The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0414.091j 1 I I - September 5, 1991 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto l California Membe~s of the Co~ncil: REpORT IN BRIEF 7 The Santa Clara County Transit District (SCCTD) is soliciting public comment on a proposed plan to reduce County Transit bus service by approximately 5 percent. This report provides an cverview and comments on the proposed changes affecting Palo Alto, and reCOINnends that council {I} talee a position on specific prQposals~ and (2) communic~te that position to the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency (SC~IA)~ On Auqust 6th the Transit District Board of Supervisors approved a budget for the County Transit District that calls for a 5 percent reduction in bus servic<'!, and associated operating expenditures effective January 1992. The Transportation Agency staff has pre.pared a service reducticn plan to :meet these goals (see attachod letter from County Transit). In order to meet the District Board's deadline~ County Transit staff has schedule for the publ ic t·evie ..... and service changes: eMF.: 4.14: 91 L January 1992 implementation establ ishe.d an a.ccelerated approval process, for the ! , i ! ,. I I ~ I .~. .~ i. -.- 1 I I I - •. -r Septe:ml:Jer 3-10 september 25 October 9 October 22 CODUllunity meetings in Gilroy, Campbell I San Jose, and Palo ~lto Fubli~ Hearinq by County Transportation Commission RecommeT'l.dation by county Transport2.tion Commission Final Approval by Tra~sit District Board of Supervisors county staff has asked tor the city's comments by September 9th so they can be considered as part of the County 'Iransit staff I s review, prior to developing the final plan that will be forwarded to tne Transportation commission and Board of Supervisors. This tight ~chedule does not allo~ ~ouncil to consider this item at the CQuncil meeting following t'he local comnmnity meetings in Palo Alto on Tuesday, September 10th. ROUTE EVALUATION PROCESS county Transit staff has conducted a systematic review of their entire system, follo',,;ing tt.e adopted route evaluation procedures4 Under these procedures bus routes are divided into t'Wo types. regular and express. Regular routes are grouped and evaluated ~y classification as major art.erial routes, or neighborhood feeder routas; each gre-up is analyzed 'Within the folloW'ir.g standardi.zed tim.e periods:. a. Weekday $:00 a.~. to 7:00 p.M41 basic hours of service b~ Weekday 7;00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., evening/early morning C4 Saturday d. Sunday This approach recognizes that different time periods cannot be expected to operate at the same l~vels~ and enables County Transit staff to pinpoiRt areas of lEast. productive service4 "Total boar~ings per revenue hour-(B/RVH) is the measure used to Evaluate productivity. Attached are Exhibits 1 and 2 .... hich surn..'1Iarize current ridership statistics and rati~9s for arterial and feeder routes~ Express routes, which normally operate only on a li.mited schedule during peak periods, are rated on the basis of total~.oardings per ~~ Routes t~.at do not average 20 ride.rs per trip are considered substandard. CMR: 414: 91 L 9/5/91 Page 2 . \ ~ \ \ \ .......,..;"; , _. ". ,~--.. . . - county Transit st~ff has £urth~r acknowledged that some salected routes, that hav'!i! above-standard overa.ll productivity, m.ay be targeted for changes at $pecified times of the day, or on limited route segments that have the fewest riders. This process has been used by county Transit staff in developing th~ list of routes on Attachme>.nt 1. P£LbTIONSHIP TO DRAFT T2QIQ p~ The: :Sus Element of the Draft. T2010 Plan (refer to CMR:415:91 in this pa~ket) outlines the goals and str~tegies guiding the long range planning for bus service in the county. The plan recoruQeocis a :moderate sy::;tem expansion that "w-o\.lld help achieve congestion management and air ~~ality standards, respond to growth, and feed rail lines.'" The proposed changes in serviC'e on certain routes, as described below, appear contradictory to ~h~ policy state~ents in the T2QIO Plan, especially those that relate to support for expanded co~~uter service, shuttle and rail feeder lines. and improved; access to activity centers. DISCUSSION OF I_NDIVIDUAL ROUTE n CH.;!.NGES Of tha 82 bus routes operated Py County Transit, 49 routes are targeted for changes und~r the proposed plan. It appears that all areas of the County~ including Dial-a-Ride service in South County, would be affected. As previously n~ted, the time 1 ine for review of the proposed changes is accelerat~d, and the a~cunt of information provided by County Tra~sit, on the curre~t ridership and performance levels of the. routes, has been limited. Based on the available information, staff has developed the following route by route review, including recommendations, for t:h.e changes in bus service in Palo Alto: Line 24 -(Downtown San JQ.~e to Palo Alto Ca:lTra:in StatniQ.nl Proposed Changes: • All of the selected trips that oetaur to the California Avenue CalTrain station during the co~~ute period would be eliminated. • 1'hp.: last northbound bus would leave San Jose at 7:15 p.m .• instead of 7:46 p.m. Basic service on Line 24 w-ithin Palo Alto operates along El Camino Real bet'\f{een the Palo Altc CalTrain =ot:atian and the Stanford Research Park (SRP). currently. only four morning buses and ten 0IR:414: 91 9/5/91 Page .) L I t , , I ! I I I ! L afternoon station. station, CalTrain buses are routed via the California Avenu~ CalTr~in These buses, toq~ther ~ith the Line 88 s~rvice into the are scheduled to provide reasonably good interface ~ith the schedule. although there are some gaps in service. Line 24 carries ridership above the ~ounty standard for grid routes. County Transit staff has proposed that this service be eliminated because ill ternative service between the Stanford Research Park and the station viI! continue to ce offered on Line 88. county Transit staff est.imates tnat approximately 2.3 riders per hour 'Will be affected by the elimination of this service. It is surprisinq that the SCCTA wOI.lld make this proposdl at a tilllc when the T20,lO Plan is advocating increased corn.mute and rail feeder services. and similar objectives are cited in the Count~ide congestion Manaqement Plan, and regional Transportation Control Measures of the Draft 1991 Clean Air Act. Furthermore, the recent Shuttle Feasibility Study for the SRP, prepared by crain and Associates tor Varian Associates (CMR:259:91, dated 5/9/91) r fOl..lnd a high interest in icprove4 transit connections between the SRP and California Avenue 5tation~ County Transit staff. at the time, expressed a reluctance to eliminate service to the CalTrain station~ To the contrary, they expressed a .... ill ingness to modi fy Line 24 servic2. to link the Research Park area west of Foothill Expressway. along Deer Creek Road, ~ith the CalIrai~ Statio~. Staff recommends that Council request Line 24 Service. to the California Avenue Cal Train station. not be discontinued. Line 84 -(Palo .Alto CalTrain Station to ___ San Antonio Shopping Center) proposed Changes: • Reduce weekday hours of service to only middays, 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. • Discontinue Saturday service Historically, Line 84 has been one of the poorest performing transit routes. Currently. its weekday ridership is seventh lowest of the thirty-two neighborhood feed~r routes. On Saturdays. it ranks third lowest of twenty-two comparable routes. Sunday Gervice "'"as discontinued several years ago due to low ridership. This route, however, perfo~5 the function of providing a minimum lifeline service to the residential area between Middlefield Road and Alma Street. It m&anders through the neighborhoods providing direct service to dovntown, Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Midto.~, and San Antonio Cente-r for ':.bose residents. including seniors residin'3 at. Stevenscn House, who are at some distance from other parallel bus services on Middlefield Road and El Camino Real4 L 9/5/91 Page 4 , I I - In recent years, substantial numbers of middle s~hool students used Line 84 to commute from north Pale Alto to Stanford Middle School. However, with the re-opening of ~ordan Middle school this month, the peak hour ridership en the route ~ould be expected to decl ine. and the pct~ntial for increased ridership is limited. The alignment of this ro~te along Waverley street, between Lowa Verde Avenue and East MeadoW Drive, has been the subject of controversy over the past t.hree years. The ini tiel request for removal of the route frem the neighborhood was made by Mr. Mark Nelson, during the last mCijor bus r.:>ute study in late 198B. ~rther correspondence from neighborhood residents ~as received in 1990, renewing this request. A neighborhood meeting (co-sponsored by tne SCCTA and the city) 'Was held in October 1990, at ""'hich County Transit staff presented an alternative plan for rerouting Line 84 ott of Loma Ve,rde and Wave~ley, and. onto Middlefield and East M.eadoW'. At that meeting, and in the correspondence and petitions subsequently received by County Transit, there 'Was no neighborhood consensus for a change in alignment. county 'l'ransit concluded that the existing routing should be mair.tained. The proposed reduction in wee~day hours of operatiol'l, 'While lI'!aintaininq limited lr,idday SeTVl.Ce, appears to be a reasonable compromise between the .needs of transit riders and r.eighborhood interests4 The proposed e1 imination cf Saturday service would appear justified based on the current patronage of B.S boardings per hour, which is significantly belo~ the current standard for Saturday service. Statf recomme~ds that Council support the proposed service reductions on Line 84 4 Line 35/35" -(stanford Unive~~ty to Foothill College/Henlo Pa~~ to San Antonio Shopping ce~ Proposed Changes: • Eli~inate trips departing before 6:00 a.~. • Operate evening service after 9:00 p.m. at ~ourly frequencies, ' rather than )0 minute headways • Eliminate 35M trips that operate via Middlefield to the Menlo Park calTrain station Line 35 is the main local :bus route in Palo Alto. This route connects several major activit)~ centers in the city and Stanford University, and provides direct service to Foothill College. Line 35 is currently operatinq ~ith above-standard ridership weekdays and Saturdays, but below standard evenings and Sundays. CKR:4l(: 91 L 9/5/91 Page 5 \ , , .~ . 't';,. '7.6::;. . - The reduction in early mo:--ning service between 6:00 a.m. 'Mould affect one trip ir, each direction. no~ carry A total of three riders. 5:00 a.m. and These two trips The proposed char.qe to hourly frequency in the evening • .. ould affect only one southbound de~a.rture from Stanford Universitj', and three northbound departures from Foothill College. The service ~ol.lld continue to operate until approximately 11:00 p.m. on tbe le~gthened headways. While any reductions in this key local route are not desirable, the proposed changes in Line ~5 during the ~arly morning and evening ~ould appear to be justified, and the basic route alignment and late evening service hours ~ill be maintained. County Transit has consistently recommended. eli'minating the. service or. Line 35M into Menlo park, due to consistently poor ridership. DUring the last major route evaluation process in 1988-89~ County Transit staff recommended elimination of the service, but it wa& never implemented. Instea'l, limited service into Menlo Park was ~aintained as a supple~ent to the then ne~ Line 35. These trips. however, run almost concurrently vith trips on Line 35 that are routed via downtown Palo Alto. Line 35M ave.rages 10.4 riders per hour, but on the segment north of Palo Alto (into Menlo p~rk) the average is 3.4 riders (44 riders counted on 14 trips). consequently, Line 35M has only limited ridership potential focused on a small and vocal core of employees from SRI International and U.S. G. S. in Menlo Park. Despite their efforts to support the route and encourage new riders, the route continues to be substandard. Staft recommends that Council not op~ose the proposed chang~s on Line 35 and the elimination of Line 35M. Proposed Changes: • Reduce ~eekday evening se~'ice hours • Eli~inate one early morning northbound trip L-j,ne 86 is a local neighborhood rout.e that operates via Channing Avenue and Louis Road, ser..,-inq the residential areas east of Middlefield Read. between dOlflnto .. '1". Palo Alto and the. San Antonio Shopping Center. This line is operating at a level below County Transit standards. \leekdays, evenings, a!'ld weekends. SCCTA staff is proposing ~o reduce service only in the early morning and evening hours __ hen the fewest riders would be affected. One trip depar:,ting Mountain View at 5:28 a.m~ would be eliminated, and the last three trips in each direction, that currently ryn bet~een 7:15 p.m. and CMR:414~91 L 9/5/91 Page 6 .\ .. ~. I , .- , 1 , I 1 1 1 1- - , '---'. 9:45 p.m., \lould be eliminated. County Transit staff estimates tr.at this. change would affect 3~ 2' riders per revenue hour for a total of 12 riders. staft recommends that Council net oppose the propo$~d changes on t.ine 86. Line 88 -~YA Hospital to Califorr~j.~yenue, t,,·o-'.'ay ~QQlU. Proposed Changes: • Extend ~idday frequency of service from 30 to 45 minutes • Discontinue weekday service after 7:00 p.m. • Dis~or.tinue Saturday and Sunday service Route 88 is a key linK in the grid bus net\olcrk in Palo Alto, as the only route that operates in th~ east-vest direction in Palo Alto r providing connections and transf~rs to the other north-sDut.h grid and feeder lines. It links the Research Park, California Avenue business district and CalTrain station, Midtown business district, Stevenson House. Jewish Community Center, and Gunn High School. At this time , it is unclear wby the weekday service changes are being proposed. This route essentially operates at 17.1 BIRv~ and the County Transit standard is 17.2 B/RVH. Thirty minute headways are the accepted standard head .... ays for reqular transit; longer headways discourage ridership, and make transfers to other rou~es on 30 minute headways less convenient. Without further justification for the change in midday service, staff recommends that Council oppose this service reduction. Staff's main cOncern ...... ith this line is the elimination of 'Weelcend service, which Too'ould, leave a substantial gap in service coverage in south Palo Alto. Elimination of weekend service ' •• ould limit access to the California Avenue CalTrain station and s.everal churches. and leave the .Jewish cOrru:Junity Center and VA Hospital ...... ithout bus service. This; proposal, -when cOIl".bined wi th the proposed elimination of Line 84 Saturday s.ervice, ""ould leave Stevenson Rouse, a major senior facility, ""ithout direct transit service on .eekends. Line 35 on Middlefield itoad 'Would be the closest ~emaininq bus route for Stevenson House residents~ Staff recommends that council {l) oppose the reduction in midday service, (2) ~ndorse the cha.nge in evening service hours~ and (3) oppose the complet.e e1 imination of 'Weekend service. but request that County Transit investigate other options to maintain a!1 appropriate level of Saturday and sunday service, including reduced frequency of service, a modified alignment, single direction se:-vice, etc., if necessary. CMR:414 :91 L 9/5/91 page 7 , ,..J o ProposeO Changes: • Discontinue last evening trip that departs the Research Park at 5:51 p.m~ Line 104 is an eJCPress route that runs from East Sa.I"!' ",,'-ose/Kilpitas to the ReseaTch Parle during the morning and evening commute periods. Ii the propos~d change is implemented~ the last bus out of the Research Park would depart from tne VA Hospital at 5:11 p.m. Line l04 carries approximately 202 riders daily on 13 trips# for an average of ~S. 54 riders per trip. county Transit staff reports that the last evening trip currently carries approximately five riders. Although this ro~te is belOW express service standard, terminating express service as early as is proposed would not appear to best serve the needs of SRP employees. Buses up to the last afternoon departure are scheduled every 20-30 ~inutes, but there is a 40 minute delay before the last trip~ Rather than eliminating the trip entirely, County Tr-ansit could fine tune the schedule t·:. coincide with the work shift5 of major SRP employers alonq the route. An adjustment to the sched:..lle ~ay lead to higher ridership on the last trip. staff believes that County Transit should delay implementing this proposal for six months in order to (1) work ~ith the Golden Trianqle Commuter Network and SRP commute coordinators to reevaluate the existing schedule, and maXe changes that would correlate 'With SRP employees commute hours~ and (2) initiate m~rketinq efforts to encourage nev ridership. Statf recommends that council oppose the proposed service change in Line 104, at this time. Line 304 -(Palo Al tOn to San Jose) Proposed Changes: • Elim.inate reverse COlm!lute trips from Palo Al to to San 30se • Eliminate seglllent of route between Mountain VieW' CalTr-ain Station and stanford Research Park Line 304 is a limited-stop route that runs from south San Jose to the SRP, via the Oakmead Business Park in Santa Clara during the co-m.ln'.lte period, with no m.idday service. Ridership on this route currently is considerably below standard~ InforlDation on the number of riders that would be affected by this proposal ~as not made available to City staff4 =:414:91 L 9/5/91 Page S f , I • - Total running time bet~een San Jos~ and Palo ~lto is approximately 90 minutes l wh1=h mav be a disincentive for commuters. Ho'WeVE!T, sta.ff does not unc!er·stand 'Why CO\lnty Transit has not con5idered other options, including streamlining the route, while still providing a terminus at the SR?, a m.ajor employment center. As discussed above, staff believes that cut.backs in commute-oriented service to the SRP should not be implemented 'Without se:r-ious effort.s 0:1 behalf of County Tral"\.sit, w?rldng in cooperation -with the Colden Tri.or.gle Commut.er NetworK and SRP employers, to promote Ysaqe of this route. If. after such undertakings. ridership has not increased to acceptable levels, reduction in servi~e should b~ considered. staff recommends that Council oppos~ any changes in Line 304~ at the present time. CONCWSIONS Following the mandate of the Transit District Board of Supervisors to reduce transit service by 5 percent effective January 1992~ County Transit staff has focus~d thgir ser~ice reduction plan on routes, or segments of routes and selective periods of operation, that carry the [ewe'$t riders. In doing so, however, staff is concerned that leS's attention has been directed to E:va,lu03ting the adequacy of ser'.rice coverage and the cor::patibility of the proposals with both local and regional TOM ef[orts~ In Palo A.lto, these concerns focus on proposed elimination of weer-end service in south Palo Alto, reduced commute service to the Stanford Research Park~ and transit interface with CalTrain at the California Avenue station. ~M!rol'DATIOt!S Staff r-ec:ommends that Council direct the Mayor to convey the followinq ::-ecommendations and cOnmlents, C'n t!'-,o;! proposed service reduction plan. to the county Transportation }.ger::cy: (1) Palo Alto oppcses the elimination of Line 24 service to the califcrnia Avenue CalTrain station. (2J Palo Alto supports the modifications to Line$ 35j35M, Line 84. and Line 86. (3) Palo Alto Ca) supports the change in evening hours on Line 88, Co) opposes the reduced midd~y service and the elimination of -weekend service, and (c) requests that County '!'ransit investigate other options to maintain service on saturday and Sunday. CMR:414:91 L 9/5/91 Page 9 • -" • , -. - o (4) Palo Alto opposes service reductions on Lines 104 and 304 to the Stanfor~ Research Park~ and requests that county Transit explore ~ays to improve ridership ~ith the Golden ~rian91e Commuter Network and Stanford Rest:!;arch Park. employers before implementing ser~ice reductions to the Research Park~ Respectfully submitted, GAYLE LIKENS Senior Planner , C\. ____ ~:> ~""'.r ....... -'f JUNE FLEMING . Assistant city ManagEr KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment Attachments: SCCTA LEtter of 8/6/91 and Setvice Proposal Exhibit 1 Major Arterial Route Evaluation E~~ibit 2 Neighborhood/Feeder ROU~e Evaluation Exhibit 3 Map of Bus Routes in Pale Alto Exhibit 4 to 7 Individual Bus Route Maps Related CMRs: Draft Final Santa Clara County Transportation Plan (T2010), CHR:415:91, 9/5/91 cc: Mike Aro, SCCTA Stanford Research Park Transportation Coordinators City of Menlo Park Senior Coordinating Council CMR:414:91 ',-.. 9/5/91 Page 10 · - An Agency af the County of SanlJ Clara August 6. 1991 Jolr. i<r.'illiam Zar::er City Manager City of Palo Alto P.O. ~ox 10250, 250 Hamilton Av~. Palo Alto, CA 94303 SU8JECT: Proposed Service Changes D~ar .Mr. Zaner; For the fir$t ti~e in Santa Cl~ra Co~nty Transit District's 18 year hi$tory, the District is experiencing a converg~nce of re~enues and exp~nditures. In order for the District to ~~et the needs nf its customers through the 1990's, the District m~st initiate ~cticns ~hich ~il1 contain costs and bring these trends under control. The District has taken aggressive steps to reduce the op~rating expenses for suppor~ functions, however, the larg~st m~j~rity of the District's b~dget i~ spent on providing s~rvice on th~ street. No serious cost containment program can be undertaKen that does nat address the current level of bus service provided by the District. Consequently, the District is proposing approximately a 5\ reduction in bus service which is targeted for implementation in January 1992~ Attached~ for your review~ is a rout~-by-raute overview of the changes being proposed for the bus system. District staff has considered spa~ of service. route alignment and service l~vel changes on all lines to improve overall system productivity. To minimi~e the impact to the District's riding public~ the focus of the reductions will be on those services that ~re carrying the fe~e5t passengers. Although some lines may not be identified as being substandard usi~g the District's ~oute Evaluation Polfcy~ th~re mey be portions ur segments of the~e lines that warrant corrective actions to improve productivitY4 Staff has considerEd all aspects of setvice supplied anj service consumed to refine and improve the efficiency and productivity of all existing services. The proposed changes vill be pr€s~nted to the public ~t five (5) community meetings. District staff viII be available at these meetings to expl~in th~ propo~als and solicit comments. The community meeti~gs have been scheduled as follows: Tuesday, september 3, 1991 7:00 p.m. Gilroy Senior Center 7371 Hanna St., Gilroy Wednesday. September 4, 1991 7:00 p.m. Campbell Community Center 1 West Campbell Ave., Campbell '. ----.. ~~~~~~ 71··· '-, ;.: ,.' <',~ <~%~·:r ---.. -_ .• __ ._.-- - Mr. Zaner 8/6/91 Page 2 o ~onday, september 9. 1991 7:00 p~m. Isaac Newton SentE~ Auditorium County Administration Building 70 West Hedding St., San Jcse o Tuesday. September 10. 1991 2:00 p .•• , 7:00 p.m. Lucie Ster~ Community Center 1305 Middlefield Ave .• Palo Alto Afteor receiving input from the cOIl'.munity and local jurisdictiorJ!;, staff will review the service change proposals and present a final proposal for approval in Septe~ber/October 1991. It is important, therefcre~ that the cities review the proposals and submit in vriting their comments by September 9. in order to have them considered as palt of t~~ staff review. If at anytime the city feels that it would be beneficial to meet and discuss the proposals, District staff viiI b~ available to do so. The ~eetings for final approval will be held at the County Administration Buildin9. 70 West Eedding Street~ San Jose, and have bee~ tentatively scheduled as follovs: Public Hearing on proposed Changes: Wednesday, September 2S. 1991 at 6:00 p.m. Recommendation by County Transportation Commission: Wednesday, October 9, 1991 at 7!30 p.m. Final appr~val by T~ansit District 9card of Supervisors: Tuesday. october 22, 1991 at 9:0C a.a. Should any additional information be requi~ed~ please contact aill Copps or me ot (408)299-4901. Si!!cerely, Wa!1\rQ Mike Aro Service Development Manager !'tA: tm Attachments cc: Liz Xni~s~ Transportation Commissioner ........ ~en Schreibe~. Director~ Planning ( Envilonroent ~ayle Likens~ Transportation Planner File -Service Change Proposals L J , I I , ." I " , ~I ! 1 - o OESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGES Oial-A-Ride*--Service hours ~ould be cut back to appro~imat~ly 7:30 p.m. on we~kdays. Line lD~ (Santa Claxa to Jose CalTrain Oepotl--The porticn cf th~ roote c~rrently operating between the San Jose Cal Train depot and the ~etro LRT station is largely duplic~ted b~ light rail and would be deleted. The routing on this line ~culd b~ ~odified to oterate betweea the Metre LRT station and Fran~li~ Mall via the San JO!t Airport. The frequency of service cn this remaining portion of the route would be adjusted to operate approximately every 20 minutes on weekdays, and 40-45 minutes in the e~enings after 7:00 p.m~ and weekends. tiDe 13* {Almaden LRT Station to Almaden , Mc~ean/New Almaden)--The freque~cy of service would be improved to oper~te at 15 minute intervals du~ing the morning and afternoon com~ute hours. The northbound trip ~t 4:57 a.m. and the southbound trip at 5:16 a.m. ~ould be deleted. These changes are in conjunction with changes proposed for Line 64. Line Ie. (Downtown San Jose to The Housing Authority}--Service on this line is proposed to be deleted due to extremely low patronage. Other lines will continue to provide service nearby. Line 17* (First' Wren to Tenth, Chestnut)--The ~eekday counterc1ock~ise trips departing First and Wren at 5:29 a.m. and 7:47 p.m. would be deleted. Weekend se~vlce would be discontinued. Line 20* (Dizon and Milpitas to San Antonio Shopping center)--Weekend schedule ~djustrnents are proposed that would celete the 9:02 a.m. eastbound trip, ~nd the 8:D4 a.m. ar.d 9:22 a.m. westbound trips. Weekend service would be modified to operate hourly after 6:30 p.m. Line 24. (Downtown San Jose to Palo Alto Cal Train Depot via Stevens Creek)--proposed changes would eliminate the sel~cted trips serving th~ California CalTrain depot in Palo Alto (Lir.e sa viII continue to 6~rv~ the train de~ot). The 7:46 p.m. westbound trip is also proposed to be deleted. -' L • , .....; :f;, ~ ".~,.~ \ 1 I ·1 I ....... ' .. .- () Line 25. (East S~n Jos~ to De Anza Colleqe via V~lley Medical Center)--Midday s~rvice would be improved o~ ~e~kdays to op~rate every 15 minutes between east San Jose and Valley Medical Center. Th~ weekday 11:43 p.m. westbound trip is p~oposed to be deleted~ and weekend servic~ modifications have the S:~7 p.m. ar.d 6:40 p.m. westbo~nd trips operating only as far as valley ~e~ical Center. Line 26'-(Eastridge to Sunnyvale/Lockheed)--The .... estb,::lund trips leaving Eastridge after 1:00 p.m. en ~eekcays ~culd only ~perate as far as prospect and S3ratoga. Weekend service hours would be cut back to approximately 7:30 p.m. Line 27-(Santa Teresa Hospital to West Valley College'--The wee\end evening service hours are proposed to be cut back to approxim~tely 7:30 p.m. :c: ... ine 34"* (Santa Cla["a CalTrairl Depot to San Antonio ShoPpin9 Cente£l--The east~o~nd 6:29 p.m. a~d westbound 6:26 p.=. tr(ps are proposed to be deleted. Line 3S/35~* (Stanford University to Foothill College / Menlo Park Caltcain Depot to San ~ltonio Shopping Center)--The 35M trips operating between the Menlo Park Calrrain depot and San Antonio Shopping Center ~ould be discontinued. Other weekday service adjustments would include: modifying the evening service to operate hourly aft~r abcut 8:00 p.~.; te~minatin9 the 7:24 p.m. and 8:25 p.m. southbound trips at San ~~tcnio Shopping C~nter; and deleting the northbound 5:45 a.m. a~d southbound 5;41 a.m. trips. The weekend evening service hours ~nd f~equency would be modified to match yeekday. Li'ne 36* t East San Jose to vallco Fashion Park via San Jose Flea Marketl--The veekday eastbound trip at 7:25 p.m. and westbound t~ips at 5:53 a.m. and 1:22 p.m. ate prcpc&~d to be deleted. Line 37* (Bascom' camden to ~onte~ey , Senter)--Weekday servic~ yould operate until approximately 1:00 p.~. ~nd the weekend ser7ice hours ~ould be adj~sted to operatE between 8:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Line 38* (Winche£ter , ~nowles to Monterey , Senter)--Weekday service would operate until approximately 7:00 p.m., and the weekend service hou~£ would be adjusted to operate bet~een 8:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. L , - Line 42 (Santa Cl~rB Industrial Perk fro. Lavrence CalTrain DepotJ--The 2:40 p.m. and 6:20 p.m. trips are proposed to be deleted. Line SQ. (E1 Camino Bospital to San k~tonio Shopping Center via CalTrain. Depot,--Theo 'Weekday southbound tr-ip leavirJg San Antonio Shopping Center at S!Sl a.m., and the northbound trip departing El Camino Hospital at 8:15 a.m. on weekends, would be deleted. Line 51* (Moffett/Junes to vallr:o Fashion Park)--The ..... e2iccay schedule is proposed to be modified with the last northbound bus departing valleo at 7:09 p.m. and the last so~thbound bus departing ~cffett at 6:32 p.m. Line 52. (Foothill College to ~ountain viev CalTrain Depot)--Weekday schedule adjustments ... ·ould result in the last northbound bus leavinq Foothill College at 6:S5 p.m., and the last so~thbound bus leaving the ~auntain View Cal Train depot at 6:39 p.m. Line 54--(Sun.'lyvale Cal Tl"ain Depot to We.s tga.t-e) --The .... eekday morning schedule ~ould be modified slightly to reduce service frequency and i~prove route efficiency. These modifications would includ~ discontinuing the southbound 6:06 a.m. trip and· the northbound 6:26 3.m. trip. Line 56 (fair Oaks & El Camino to Kilpitas via Arques}--Sche~ule modifications ate proposed to provide peak commute hour service only. Eastbound t~ips departing rait Ca~s & EI Camino from 8:45 a.m. to 2:08 p.m., and we5tb~und trips d~parting Weller & ~ain between 9~21 a.m. and 1:50 p.m. wo~ld be deleted. Additionally, the last westbound trip departing Milpitas at 6!16 p.m., would be dele ted. Line 59* lEast San Jose to Great Ame~ica)--The eastbound trips depart.ing 'Great Jt..metiClS at 5:37 a.m.~ 8:2B p.m. and 9:19 p.m., as well as the westbound trips departing Morrill, Cropley at 7:25 p.m., 9:22 p.m. and 9:12 p.m .• are ptopo~ed to be deleted. The ~idday service would be modified to op~rate every 45 minutes on weekdays. Saturday and sunday s~tvice ~ould be discontinued. Line 61 (Camden ~ Branham to Lockheed via ScottJ--~he southbound schedule would be modified to delete the 2:10 p.m. trip depatting from Lockheed. , -, \ \ ,--, 1 -j.", ,~ . '. ---_ ..... ---------.. - Line 64* (Alum ~ock , Miguelita to Almaden Valley via Downtown San Jose)--Schedule and route modifications for Line 64 a~e p~oposed in co~junctiQn with those proposed fcr Line 13. The southern tec~inu5 for Line 54 would be c~located to the Almaden LRT station frem its present location at Almaden Exp~ess~ay anj Via Vali~nte. service enhance~ents a~e F:~posed for Line 13 to maintain an acceptable level of service into the Almaten Valley. Additional schedule mcdificaticns would include deleting the first weekday southboun1 trip leaving Alum R~ck and White at 5:09 a.m.~ and deleting the 13st 5cut~~ound trip cn weekdays and weekends that leaves First & Santa Clara at 12:29 a.m. Li~e 65. (Gish , Fi~st to Almaden Valley via Leigh'--Tbe ~eekday evening schedule wculd be modified to operate hcurly after approximately 7:30 p.m. This would req~ire deleting the northbound 6:51 p.m., 7:51 p.m. and 9:21 p.m. trips, as well as the 8:09 p;m. southbound trip. Weekend evening hc~rs ~culd be cut back to app[o~imately 7:00 p.m. The last ncrthbou~c bus would depart the Almaden L~T station at 7:19 p.m., with the last southbound departing First & Gish at 6:56 p.m. > Line 66* (Milpitas to Santa Teresa Dospital via Downtown San ~ose)--The last southbound trip departing Milpitas at 12:28 6.m. ~ould be deleted. Line 6>7 (Monteorey Highway, Ford Road to Almaden Expressway' Foxyorthy)--The weekday a~d weekend service hours would be cut back to approximately 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. respectively. On weekdays, the last eastbound trip ~ould dep~(t Almade~ a~d Foxwc~thy at 8:C9 p.m., a~d the last ~estbo~~d t(ip w~uld de2art Monterey & Fo~d at 7:55 p.m. The last trips on weekends would depart at 7:22 p.m. in the eastbound direction a~d 7~19 p.m. in the westbound direction. In addition, the 5:42 a.m. eastbound morning trip would also be deleted. A minor routing change by Oakridge Mall would be implemented to operate on Winfield to elossom Hil1~ continuing to Santa Teresa and regular rcut~. This modification would improve connections with Line 27 on Blossom Bill Read. Lin~ 70* (Milpitas to capitol LRT Station}--The proposed service modifications would include eliminating the first northbound trip departing Jackson' Alum Rock at S~11 a.m., a~d increasing the weekday level of service to operate every 20 ~inutes before 6:00 a.m. Line 71* (nilpitas to Evergreen}--The ~eekday 5~l5 a.~. southbound trip is proposed t~ be deleted. L • • I " , , .. , . '\' -\ · . Line 72. (Dovntovn San Josa to Mcnterey , 5enter}--The fIrst thre~ v~e~day southbound trips are proposed to be d~leted. The first southbound trip departing downtown would be at 5:21 a.m. Th~ first southbound trip on weekends, at 6:28 a.m., ~ould also be elimiI'1"ated. Line 73* (Downtown San Jose to Snell' CapitolJ--Scnedule modifications are being proposed for ~~e~day service. The southbound trip departing downtown at 5:24 a.m. ~ould be modified to start the trip fro~ the Senter' Tully timepoint at 5:39 a.m. The last northbound trip departing Snell & Capitol at S!31 p.m. vould b~ deleted. Line 74-(Milpitas to EastridgeJ--The level of 5ervice would be ~educed to operate every 30 minutes during the peak commute hours. Line 76* (~5 Gatos to Summit Road)--The last trip departing do~ntown Los Gatos at 6:55 p.m. would be deleted. Line 77. tXilpitas to Evergreen Colle-ge)--Weekday sen'ic:e modifications would include a midday turnbac:k of northbound trips between the hours of 9:30 a~m. and 2:30 p.m. at Old Oakland Road 'Brokaw. Passengers ~i$hing to continue no~th into Milpitas during these times could transfer to Lior ~6 on Old oaxland Road. Also, the 5:3n a.m. southbound trip departing ~ilpitas is proposed to be deleted. Line al. (East San Jose to Valleo FashiQo Par~ via Downtown San JOse)--Midday service would be improved to operat~ every 15 minutes between McKee' White and Park , ~lmaden on ~eexeay~. Line 82. (Hedding' 17th to Westgate}--The weekday evening s~hedule would be modified to operate hourly ~fter ap~toxi~ately 7:30 p.m. This would require deleting the 8;17 p.~. northbound and B:13 p.m. southbound t.rips. The .... e-ekend evening service hours wo~ld be cut back with the last northbound trip departing Westgate at 6:31 p.m. and th~ last southbound trip dep~rting 19th & Mission at 6:43 p.m. L , 1 I - - Line 83. (Downtown San Jose to Good Samaritan BospitaIJ--The northern portion of the roct~~ between the Curtner LRT station and downtown San Jose, duplicates reuch of light rail and 15 consequently proposed to be eliminated. The retained pertion of the route would be between Good Sa~aritan Hcscital a~d the Curtner LRT station. Evening service would b~ cut bac_ to appro7imately 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 6:00 p.m. cn ~eekends. Line 84-(Palo Alto Cal Train oepot to San Antonio Shopping Center)--Weekday service is proposed to operate bet""eer. the appro~imate hours of 9:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. Saturday service is proposed to be discontinued. Lin~ 85* (Tenth' Bedding to Lawrence , ~oo!paIk'--Prcposed weeKday schedul~ modifications ~ould delete t~e first eastbcund trip leavin~ Tenth & Be~ding at 5:07 a.m.~ and the first westbound trip l~aving La~tenc~ & Moorpark at 5:22 a.m. Evening service ~ou1d also pe modified by deleting the eastbound 6:5~ p.m. and 10:25 p.m. trips~ along with the westbound 11:17 p.m. trip. Line S6~ (St~nfo~d Shopping Center to San Antonio Shopping Center)--The ~eek~ay evening service hours would be shortened with the last north~cund trip departing San Antonio Ehopplt.g Center at 6:30 p.m. and the last southbound trip departing Ztanford Shopping Center at 7:16 p.rn. The fi~st northbound trip departing San Antonio Shopping Center at 5:28 a.m. ~ould be eliminated. Line 88* (Veterans Bospital to California CalTrain Depot}--Schedule changes are being proposed that · .. ·ould i:rlpact service hQurs~ days a~d frequency. The last weekday trip i~ ea=h directio~1 7:18 p.m. clockwis~ ~nd 7:35 p.m. counterclockwise, would be deleted; midcay sErvice ~?uld be ~odified to operate every 45 minutes from the c~rrent 30 min~te schedule; and ~eekend service would be disco~tinued. Line 104 (Piedmont Bills to Palo Alto)--The last evening trip departing the Palo Alto V~terans Hospital at 5:51 p.m. ~ould be discontinued. The morning and afternoon deviation into Moffett/Ames ~ould also be eliminated. Line 117 {Camden' Bcanham te }1:offett/Ames)--The morning trip departing Camden' Branham at 6:50 a.m., and the corresponding evening tr-ip depar-ting the NASA./A.MES Research Center at 4;45 p.m., are proposed to be disc9nti~ued. , -:~, ~-. .~. " Line 126 (Winchester, Latimer to Lockheed/MQffett Industrial Park)--This line is prcpos~d for deletion. The service is duplicated by local transit services resulting in low patronage. Line 127 {Almaden Express~ay 5 Camden to Lockheed/Moffett Industri~l park)--This express line duplicates much ~f the routing covered by Line 128~ Therefore, it is being proposed to t~rminate the line in the Great Am~~ica Industrial Park a~d modify the nor~hern end of the ro~te to s~rve businesses on fatrick 8enry, Old Mountain View-Alviso Road anc Great America P3rk"Way~ Service to the Lockheed/Moffett Industtil!l Park .... ,ould contInue to be provided by Line 128. Line 140· (Pcemont BART to ~ountain View)--The southern terminus for this line is proposed to ~e relocated to the Mountain View CalTrain depot on Castro Street. The line would no lo~ger provide service between the train depot and the San Antonio Shopping Center. Line lCS (Eastridge to .Mountain Vie..,. Industd-al Area)-·-The last eastbound trip depa~ting the Mountain Vie~ Cal Train dep~t at 5:59 p.m. would be deleted~ The remaining trips woyld be rescheduled to bettEr meet shift times in the industrial parks. Line 180· ~san Jose CalTcain Depot to Fremont BARTJ--The last weekday northbound trip leaving San J05e at 12:08 a.m.~ along ~ith the last southbound trip from BART at 1:03 a.m~~ ~re proposed to be deleted. Line 30C/304A. (Palo Alto/Mountain View to Socth San Jose)--Service modifications are proposed that would eliminate the reverse commute trips operating southbound in the mornings and northbound in the afternoons. The trips operating in the peak commute direction vould only ope~ate bet~een the Santa Teresa LRT station and the Mo~ntain view cal Train depot (Central Expressway and Moffett/castro). Service would no longer be provided on the portion of the route between the Mountain View CalTrain depot and Palo Alto. , , . ~··T""<' ! ! I - RL 2C 22 23 24 25 :26 27 51 54 ~ 57 58 1>0 61 1>2 63 b4 h!: 66 b8 70 71 72 73 7~ 77 81 -- VG. A 51 o. - ROUTE EVALUAT I Di\l MAJOR ARTERIAL ~OUTES WEE_KI:JAVS I SArURDAV I 3: 003,-7:00p 7:;OOp-5:00a BLW BLW BLW B/R'JH PA 5TO S/R'JH f>A STD B/RVH PA STO ~--- 30.9 71.0 X H.b 57~1 1 22.0; 56.5 X 60.9 140.2 45.4 177.9 56.9 140.4 40.0 92~O 22 .. 3 87.'5 35.B &S.~ 36.1 83.0 ::!D. 5 eO.3 N5 bO.2 1:;e.4 20.6 00.7 47. '5 117.2 36.3 9.3.5 17.6 69.0 X 32.6 80.S "5.7.2 85.6 1'5.4-60.2 X 37 .. ~ 91.9 31.b 72.7 X 6.2 24.1 • 16.5 40.S X 26.'7 61.9 X 10.l:.. 4-1. 4 X 2'a.o ..9.0 X 39.3 90 •• 16.9 66.1 X 35.3 e7.1 30 .. 6 70.4 X 11.7. 4'5. q X 28.S 71.2 X 29.~ 67.4 X 14.0 55.0 X 22.9 56.5 X ~1.2 94.8 24.Q <17. I> 36.7 '9'5.6 13.6 31.4 X NS NS 40.2 92.6 21.6 94.7 41.7 103.0 36.0 82.9 17.3 .7.7 X 33.7 83. I 53.2 122.4 29.9 117.0 57. :; 141.4- 22.0; 52.8 X 9.6 37.8 X 13.6. 33.7 X 51.4 IIB.3 29.3-114.7 43.S 10B.0 41. 6 95.6 33.7 132.& 40.2 9'i.2 40.7 107.5 27.0 10'S .. .c; 33.4 62.3 46.9 108.0 23.'a <;>3.2 29'.8 73.6 51.5 116.5 30.4 119.9 41 ~O 101.2 46.7 107.5 19.1 74.8 X 31.4 77.5 29.2 67.2 " 16. .. e 65.6 X "3.4.5 6'5.0 28.7 66.1 X 'oIS 35.1 96.6 62.2 143.0 31.2 122.0 41.4 117.0 3:5. .. 3 76.7 N5 NS 18.4 42.4 " NS NS 43.5 25.S 40.S 31.B 19.3 2<;>.2 ~/RVH 8 BOARDINSS PER R£vENUE V£HICLE HOUR PA .... PER:CENT OF AVE:RAGS FOR SERVICE PERl DO NS = NO SERVICE ~_w STO -BELOW STANDARo --_-.<- SU B/RW 19.4 46.7 30.2 38.9 ~6.6 2-4.7 J 3.. 6. 19.2 19.9 ZO.6 14.3 "3.0.3- 36.1 23.9 4-a .. ~ 10.2 38.6- 40.6 4'2.2 260.7 ~3.7 3'~.1 2". '2 27.9 3'i'.4 35.0 25.5 EXHlBIT 1 NDAVS BLW f'A STl) ~.3 X 139.9 86.3 NS 1 H.1 75.8 70 .. 6 X 38.9 X 51. <; X 56.7 X ~. 7.. )._ 40.7 X 86.5 NS 103.1 OS.3 X 1"S7.e 29.0 X 110.0 ll5.8 120.'5 76.2 96.1 94.4 83.3- 79.6 112.~ NS NS \ ' , \ • , • ,--, 1 I I t , j i I . -: . '" ROuTE EVALUATIOi\. NEIGHBORHOOD/FEEDER ROUTES EXHIBIT 2 WEEKDAYS I SATURDAY I SUN:OAV~::; BLk' BLW BLW RT. 5.00A-7.00p I 7. OOp-5. 00. PI> STD B/~VH PI> STD B/R\IH BLW i B/RYH PI:. STD S/RVH PI> STD 10 13 14 21 13 7 19 10 4 .2 . " .7 ", 17 .2 .9 DAR 32 34 35 36 37 3a .0 .f> 25 20. 22 22. 20 17. 2 • 1 1 .5 39 4:;). 40 33. 41"' 11. 42 14. 43 9. 044 1L SO 1'9. 52 16. 53 27. 56 13. ~ 2". 67 30. 71>" 13. 82 37. 63 lao S4 12. a5 49~ e6 1!1. S7 27. Be 17. AVG. 22. STD. 17. " " 1 -\ 4 I> 3 I> 2 7 0 7 7 1 :; , 5 B 4 9 1 4 2 94.8 60.6 X 34.5 X 85." 4e.b I le.O X "4.3 90.2 '9'B~B ge.9 91.7 78.6 202.l 147.9 '51.0 X &4." l 4Z.'l' X SO. 4 X 87.5 72 .. 5 X 123.B 58.1 X 11"L7 137.2 56.4 X 11>7.4 83.6 55.7 X 2:22.-4 bS.9 X 124.7 76.4 X 9.5 9'5.7 1 B." NS :s.~ N9 >IS ~.4 NS 12.7 0.7 6.~ X 2.6 NS 16.2 NS 8.1 61.8 I 21.'9 7.3 74.2 X 51. 7 7.1 72.3 X 16.6 6.S ;'3.7 X 15.5 :26.4 267.1 36.6 1'9.4 196.0 16.9 "''' N$ NS NS NS 11.6 3.B 31.9 X NS N5 8.2 8::<.3 9.8 12.7 128.4 11.7 NS 14.2 143.7 35.5 b.O 60.7 • 13.0 "5 8 .. ~ 19.6 198.4 41.6 4.1 41.1 X 13.9 NS 17.2 4.5 46.0 X 10.0 9.9 20.3 9.2 15.7 8/R\IH = 8OAROINGS PER REVENUE VEHIClE I<OUR PA _ PERCENT OF AVERAGE FOR SERVICE PERIOD L ----I 90.6 J3 • .4I 79.2 • 17.1 l i 2.5 13.0 X NS NS 41>.3 X 6.2 36.7 l( 1,2.7 I 7.6 4~.e X 12.7 X 2.7 11>.2 X 79.9 NS N5 NS 107.7 13.4 79.0 X 254.8 50.0 29S.9 81.9 13.2 78.2 X 76.4 X 9.6 Sb.7 X 1BO.5 29.'8 17b.O 82.6 H.B 10::1.0 . NS' NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 57.2 X 8." 51.1 X NS NS NS ;,s NS NS 4B.5 X 7.0 41.4 X 57.7 X 22.7 134.0 NS Ni; 176.3 19.'7 117. S b4.1 X 7.1 42.3-X "'1.9 X OS 20"5.9 35.B 211.6 68.7 X 7.7 45.6 X B4.9 8.S SO.4 X 49.3 X B.6 50.6 X 16.9 14.1 ~s =' P'JD SERV I ce: Pl.W STO -BELOW STANDARD - =~---------- BUS ROUTES IN THE PALO ALTO AREA eA\"$110RPi: rJlHWAY :!: ............... ""." ..... ", ••• ,' ... 'H." ....... ".N .... .... Santa Clara Counly Transit Roules 7<2 300 7<3 ~4 •••••••• 3S B4 86 BB EXPRESS BUSES ARE NOT SHOWN ---------.-----"-~,----- San Mateo Counly Transil Routes 4A 5L 7F SOV & 50C OB/o81 "-' " • " ~1I>OI~ilI "T'hdb.4_..,..,... .... f.:>oJ...,.,. ..... ..,. ........ Ulrrl"'I-"'_, ___ e:.n.~,=-.'>d N=S& ... r .... __ ,s....,..._~~,rs:SJ.. SO, .. t ....... -.....:...,.,.~""" - L - EXHIBIT 4 Lll'>'E 24 " ." , '. \ LINE 35/35111 -,----_ .... -____ ..... ao... ----"'- \ \ " • , \ \ \.'-,,'\ ...... : Palo A.lto ..... --... , ... " . §~. ~;..;t lIWI< .. o...aw... • L,. Altos Hills ...... ",.., )r,"'Q ",,"' ~ "', bo.",,:j'.1 !" 1> ... ""'~ Ie,. I'll'· ~I lIo_..., _L.q;,"'~b""J'Cl<!$..,I'l<!.:m. .... d, ........ ,,' .. ""n~"- ... 1'7'lt.U""'UI"b.-~ ........ ;lI(l· ~ t>, OI!' ~,g" ""_.:e.: o._.~ ~I<-c ::r ___ "..,.,!oo ........ "*~" '" "." w' ,"",o",,,,,,n....:l ~ .. "'_"11 ......... ~ ............ ..,r~",....,.., ..... ~ ... ,,,,,,..,, c.I' "' .. <II CkJ.""_ ...... _ ~ "Doooo_,""'''''''''''''-" "<>'~""'~E..p~Ow.~ , - ,. -"- ~: , • • . ,:'-- Palo Alto --=.-. =: .. 1 LINE 84 LINE 86 . ---a " Palo Alto .~ • I""', , . . • EXHIBIT 5 Showera & latham .", ......... ---,,'" .. "..., .... l:1 ... D,.. .., .~ .2:!....1!. ..... _ .... __ MIn. View 10·01-90 • • i I ,- , 1.1 • I - • .. L o LINE 88 "- ~ ' . . Palo Alto , .... "".. , ...... , ...... ." ~ i·~~,.., ~--:.:". ~ • • I , , , I , , .: ~ . LINE 104 • :JT ~_ •••• a4_ o _ o • STOPS ~ME1II"'E.O 5i,,,. and "~mor\l , ...... ROd. loj 'Si"r.1 ~ .. . ' . ,. • N San Jose Pl."" Vic:lan. a " .. _.ft", Cal.rwotr ... "' ..... Y..:Lor" C.t. •• ,u" lIIiIpI\M Wloll .... KMI HW)'_ :)1" z.."II .. , ~or";~ llCl\illl'ltt ~~iiI' Morrill I CroSJltlr ".de \I1CIo;II1j1 l L-nd_ P.rlI lI1C1orU; l '!"~o .. ,~. ~"'L!~:! ~~ !nal;,l~ ..... EXHIBIT 6 -o"" .. ~.! • -~'<I: ;: _"~E!S __ ,. 04-29-91 , • ...: r LINE 304 -