be viewed as
high priority because of its secondary importance to the work
commute 4 For this reason, the noon-hour shuttle concept was
dropped from consideration.
Conclusions
The conClusions that emerged from the evaluation of
alternatives were as follows:
Current Route 24 and Route 88 service is reasonably
effective at,providing a link between the CalTrain
Station and the Research Park.
There is no reason to replace County Transit service with
a dedicated shuttle because
-current schedules serve reasonably well the needs of
existing commuters.
discontinuance of the Research Park segment of County
~rar.sit routes would disrupt service elsewhere due to
the integral nature of the routes.
-expanded coverage of the Research Park could be
provided wit~out disrupting existing service.
4-5
·' -_.'-
~,., .. ~;r •
o o
Expanding coverage to the Deer Cree~ Road area in the
south end o~ the Research Park is a valid alternative.
In addition to these conclusions, there was an understanding
that, if out-of-pocket costs vere involved, Research Park
employers would only support a no-cost or low-cost improvement.
There was also an understanding that the marginal improvement in
service and the potential ridership resulting from the
improvement would have to he high in pro~rtion to the cost.
COOlIn 'rRAlfSI'l' SERVICE ro DEEi'. CREEIC llOAD
The evaluation process reduced the shuttle alternatives to a
Single valid option: expanding service to Deer Creek Road. The
benefits of this option are several:
It would ensure that CalTrain connection is provided to
the entire Research Park rathe~ than to selected
portions.
It could be provided independentl~{ of ser .. ~ice to the rest
of the Research Park so there -would be no need to alter
existing service. Further, it could supplement existing
routes by adding more service on streets that are already
served.
It could be provided at low cost if operated by a private
provider or at no cost if operated by County T~ansit.
Available Resources From Route 24
County Transit may have a no cost option for providing
service to Deer Creek Road in the form of extra service provided
on Route 24. Currently Route 24 operates ten ~eekday trips
direct to the Veterans Administration Hospital from the Cal Train
Station, four in the morning peak period and six in the evening
peak period. These trips are made possible by the extra time
available from express routes operated to the Research Park in
the morning and the afternoon.
4-6
•
i
L
l'i'-, (":")
The proposal u~der consideration is to discontinue extra
service to the Veterans Administration H<')spital and operate it
instead to Peer Creek Road. The round trip distance is similar
so approximately the same number of trips could be p~o?ided.
Table 4-1 shows the current schedule and two alternative
sChedules tor the Deer Creek Road service.
County Transit's condition for switching service frem the
Veterans Administ.ration Hospital t.o Deer Cr~ek. P.oad is for
ridership to equal or exceed the current route. Table 4-2 shows
the boarding$ and ali9htings for four morning trips to the
Veterans Administration Hospital. Only 16 riders alight at the
hospital. If at least 16 riders would ride Route 24 to Deer
Creek Road, the changeover WQuld be worthwhile.
Estimating Demand
A two-step process was devised for determining whether
demand would meet or exceed the 1£ riders per day needed to
rationalize service. The first step ~as tc determine the
employee population on Deer Creek Road and to esti~at~ the number
of employees who could use Cal Train for part of the work commute.
The se~ond step was to survey employees at each of the Deer Creek
Road work sites to determine their likelihood of using Ca:Train
and Route 24 shuttle service to get to work. The results of the
first step are described below. The second step has yet to be
accomplished. County Transit plans to conduc~ the survey and
determine potential ridership.
The employment population of firms located on Deer Creek
Road is shown in Table 4-3. Approximately 1,10 a emplo)'ees work
at the four work Sites. Potential Cal Train corr~uters were esti
mated by identifying employee residential locations by zip code
and then assigning a ~robability to each zip code based on hDW
close it is to the CalTrain line. Abo'.1t 160 employees 'Were iden
tified as potential CalTrain users by this process. This number
should be viewEd as the cutside limit of potential ridership
because of the variables that affect co~~ute decisions in general
and the particular factors that enter into using the train.
4-7
o o
7:21A "rdp '1:42A %'dp 8 :05A "rrip e :341\ Trip All Trip!! On/Off/LD QnJOff Ii;;) :Jn/C~f!LD On/Off/LD On/OftfUl
Calif . Depot 1/0/1 1/0/1 9/0/9 10/0/10 21/0/21
£1 cami.no F/S Calif. 110/2 0/1/6 4/0/H .5/1/25
Page kill F/S El Camino 1/0/3 1/0/2 2/1/15 4/1/28
.Hewlett Packard clans
Page Mill OP Ballsen 0/2/1 011/1 0/3/5 0/4/11 OnetH
Page Mill HiS Hanover 0/0/18
Page Kill MD Banover 0/4/1 n/l/IO 0/5/13
rage Mill F/S Peter Coutts 0/1/9 0/1/12
Porter F/S Page ~ll 0/1/0 C/I/S 0/2/10
Porter Me Page Mill 0/t/7 n/l/'
Hillview F/S Porter 01215 0/217
Hillview lID Porter
Miraru.1a f'/S Hillview 0/1/0 1/0/8
VeterAnS Hospital .!!L.ill .!!L.ill OIlLO °l':/O CL!l/g
TOTAL 31310 21210 10/10/0 16/1610 31/31/0
4-8
NOrth
Bound
train.,
601a.
618
630
650
11.
727
73.
755
824
3~4p
• 25
.55
525
600
625
rABLlt 4-2
CCUZII'r ANI) ALrEP.NATIVZ JlOQ'm 24 SClIlmULII:S
I'JlON C&I.I1'ORNIA AVENTl'E c:u.n.u>r SU1'IOH
Route South Rou.t.e
2. Bound 2'
S;;:nrren~ lit. 1 Alt. 2 ~ Current ~
552a
632
702 72h. ,22a
732 7G2a '59a
72la '122a 802 605a 829a.
832 834a
742a 905
805a 759a 806a
834a 829a 836&
Rout.e Route
24 2' Current ~ Current ~
40o:lp 347 347
347p 347 .. a 447 ...
417 417 505 502
44' 44. 523 517 517
517 517 546 535 544
552 SH 552
619 612 605 552
615 512
620 6H
4-9
~
73€a
e06a
836a
o
~'-3
PO'nIITUol. cu.'1'l\.U1I ~
U OAR Cl\EU I\Ol\I) Jl:KPI.OYl!lIS
imel!2~~~
Syntex Corporation
US Geoloqical Survey
Hewl<>tt pac1car6
(13495 Deer Creek Road)
Hewlett Packard
['3500 Deer Creek Road)
TOTAL
Location
~mal2~f:eS
)72
169
275
-ill
1.102
4-10
,~--->.
< "If . . :)j:4R;',:
,
(
PQ~eDt~al
l~\lmb~r
25
16
47
...1l
159
~arrr:!;~n User:!
Percer:.t
2:: TQtal
15%
9
1,
1.2.
14%
,r'~, ., -_.
The 160 Deer Creek Road employees who might use CalTrain
consti~ute the ridership for a Route 24 shuttle. In all
probability only a fraction of this number will actually rider
calTrain and use the shuttle. However, there is a reasonable
chance that at least 16 one-way riders per day could be garnered
from this group. A more definitive conclusion awaits t~e
findings of a survey of employees by County Transit.
Con~lusion
Transit service from the Cal Train Station to Deer Creek Road
appears to be a prac~ical possibility. County Transit can
operate up to ten trips per day using extra trips now assigned to
special Veterans Administration Hospital runs on Route 24. These
trips could be switched over to Deer Creek Road if it is deter
mined that potential one-way ridership is greater than the 16
riders per day usinq Route 24 fro~ Cal Train to the Veterans
Hospital~ County Transit will base this determination on a
survey of Deer Creek Road employees.
4-11
".
-.; ,
o
5. CONCLOSIOJIS
The study ~ound that there is interest irt improved transit
service between the California Avenue Cal'I'rain Station and the
Stanford Research Par~. A survey of employees at five firm~
shoved significant interest in a shuttle which would provide more
convenient connections with train service.
The study also found that there is interest in a noon hour
shuttle to key destinations outside the Stanford Research Park.
Employees expressed significant interest in such a service, and
the inte~est was expressed not only by those who commute by
transit but by auto users as veIl.
The interest expressed by surveyed employees in impr~vements
to commu~e hour connections to Cal Train and in a noon hour
shuttle indicate that opportunities could be further explored in
these areas although this was not ~ithin the scope of this study.
Improvements that reduce the vait time for bus-train connections
at the California Avenue Cal Train Station and reduce travel time
to work sites are key to encouraging more employees to commute on
CalTrain~ Availability of noon ho~r shuttle service to popular
·off campus· destinations will provide an added incentive for
employees to leave their cars at home and commute by bus or
train.
The Shuttle Fea.sibility Study concl"Jded that it is Qot
feasible ~o replace the existing transit service provided by
County Transit between the California Avenue CalTrain Station and
the Stanford Research Park with a dedicated shuttle. The reasons
are as follows.
Neither the Santa Clara County Transit District nor
Stanford Research Park employers are willing to develop a
shuttle bus service as long as existing County Transit
service is adeq~ate to meet commuter needs.
Tbe current transit link between CalTrain and the
Research Park provided by County Transit Route S8 and
Route 24 is generally adequate. Although there are
several schedules on Route 24 and one schedule on Route
5-1
•
'';-
1
!. •
>.
t ",
I
"
•
8S where wait times for the bus-train connection could be
improved, service to the Research Park is relatively
direct and there are sufficient trips to provide
connections with almost all northbound and southbound
trains.
Foz County Transit to abandon the existing routes in
fa .... ·or of a dedicated Research Park Shuttle wO\lld
dislocate transit service in the area because the routes
serve other locations besides the CalTrain Station.
County Transi~ is not interested in providing funding
support far a dedicated shuttle rcute under these
circum.stances, and a shuttle would probably have to be
funded largely or exclusively by Stanford Research Park
employers.
Given the current economic climate and the perlding
regional control measures for traffic and transportation,
Stanford Research Park employers are reluctant tc embark
on an experimental shuttle service without conclusive
evidence that existing transit service is inadequate.
However, the study also concluded that the absence of
transit service to Deer Creek Road at the south end of the
Stanford Research Park is a potential deficiency, and that
shuttle service should be provided at this location if demand
warrants.. County Transit can operate service with extra Route 24-
trips diverted from the Veterans Administration Hospital.
Prelirodnary analysis conducted in the study indicates that there
may be demand for shuttle service. A conclusive dete~ination
will be made by County transit after surveying employees at Deer
Creek Road work sites.
5-2
."