HomeMy WebLinkAbout0412.092:l;' .
~:{f· -./.
-,
.' .
~E:!.:,~"""'''''' __ ._._.-'-. __ ------
September ~O, 1992
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto~ California
Members of the Council:
REPORT IN SRI EF
13
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is currently
soliciting project proposals tor possible funding consideration.
Using funds provided by Assembly Bill 434( their primal~ objective
is to fund transportation programs and projects that most
effectively achieve emission reductions from motor vehicles~ Palo
Alto has a completed feasibility and planning study for a Stanford
Research Park (SRP) Shuttle. proj ect implementation has not
occurred, due to a lack of availa~le funding. In reviewing the
objectives and evaluation criteria of the BAAQMD for their
ac:lministration of the }-.B 434 funds, it appeC'l,rs that the SRP Shuttle
Project qualifies for consideration.
The purpose of this staff report is to recommend that council adopt
the attached resolution (Attachment 1), authorizing the city
Manager to submit an application for AB 434 fundil".g for the
Stanford Research Park Shuttle Project and specifying the City
Manager, or his designate} as the person responsible for
administration of the project.
BAC-,.GROPNo
As a condit.i':Jn of approval for a neW' office building on page Mill
Road between Hansen Way and Hanover Street, Varian, lnc. contracted
'With crain and Associates, Inc. to conduct a stUdy to determine the
feasibili ty of operating a shuttle service between the Stanford
Research Pa:I·k~ California Avenue CalTrain Station, and ether
selected areas, to faci11 tate and encuurage the use of public
tran&it and other non-drive alone modes of travel.
C~.R:412:92
--------------.----.----------
'.
o o
The study beqar. with a survey of 12,000 employees (3,000
r~spondents) at ~kheed, Varian, Alza, Xerox, and Hewlett-Packard~
and found considerable in-:'erest in a commute shuttle, as wall as a
noon hour shuttle. The study then developed and evaluated four
comm~te period and three noon period shuttle service concepts, with
varying service levels and coveraqe areas~ 'fhe study concluded
that a shuttle type Gervi~e is possible; ho·wE'.ver, the uncertain
economic ~limate. pending reg.Lonal control measures, and the
presence of som~ existing County Transit service, m~de employers
reluctant to proceed with an experimental shut.tIe service. .1Is
summary description of the study and a copy of the Final Report
(January 1991) by Crain and Associates, Inc., can be found in
OKR:259:91, dated May 9, 1991.
IDlRFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP} A.lt;R CONGESTION MITIGATION: __ AIR
QUAI;ITY (eMAO) FUNDING
During the past several l!l.onths, staff has been working with
repres€ntatives from the Santa Clara County congestion Management
Agency and the Metropolitan Transportation commission to develop a
list of projects for funding, as pa~t of the lS33 Transportation
Improvement Program.
In M~y, staff reported to Council (CMR:261:92) on the then current
status of the evolving 1993 TIP process and recommended that
Council establish a priority list of projects for consideration for
proqramming in the 1993 TIP. The priority list <...pproved by-Council
at that time included seven roadway projects, one transit project}
one sidewalk project, and one pedestrian/bicycle project. The
single transit project .... as the Stanford Research Park Shuttle
Project~
Subsequently, it became evident that the STP/CMAQ funds related to
the 1993 Transportation Improvement program (TIP) process were
beinq directed toward capital cost type projects and not operating
cost type projects. The SRP Shuttle Project 'Would involve
contracting for the provision of shuttle bus services and not the
direct purchase of shuttle buses. Therefore j it was eliminated
from further consideration for inclusi~n in the 1~93 TIP~
lJLjl4 FUNDING
Assemb!y Bill 434 provides authority for the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQHD) to impose a surcharge on motor vehicle
registration fees within its jurisdiction. The surcharge fees are
to be used to implement spe~ified ~ransportation control measures~
to reduce air pollution from motor vehicle use. While a portion
(40%) of these f~~ds are intended to be allocated to designated
county reCipients {Congestion Management Agencies}~ another portion
(60%) is being administered directly by BAAQMD.
CMR:413:92
-'---~--"'-.----------.--
9/10/92
Page 2
In the administration of this oecond portion. BAAQMD has
e.p;tablished quidelines and procedures for prospective recipients to
apply tor funding for projects thllit fit its obj·:;:ctives and
criteria~ The application process is intendgd to result in the
selection of projects that {1) are beneficial for the region's air
quality, (2) are. cozt effective, and (3) will educate thE public
about ways to reduce the air quality impacts of their
transportaticn related decisions.
The applioation process is an open-ended, competitive approac'h,
with no guarantee of future or co~tinued funding. Some ~liqible
proqrams or projects will be continuous in nature. Whether these
programs or projects, if funded 1 would continue to receive funding
in the future will be judged ~hen applications for future years are
received, evaluated, and ranked. Bk~QHD, or their representative,
will conduct annual fiscal and program audits.
Wnile there is no firm require~ent regarding local match
participation, the criteria used to evaluate the proposed projects
is a point system which includes ad.ditional pOints for higher
levels of matching funds.
SHUTTLE PROJECT
Using the earli~r reasibility study as a basis, staff has developed
a proposal .for a two-year demonstration project to evaluate the
demand for$ and service design aspects of, transit shuttle service
connectinq the Stanford Research Park with the california ~Yenue
CalTrain Station, the Santa Clara County Transit Park and Ride Lot
on El Camino Real at Page Hill Road, and county Transit express bus
sto~ at various locations. A tvo year period has been selected zs
the ~ini~um time to develop stable service and ridership
characteristics. The shuttle service would operate at lo-minute
headways from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to
7:00 p.m., weekdays. A reduced-scale alte~native is also
presented~ Staff has reviewed the funding eligibility info~nation
and evaluation criteria and has concluded that the SRP Shuttle
projec~ should score reasonably well in the competitive process.
The proposal is to apply for $426,000 of AB 434 funding ($296,000
for reduced-scale alternative) a~d combine it with $87,000 of local
matchinq fQ~ds. The source of the $S7,OOD is the ~xisting traffic
impact fees previously collected from Alza Corporation, in
conjunction with the approval of a building that has since been
constructed. These traffic impact fee funds can be used for this
purpose and will revert back to Alza corporation if not utilized
within the next four years.
C1!l<:413:92 9/10/92
Page .3
o
APPI,ICATION PROCESS
All applications for AS 434 funds are to includ09 a resolution of
the qovArninq body of the agency aOlthorizing submittal of the
proposal and identifying the individual authorfz~ to submit and
carry out the project~ Du~ to the vacation sche.dule of the
Council, it was not possible to have council consider and adopt the
required resolution prior to the submittal de~dline of August 31,
1992. Therefore, staff completed the necessary application form
(AttachBent 2) to apply for AB 434 funding for the SRP Shuttle and
forwarded the application to the B.\AQMD, with the understanding
that the Council resolution would follow during the month ot
September. Such a resolution is no'W before the council as the
subject of this staff report.
If Council decides that the City should not pursue AB 43~ funding
for tbe SRP Shuttle Project, staff viII so advise the BAAQMD and
vithdraw the previcusly submitted application.
RE·COMMENDATIQN
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution
(Attachment 1) authorizing the City Manaqer to submit an
application for AE 434 funding for the Stanford Research Park
Shuttle Project, and specifying the City Manager or his designate
as the person responsible for administering the project.
~d'
MARVIN L. OVERWAY
Chief Transportation Official
Assistant city Manager
--j;;iciidA' -;f:' /j,~
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachments: 1. Resolution Authori~ing Submittal of Application
2. AS 434 Application
cc: Stanford Management Company (Diane Healey, Bill Phillips)
stanford University (Julia Fremon, Andy Doty, Phil Williams)
Var ian, Inc. (Carl Clemm)
Alza corporation (Nancy Noe)
Palo Alto Unified School District (James Bro~n)
Stanford Research Park Mailing List
CMR: 413:92 9/10/92
page 4
ATTACHMENT
RES OLUTION NO"
RESOLUTION OF THE COl"NCIL OF TH=g"C"'I"'TY OF PALO ALTO
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN
APPLICATION FOR Al3 434 FUNDING FOR THE STANFORD
RESEARCH PARK SHUTTLE PROJECT
WRBRBAS. AS 434 (Sheri 1991) orcvides a~thoritv fer the
Bay Area Air Qu,ality Management District '''BAAOMIi!t) tc -impose a
surcharge on motor vehicle registration fees within its
jurisdiction, for t.he purpose of impleI!U"!:'_t in-g specified
transportation centrol meaS1.\res to reduce air pollution; and
WHRREAS j the BMQMD ie soliciting proposals from public
agencies for funding, from the collected surcharges (the !tAB 434
funds l ), projects that are beneficial for the region's air quality,
that are cost effective. and tha:. and will educate the public about
ways to reduce the air quality impacts of their transportation
decisions; and
"~. the City of Palo Alto has completed a feasibility
and planning study for a Stanford Research Park Shuttle. which
appears tc meet the ~QMD cri~eria for AS 434 funding, and the
City Council desires to submdt an application to BAAQMD for its
funding consideration;
NOW, THEREFORB, the City Council of the City of Palo ~to
does RESOLVE as follows:
SRCTION 1 The City Counc.il hereby authorizes the City
Manager to file an application with the BAAQMD for AS 434 funding
for the Stanford Research Park Shuttle Project.
SgCTION 2. The Council further specifies that the City
Manager or the designee of the City Manager shall be the person
responsible lor administr&tion of the application and project.
IFrRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
1
"""---"~--:--.---
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
senior Asst. City Attorney
2
APPROVED:
City Manager
Director of Finance
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Chief Transportation Official
•
/
,-----------~a 434 FUNDING APPUCATJO'J I""
~~~------------
Agency Name: City of palo Alto
Contact Person: ~arvin l. Overway,.lJJ.l§LTt~ __ [I§.£l_ortati9n Qffi~
pO Sox 10250
Pho". No", ~J51 329-257$
Address:
___________ ~f~~I~~I~tQ~C~A~9~4=3~0=3==================~ _______ " __________ ~
II PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a two-'te-ar demonstration pro1en to 8\1aluate the demand for, i!lnj sel'"\l\ce
design aspects of, transit shuttle service connecting the Stanford Research P.3rk with the CaHfornia
Avenue CalTrain Station, the Santa Clara County Transit Park: and Ride Lot on EI Carrino Real at Page
Mill Road. and County Transit express bus stops at various locations. The shL!ttre servicp.: would
operate at 1D-minute headway, 'rom 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. ~C' 7:00 p.m.,
weekdays. A two·year pefiod has been selected as the minimum time to develop stable service and
rldership characteristics. (Project description is continued on page 2. A reduc~d-scale alternative is
evaluated on pages 6 and 7.)
III INFORMATION fOR ESTIMATING EMISSIONS REDUCTION
The service alternative selt:!cted fo( evaluation provides 10 minute headwClYs over the full Research
Park. area, and replaces a portion of Courtly Transit sE'rvlce that is slated for elirni.nation. The averag~
annual operating cost for this service is estimated to be $257,000. in 1993-94 dollars i5 pefcent
inflation per ~ear assumed since 1991 when original estimate was prepared). A samr:-Ie ca.lculation of
reductions fn emissions based on annual operating cost is provJ.Jed on page 3. The selected service
alternative is expec1ed to have a probable Jidership of 317 round trips daily (239 by form'!!! auto
drivers), ,producfng a two-year savings in VMT of 3.043.699 mHe~. A sample cafculation of
reductions in emissions based on VMT is provided on page 3. Using either method. the cost per ton
of porlutants reduced is tess than $12,000.
IV FUNDING (Refer to page 4 for documentation on funding.)
AB 434 Funding {requested}
Other Funding
$ 426 000
$ 87 000
$ 20 000
$_----
Source: Arza Corpgration _
y"~rian Associates
$_--
$ 533 000 ------~~ No j Total
Will the proposed project be widelv used or seen by the public?
Is lhis 1he first time ~ project of L,is type has been proposed for ImD(em~ntatjon
in the Bay Area?
Does propos.ed project havf.! thi! potential for broad appfic8tion of ri!sults?
rs proposed project consistent with County Con!;lestion Manageme'lt Program?
Does the proposed project help implement an unfunded or underfundec:S "'Federdl-TCM?
15 the proposed project a Public/Private Partnership?
Does tM proposed project incl~de the involvement of M6EtvVBE?
Does your agency have pericie.s d'emonstrating il Clean Ai" Planning Committment?
Is a copy of r.esolutiofl f!Om Governing Board' authorizing this application attached?
.X-
X -
.X-
.X-
X
.X-
.X-
.X-
.X-
BAAQMD AB 434 Funding Application Program Year 1992-93
.......... ;:::-c-.---.~-----.
, ;'",
·c'· ',' -.. ;;.
• <~
:ji' .~.:
"": / '~','_~~, ___ ',~c::. ____ .::... .........
AS 434 FUNDING A~PLlCATION
-"' ..
Agency Nama: City of Pelp Alto Proje<:tfProgram Title: S~yttle to C5!ITfainJ~.1.al~
ADOITIONAL INfORMATION (Use this page to provide additional information as requested in Parts II,
III ami V of the appfication form_ Additional pag.es may be used.)
n PROJECT DESCRIPT!ON (cCJntioued from page 1}:
Most aspects of the proposed service have been de~€rmined, including f,equency, routes, operating
cost, waiting times fO!' train passengers, fares, and most probable ridership. Severar a:ternative
s6fvfce levels have ooen evaluated, and the level of employee inters!:t has been determined. Ali the
above is documented in the Shvn1e Feasibility StuQ..¥.......FinalB~, Crain and Associates, January
1991. The lowest--cost rang:e of Alte"mati"e 1 was serected for implementatio.-t--$228,OOO ~nnua!!y
(1991 dollars). This altem8tive wourd provide replacement service and high rcute coverage of the
Research Park. By choosing the low end o~ the cost range. it is recognized that partial .. but not full.
replacement of existing County Transit bus service is r,eeded, as County Transit Route 88 would
continue to operate. but Route 24 is proposed to be eliminated in '993. This alternative would
provide increased frequency in the Routes 24 and se service a;-eas. 8S weil as serve thl!! areas not
currently served by these :outes. Attached -:0 this funding application are the executive summary
from the Study and appiicabte sections documenting lidership and service details (Attachment').
The City of Palo Alto would contract with a private t{cmsportatlon company to operate the proposed
shuttle service. (An example of a potential candidate (;ompany would be Industrial Passenger Serv~ce
which presently operates shuttre buse:!5 on the Stanford University campus and between the campus
and the California and Urtiversity Avenue CalTrain stations.) The proposed implementation schedule
wou1d be 8S follows:
October 1992:
November 1992:
January 1993:
March 1993:
Funding approved for FY 1992·93
Prepare and advertise Request for Proposals
Select contractor
Start up of sen.·ice
If reapplication for the second year's funding were necess~ry. the forlo\'Ving schedul'C! wDuld apply:
March 1993:
June 1993:
March 1994:
BAAQMD
Apply for funding tor FY , 993-94
Funding Cipproved for FY 1993-94
Renew ccntract for 1994
A8 434 Funding Application Page 2 of Z
I
J
I
I
~
r-------------:~B 434 FUNDING APPUCATIDr, ""~---------,
~A~9~e~n~C:!Y~N~.~m~.~;:1:C:!!it~V~Q!!:fP:!!a!!!lQ~A!!1~tQ'!.-___ ..-!.P.:.r::oj!:e,~c:ct::/Pr:.:..::Q~g~r~a::m.:.:!:.~~.2! Serv.k_e ___ tQ-'c~TL1!in Statign
ur INFORMATION FOR ESTIMATING EMISSIONS REDUCTION (continued from page i):
S~ITl~....c.!.'!lc\JratiQn Baud on Annua! Operating Cpst For Two-Year Demonstr.ui_QiL.Pr..Ql~..£!
Step 1;
Step 2:
St'· . '3:
Step 4;
Step 5:
Total operating cost fc( two-year project = $oS, 3.000
Divide $513,000 by $1.000,000 = 0.513
Calculate tons per day reduction in emlssions;
co;
KG:
NO,:
IQ!gr:
J.513xO.19
0.513 x 0.04
0.513 x 0.04
= C 7 tons/day
C 1 tons/day
0._,21 tons/day
Calculate total tons pollutant reduction for two years for 250 operating days per year:
O.l39 tonslda,' )( 500 day.!:: = 69.5 tons/two years
Cost per ton of pollutant reduction per year = $513.000/69.5 tons = $7 3811to{l
Sample C:alculUign Based on Vehicle M;tes NMTI R~duced for Two-Year Demonstration Project
Assumptions: Table 5 emission factols used ror 1995. average speed of 35 mph (default value of 35
mph was specified in example on page 22 'Of Implementation Guidance)
Step 1:
Step 2;
Step 3:
Calculate VMT reduction for two years = 3,043.699 miles (refer to attached
spreadsheet and notes--Auachment 2)
Calcula.te tons per two years reduction in emissions:
CD;
HC;
NO,;
11.27 g/mi
00.71 glmi
01.25 g/mi
13.23 g/mi x 3.043,699 mi 1908,000 glton = 44.3 tons/two years
Cost per ton of pollutant reduction per year = $513,000/44.3 tons = $11 589/ton
Note: Tl1e ridership estimate produced by the SI:Luttle t_~ __ ,t.!iiibilitv Study was based on an employee
survey conducted before CalTrain service to South San Jose. Morgan Hill, and Gilroy was init~ated.
and before County Transit Route 24 serving the California Avenue Ca[Train station was proposed to
be efiminated. These two service changes are expected to increase shunle ridership, thus increasing
the tons of pollutants reduced.
__________ • _. _______ ....J
BAAQMD AB 434 Funding Application PageJ of Z
o
AB 434 FUNDING APPLICATION
I
IV FUNDING (additional infQrmation)
Following is additional Lnformatkm regarding project cost and funding;
I Cost Revenue
Shuttle Feasj~lity Study funded by Varian Associates: $20.000 $20.000
Cost of two-year demonstration project, 1993-94 dollars:
Devefopment fee from Atza Corporation:
Toral AB434 funding requested:
$513.000
$87.000
$426.000
TOTALS $533000 533000
A8434 funds as percentage of total cost: 80%
V OTHER-DOCUMENTATION OF 'YES' RESPONSES
Willth& proposed project be widely used or seen by the oublic? Yes. The proposed shuttle vehicles
would have appropriate ide-ntil1cat:on front and back and or: both sides. As the vehicles ..... ould travel
on hea.vily-used public roadways. they wil! be widely seen and perceived as providing lraf'lsportation
to the CalTrain station. In addition, it is e!ll:pected that Research Park companies would publicize the
ava,iability of the shuttle service widely among their employee5, as these companies are require!i to
institute!:rans.portation demand management programs in order to meet Congestion Management
Program requiremen.ts (and soon BAAOMD requirements).
Does the prQP.gsed proie):t have the potential for broad application ot results? Yes. H successful. the
frequency and coverage of tne service COuld be increased in the same area. Simi1~~ service could also
be desigr.ed and implemented for two other major employment areas of Palo Alto--the San
AntonioJ'VoJest 8ayshore area, and downtown Palo ArlO.
rs the proposed project consistent wiJh .the Santa CL~.rJL.C __ Q.".Jnty Congilstion Management Proqrarr.
!.C..M.fll Yes. CalTrain is Santa Clara Coun::y's primary regional transit carrier. CalTrain and express
bus service are an in.~!3'gfar ;:oar1 of the CMP Tran.sit System. The eMF transit revel of service
standards carl for coordinated mainline and feeder bus !ien.rice. CatTrain service is a1so one of the
primary alternate modes which must be provided to enSl..:re success of the transportation deman.d
management {TDM) el&ment of the CMP.
Dogs the propcsed" proiect help ir:TI.Q!ement I!.'l..YDJ!.IP.!Led or undedunded Federal TCM' Yes. Federal
TCM 13, -Expand ano ~mprO\le Public Transit", is directly addressed by the proposed shuttle service.
Is the propOsed prQLe..tl..1l. Public/Privata Partnership? Yes. $107.000, or approximately 20 percent. of
the demonstration project cost comes from private firms in the Stanford Research Park ~27 percent
for the reduced scale alternative·-see pages 6-7). $87,000 from Alza Corporation is already in the
City's transportation mitiga1.Jon account. The $20,000 Shunle Fe8!',ibiiity Study was financed by
Vaden Associates as a mitigation measure for a development project. Addit~onal futufe funds may be
contIibuted by other, still unideniified, Research Park employers.
BAAQMD AS 434 Funding Application Page 1. of Z
... -
.'
~"------------'~ ~~-----------~
'-AB 434 FUNC'ING .. PPLiCA nON
i-!A~g~.~nc~V~N~.~m~.:..: ~C:fit~Y~Q,"fo!P~.~lgQ!.A~J~t~9=,,_,-_-..:P::r':9~ie::c:,t:'..JP~ro~g!Cr.:'a~m Title" ~~_$e(vice to ,.,ITrain Station
V OTHER-.(lOC~MENTATIQN OF "YES" RESPONSES Iconrinuedl
Does the proPQsed project include the involvernent pf MBEfVVSE? The request fer proposals wLn
if1clude solicitation from MBE and WBE contractors. At this time. the~f response tc the RFP, or their
selection. is not certain.
DQe§ yO\!{ agency have polie:ies demonstrating a C~ean Air Planning CQmmittmer.t? Ves. The
Transportation Element of the adopted Palo ,6.1to Compreheflsive Plan CLe .• General Plan) has a numb~!r
of policies and programs that discourage traffic growth and directly address and support clean air
objectives. T"es~ are as follows:
• ~: "Avoid major increases in street capacitie'S but undertal<.e critically needed
intersection improvements connected with se\lere traffic co.,gestion .... "
• PaVey 7: "Increase the number of persons carried ;:ler \lehicfe."
• Policy' 9: "Oiscourage auto use."
• Policy 9: "Support state and fed~ralleg1slation to reduce motor venicle !missions,
noise, and fuel consumption."
• ?~ograms~: These six prcgrams are specIfic ways of implementing PO!lcies 8 and
9, and include supPOrt for and provision of HOV lanes. flextime. car and .... an pools.
pleferential parking, transportation coordinator postions. and statewide auto inspection
and maintenance programs.
In addItion, ParD Alto's 1989 "Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study", which is intended to be
the heart of the TransportatiDn Element of the future re .... ised' Comprehensive PI~..!l. includes a
comprehensive Air Quarity element related to transportat'lon emissions. Thi:.: element is based on a
carbon monoxide monitoring program funded by Palo Alto. and conducted b'" the BAAQMD.
!s a cocy Cif the resolytion from the Q1.?L.COU)Wlr authorizing this aDpllcatiQn_j'!l.U§'.fhed~ No. A letter
from the City Manager is attached (Attachment 3), explaining that a resolution \NiH be forthcoming in
late September. Tne Ci1y Council is on vacation until mid·September.
BAAQMD AB 434 Fund;ng Application Page:i.o f Z
.,;;
______ ~~_"~ _____________ ~C)~ ____________ ~
AB 434 FUNDING APPLICATION
Agency Name: City of ?a!_2..Art.2 Project/Program Title: :;;..b~$~.cvice toJ~_~rUain SratiDn
DESCRIPTION OF REDUCED SCALE ALTERNATIVE
Pro;ec:t Oesc::fiptian. Alternative 3 identified in the Shuttle Feasibility Study has bStln selected for '[he
reduced scale alternative. It would provide increased treq,,-,ency in the current Route 24 service area,
8S wen as se;ve the areas not currently serv"ed by CDiJnty Transit Routes 24 or 88. It diHers from the
primary project described on pages 1-2 in that it does not provide increased frequency in the Route SS
service area. COunty Transit is now proposing to eliminate Route 24, w~lich was not known at the
time the Study was com preted. So that additional trips could be provided to compensate for [he loss
of Route 24, the annual operating cost 01 .$' 54,000 id~ntified in the Study has been increased by 10
percent to $170,000 {1991 ~onarsi. This reduc-ed scale alternative i3 the minimum ad'ditionClI service
tha!: is needed to serve the CafTrarn station. The reduced scale alternative would have th~ same
headways, operating hours, two-year demonstration period, and implementat~on procedure and
sc-hedlJle as the primary project described on pages 1 ~2.
Information for Estimating Emissions Reductions.. The reduced scale ClI:erniltive described in the
precedIng ~aragraph has an average annual operating cost of $191,500 in 1993·94 doilars (5 perCtln!
Lnflation per yea! assumed .!iince 1991 when original estimate was prepared). A !:amp!e calculation or
reduction [n efflissions ba.sed on annuaf operating cost is provided be~ow:
Samp!t? Calculatiori Based on AnnlJ21 Operating Cost tiU: __ Iwo-YeaLP~onstra'ian Project for Reduced
Scale Alternative
Step 1:
Step 2:
Stop 3:
I SlOP 4:
Step 5:
Total operating cost for two-year project 1383,000
Divide 1383,000 by $1,000,000 = 0.383
CalCUlate tons per day redlJCtion in emissions:
co: 0.383 x 0.19 = 0.013 tons/do,'
He: 0.383 x 0.04 = 0.015 tons/day
NO.: 0.383 x 0.04 = 0.015 tons/d.,·
lQ~al: 0.'03 tonsldav
Calculate total tons po1lutant reduction tor two years for 250 ope~ating da';s per year:
0.'03 tons.May " 500 days. =. S1.S tons/two years
Cost per ton of pollutant reduction per year =-$383,000/51.5 tons = $7.437/tC'n
Sample Calculation Bq~~d on Vehicle M;les NMT) Re.Jl1ced Far Twa-Y~ar Dem.9.D~LL~.tiQn Protect for
~rl Scafe Alternative
Tt"\fJ ,educed scale altern~tive would have. the same probable ridetSohitJ as tha primary project described
on page 1 (the §h~sibility Study considered all alternat~ves as attracting apprQxiMately the
sarno patronage). Thus, the calcufation at the amount of emissions reduction is the same for this
ellu,native as for the primary project--44.3 tonslyear (page 3 above). However the cost par ton of
emissions reduction is less: $383,OOOf44.3 tons = $ 86.4J:l.i'ton.
BAAQMD AB 434 Funding Application Page § of Z
~ ~---------------=----------------~--. -------------~ ·1 AS 434 FUNDING APPliCAT,,~ I:::O::;N=-____________ --I
"gene.,. Name: .city of Palo Alto ProjectlPrograrn TJtle; ~_~~vic!: ·0 CalTrbin Station
DESCRIPTION OF REDUCED SCAI.E ALTERNATIVE (cont;nuedJ
Funding.
AS 434 Funding (requested)
Other Furn::ting
Total
$ 296 000
$ 87 QQQ
$ 20000
$_--
$ 403000
Source: A'loa COfQ0!'31ioQ
Vari.:::n ASSosifttes
Following is -3ddit:onar information regarding project cost and fundrng for reduced scafe alternative:
Sh:.Jttle FeasibililV StudY funded by Varian Associates:
Cost of two-year demonstraticn project. i 99 3-94 dollars:
Development fee from Afza CorpCt!8tio;"l:
Total A8434 funding requested~
TOTALS
AB434 funds as percentage of total cOSt:
C05t Revenue
$.10.000 120.000
$383.000
$87.000
$296,000
403000 $403 000
73%
Other-Documentation of "Yes· Response.s. The answers to these quesrions and the documentation
of the "yes" responses are the same as for the primary project (pages 1. 4-5 above).
BAAQMD AS 4.34 Funding Application Page Z of Z
0",
EXCERPT
SEaTTLE F~~IBILITY STUDY
Final Reoort
Prepared for:
Varian, Inc ~
Prepared by;
Crain & ASSociates, Inc.
January 1991
ATTAC~MENT 1
(15 pages)
,
! ,
EXECUTIV'E SO'MMARY o
This report describes a study tc determine the feasibilit~
of operating shuttle service between ~he Stanford Research Parr.
ap.d the California Avenue CalTrain Station. The study was
con;:;:ucted b:," the varian Corporation during 1989 and 1990. The
findings of the study are summarized as' follows.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The Shuttle Feasibility Study was conducted as a condition
of approval by the City of Palo Alto for a new plant facility
constructed by Varian. the objective of the s~udy ~as to deter
mine if a transit shuttle connecting the CalTrain Station at
California Avenue with Stanford R~search Park could provide an
incentive for more employees to ride Cal Train and thereby red~ce
traffic congestion in and around the Research Park.
EMPLOYEE INTEREST IN A SHQTTLE
Employees at Lockheed, Varian, Alza, Xerox and Hewlett
Packard ~ere surveyed to determine the level of interest in a
shuttle and poten~ial ridership. ApproKimately 3,300 of 12,000
employees at these companies responded to the survey. More than
t· ... o-thirds (2,325) expressed an inte.rest in a commute shuttle.
Most were emplo~es who now use CalTrain; ho~ever, 7% were solo
drivers who would consider using Calrrain .. Few persons who now
carp~ol 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
downto .... n Palo Alto, Town & Country Village, or Cal ifornia 4t.venue.
About 50\ of respondents (1,864) expressed interest in a noon
i
"
J---.~
.. "';. ,
<, .• "
.. -"
~
hour shut~le. Based on the responses, probabl~ridership is OVEr
)50 riders per" da~r' and could be as high as aDO riders per day.
SHQTTLE SERVICE CONCEPTS
Four commute-hour shuttle service concepts \.,:ere -analyzed.
All were designed to provide optimum schedule cor.nections "'ith
northbound and southbound trains at Califo~nia Av~nue and direct
routes to tr.ost employers.
7.cansit Route 24 and" Route
Two alternatives would replace County
88 'With either equivalent coverage of
the Stanford Research Park or expanded coverage to Deel.' Creek
Road4 If operated by a private operator these would cost from
S116,000 to S311,000 annually depending o.n the frequency of
servi~e operated. T~o other alternatives would supplement County
Transit service either 'With odditional schedules or "With the
expanded coverage to Deer Creek Road. Additional schedules ~ould
cost $3S,COO to $77,000 per year if privately operated, depending
on service frequency. Expa~~~d ~0verage would cost SI6,OOD to
$154,000 depending on service frequency. No fares were presumed
in these estimates. If fares were charged, the costs "o'Ould be
lower.
Noon hour shuttle service alternatives ranged in cost from
$28,000 to $133,000 depending on routing, destination and service
frequency.
~ATION OF SRO~TLE A~TERNATiVES
County transit is not receptive to discontinuing servIce on
Routt! 24 or Route as in exchange for shuttle set-vice. Service
provided in the Research Park is an integral part of overall
service provided by these routes. Current transit service becween
the California Aven,"e Cal Train Stati<J1": and the Stanford Resea.~ch
Par~ was determined to be generally adequate to meet the needs of
Res4!'arch Park employees currently com."':'lut !_ng on Cal Train.
ii
s~~nford Re~rch Park employe~s are ~ likely to provide
funding for a ~~uttle ~nless ~he existing transit $er~ice ~.s
found to be inadequa~e. There is little enthusias~ for ~eplacing
nfree" County Transit se:vice with a cos~ly shuttle system if
service improvements are rn~rginal. There is unlikely to be
support far a neon-hour shuttle because it is not essential to
the work. cQr:unute. Although there are so::r.e gaps in the RC1.ote 24
schedule, the Route &8 schedule is generally .... ·ell coordinated
with train schedules.
~he major deficiency in County Transit service is the
absence of se~vice to firms located on Deer Creek Road.
Improvements should focus on this area. There E~ resources for
providing service along Deer Creek R.oad~ Ccunty Transit ..."ill
consider shifting selected Rou~e 24 t~ansit trips from the
Veterans Hospital to Deer Creek Road to serve Dee~ Creek Road
employers if SUfficient evidence of demand can be shown~
CONCLflS!ONS
The study found that the~e 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 ~hich ~ould provide more
convenient con~ections ~ith train service.
The study also found that there is interest in a noon hour
shuttle to key destinations outside the Stanford Research Par~.
Employees expressed significant interest in such a service, and
the interest was expressed not only b)' th.ose who commute by
transit but by auto users as well.
The interest expressed by surveyed employees in irr.prove-ments
to commute hour connections to Cal Train and iD a noon hour
shuttle indicate that opportunities could be further explored in
these areas although this was no~ within the scope of this ~tudy.
Improvements that reduce the wait time for bus-train connections
iii
~iil ':B
at the California Ao,/ent.::e CalTrain Statio~ and reduce travel time
to v~~k sites are key to e~co~Jragir.g more employees to co~r.ute on
CalTrain~ Availability of noon hO'.Jr shuttle service to popular
"off campus" destinations will provide an added incench'e for
employees to leave their cars at home a~d commute by bu! or
train.
The Shuttle Feasibility Study concl~ded that it is not
feasible to replace the eKisting 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 exis~ing County Transit
service is adequate to meet commuter needs.
The current transit link betwee~ CalTrain and the
Research Park provided by County Transit Route 88 and
Route 24 is generally adequate. Alt.hough there are
several schedules on Route 24 and o~e schedule or. Route
S8 where wait. times fo:-th'2" bus-train connection could be
improved, service to the Research Park i~ relativelv
direct and there are sufficient trips to provide -
connections ... ith almost all norchbcund and sO·,lthbound
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 Stati0n.
County Transit is not interested in pzoviding funding
support for a dedicated shuttle route under these
circumstances, and a Shuttle would probably have to be
funded largely or exclusively by Stanford Research Park
emploY12'rs _
Given the current economic climate and the pending
regional control measures fer traffic and transportation,
Stanford Research Park employers are reluctant to embark
on an experimental shuttle service ~ithout conclusive
evidence that existing transit service is inadequa~e.
~owever, the study also con~luded that the absence of
transit service to Deer Creek Road at the south end of th~
Stan!~rd Research Park is a potential deficiency, and that
shott1e service should be provided at this location if demand
iv
warrants. cou·~ty_ansit C!n ope"rate serviJi:)..;ith e)f;tra RO'..lte 24
trips diverted from t.he Veterans Ad'1'linistration Hospital •
.Preliminacy analysis conducted in the study indicates that tl",ere
may be demand for sh~ttle service. A conclusive determinatio~
will be made by County Trar:si t after surlw'eying employees at [jeer
Creek Read wo~k s~tes.
v
TABLE 2-14
INTENDED SHUTTLE USE BY DAILY COMMUTERS
Drive Alone
Carpodl
Vanpool
Train
Bus
5 Day per Week
Commuters
~ho Will Use
Shuttle 3-5
Days cer Week
~
154
6
29
15
204
Percent
75.5
2.9
Shuttle U!ers' Work Hour~
Commuters
5 Days
per ... ·eek
1,991
207
51
lJ..§.
5~2
Percent of 5 Day
Com,;nuters Who
Will Use Shuttle
7.7\
2.S\
56.6'
12.7\
3 i .6\
Potential shuttle users tend to st~rt work liter ~n~ e~d ~o~k
later than o~her employees. Table 2-15 shows the distribution of
shuttle users' arrival and departure times in half-hour interv21s.
The interval in which the media~ value lies is the same for shuLtle
users as non-shuttle ~se4S' but the interval when the ~
employees arrive 'the modal intervall is a half-hour later. A
possible explanation for this difference may be ~hat shu~tle use~s
~re more apt to be white collar workers with flexible wcrk hou=s
than blue collar workers with fixed wo~k hours.
TABLE 2-15
SHUTTLE USERS' WORK HOORS
A..~IVAL DEPp_G.TURE
IQterval N9...:.. Percent;,. Intp-!'"val No. Percent
Before 6:45 42 S.H Before 3: 15 19 en
6'4~-7:H 83 18.5 3:15-3:44 H 10.6
7:1~-7:44 89 19.9 3:45-4.:1-4 54 12.4
7:"'5-8:14 76 17 • 0 4:1S-4:H 64 1< . 7
8:1~-8:~4 113 25.2 4:';'5-5:14 81 18.6
B:4~-9:H 33 L< 5:15-5:44 90 20 .•
9:H-S:H 6 1.3 5:45-6:1< <9 11. 2
9:4~-10:H 3 0.7 6:15-6:44 21 4.8
AftEr-10: 14 _3 ---2..2 6:45-7:14 8 1 . E
448 100.0\ .}o.ftez: 7:1<: --< 0.9%
06 100.0\
Mec:.an interval 7:15-7:44 Med i.a.r~ inter ... .:. 1 4:~5-S:l<
"
Maximum fare
Shuttle users are no different from non-~sers in t~E~~ fe=e
preferences. The vast majority prefer a maxirnu~ 2Sc Or 5~: fare,
'With the numb~r split. about evenly l:.!etween t.he two. TGbl~ 2'-23
shows sh~ttle use=s' fare praferences.
Fa.re
fre~
lQ¢
25'
35'
50':
75'
$] .00
rAllLE 2-23
PREFERRED MAXIMUM FARE
OF NOONTIME SHUTTLE US~RS
84
105-
652
109
677
108
--..ll
1, 810
<. E\
5.S
36.0
6.0
37.4
E.O
---~
100.0\
However, employ~es who intend to use the noon~ime shu:tle
frequently have ~ significantly greater preference for thE 25e
far~ than infrequent USsrs. Conversely, the lEas~ fre~ue~: use=s
are willing to tOlerate 2 higher fare than the f~equen[ cse~s.
The explanation of thi~ difference may be as siDple as the fact
that frequent users see a greater total outlay for shuttle f~res
and wish to minimize the cost of each trip. Infrequen~ use:s. on
the other hand~ are nOt sensitive to fare because it is onI~ an
Occasion.:l e.v;pen.se. Table 2-24 sho .... s the different p:-i?fe:e:-.ce.:;.
2-19
._C' •
. ' ~~~~f~:",.
PO~ENTrAL SHUTTLE ~OERSHIP
Two number.s .... erE produced by the survey an.alysis which
provide a starting point for analysis of shuttle ridership:
1,469 and 1,493 -highest probable~ daily round trips fer the
commute shl,.lttle and the noontime shuttle respectively. Several
assomptions are o!J.i It into these numbers ",,'hic:h make t.hem
op~imiEtic, hence the use of the qualifier "highe5t probable."
'I"he purpose of this section is to' establish an estimated range of
riders]\ipJ ·starting wit~'the lowest amount likely to OCCU~, and
:nen to establish a most probable level for design pu~poses.
Commute Shuttle
There are three reasons ~hy commute ehuttle ridership is
likely to be lower than the ~hi9hest probable estim2te of 1,~69
daily round trips. One reason is that the total employee base of
12~ ooe ernploy"ees may not use the Shutt-Ie 'at the same rate as the
sample employees. A second reascn is 'that the inter_tions of the
;:sample employees are not likely 'to equat.e to actual sh' . .l:ttle use.
;.. t.hird reason 1:s that County Trans it already
the roytes that would be served by a shuttle.
prov1des service on
If employe£>s ere
not ~illing or able to use existing service, which is r€!ati~ely
convenient, it is questionable whether Lhey will use a shuttle.
Table 2-26 shows a range of ridership estimates which
ir.corporates discount.s to reflec~ t.he lower ridership Expec
tations indjcated by these factors. The estimates are give~ fo~
each compa:r..,i' to allow ridership to be related to comp;:ny location
and thereby to the location on a potential Shuttle route.
The ·lvw~ ridership shown in Table 2-26 is based on G subset
of th'li! employees in the survey sample wt-.o said t.hey would use the
shut.tle 3-5 days per week.. The subset i.5 individuals who commute
3, 4, or 5 days per week by the same mode. It is assumea that
these individuals will only make three (3) trips per weEk, or a~
evera1e of 0.6 trips per day. Thus there are four discounts
built into the ridership estimat.e:
2-21 ---.,------
•
o
TABU' 2-26
ES'rIMATED DAILY "COND TRIPS FOR COt-!MOTE SHUTTLE
Low r"!':jSt High
Est ima't~\ P.rcbable~ Est imat~l
Lockheed 18 37 10
Xerox 6 11 34
Varian 79 104 279
Alza 14 27 62
Her,.;lett PackarD _H 11J. llJ
178 317 17£
1 Subset. of s2mple populetion, uney.panded to tot.cl €;;-·ployee ct!se.
Assumes shut.tle users are 3, .;, or 5 day cor;.:~L:ter-s by the s':'r.le
made: ana those who intend to use the shuttle 3-5 days pe~
week. Assumes )-5 day intended use equates to 3 days actu~l
use.
1 Subset of ~ample population, unexpanded to total e~ployee b2se.
Assumes conversion of survey r€spOn5es ~o averege daily rou~d
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 aver~ge
More than once/week = 2 round trips p~r manth
Less than once/week = 1 round trip per month
(One month = 4.333 weeks)
~ Su~vey response expanded to total employee base.
Packard e~pansion iac~o~ discounted from 6.99 to
of four other companies). Assumes conv€'rsion of
responses show~ above (2).
2-22
r.e· .... lett
2. ~ (2.v.er~ge
survey
~' :
I ~ ~
I 2.
Ridership is based only Qn the survey sam?le, u~expandEd
to the total employee ra5e of 12,000.*
Individuals who intended to ride only 1-2 days pee week or
less frequently are dropped.
3. Individuals who use Multiple ITodes to get to ~o~k are
dropped.
4. The range "3-5 day" is assumed to mean 3 days of use.
The "Most Probable~ ridership estimate is also cased on survey
responses alone, unexpanded to the total err.ployee base 0: 12,000.
The subgroup usee in this estimate was not as restrictec as that
used in the low estimate. All frequencies of use were counted,
including ftLess than on~e a rnonth,~ using the conversion factors
shown in the table and on page 2-9 of this report. There was no
discount for multimode commuters; all surve:y respondents who stated
they would use the ~huttle were include~.
Tr.e -high ft estimate is similar to the figure of l,(E9 give:n
above. Survey results are eHtrapolated to the entire employee bcse
of 12,000 using the expansion ~actors given on page 2-<. The
eKception is t.hat Hewlett Packard ridership has been expended by a
smaller factor to account for sample bias. Ins tead of using cl".e
6.'9 tactor based on the survey response rate, a 2.~ factor was
used which is the average expansion factor of the other four
co.'upanies +
These ridership estimates have to be taken in the context of
existing County Transit service bet~een the Caltrain station and
SRP+ Currently, some 60-150 Caltrain riders use Route 2.t; and Route
8S each day to get to and from SRP + Some of these riders stated in
t.he survey thae the would prefer a shuttle to County TrcrJsit
service, but by no means all would. Thus, it is no: cleer tow
eXisting ridership and estimated shuttle ridership should be mixed
to produce a combii1ed total. The ansloo'er probably depe:;cis on ho .....
-The theory behind using the unexpanded sample is that or.:i.y
er..ployees who are genuinely int.erested in t.he shuttle filled out
th~ questionnaire, and those who did not till out the
qu~stionnaire would not use it.
2-23
-"'.'-.
•
<O'fOTE. H!lt ROAD
FIGURE 3-'
EXISTING COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICE
3-4
Follo~ing are descriptions of route alignments for each
alterna.tivE: .
Alternative 1:
... Re"Olace~ent Service IHioh Coverao.e) .............. -
The High Coverage option is shown in Figure 3-2'. The
shuttle would ope=ate on two routes: one ""hich ~et"ves the
northeastern area of SRP and the other which serves the
southwestern area. The advantage of :r-~aving two routes is to
minimiz.e circuity while p.roviding high coverage. n',is i5 the
most costly option in that it req~ires two separate routes ana up
to eight vehicles. Operating-on lO-mir .... Jte headways, shuttle
service would cost $228,000-$310,000 annuallY4
Alter~ative 2: Reolacernent Service (Similar Cover~oe)
The replacement option (~igurE 3-3) covers the creas
currently served by County Trensit's BS and 2~ rou~es C~ith the
exception of segments of California Avenue and Hano,'er Street}.
At lO-minute headways this service would have en ann~al cost of
Sl14,000-5154,000.
Alt.ernative 3:
,..
IEl':canded CoverC!:oe) ................ -Suoclemental Service
This elternative provides service to areas no s~rved by
County Transit. The route (Figure 3-';) run~ from the Cal Train
Station to Page Mill Road end then loops around Deer Creek ROcd
to Coyote Hill Road. ~t lO-minute headways this service would
cost the same as Alternative 2, Sl14,DOO-SI54,OOO annually.
Ja.lterr::ative 4: Suoolementa'l SErvice J..§chec.ule "Gao Fill:l.
This alternative is designed to meet trains which County
Transit does not currently meet promptly. The shut.tle ... ·ould
operate on head .... ays varying between 27 and 40 IT.inutes, depending
on particular train schedules. The Shuttle bl.lses .. ould be routed
the sa~e as Alternative 2 (Figure 3-3). The schedule for the
Shuttl~ is shown in Table 6. Only one vehi~le is required to
operate this sc~edule, therefore this option has the lo~est cost
of all the alternatives {S3S,OOO-S77,OOO}.
FIGURE 3·2
ALTERNATIVE 1:
REPLACEMENT SERVICE (High Coverage)
3-12
.... .. .. .. .........
FIGURE 3-3
ALTERNATIVE 2:
REPlACEMENT SERVICE (Similar Coverage)
. •
+-
COYOTE HILL ROAD
.... ~ ... ... ... ...
/)r .... ... eJi •••
CIiCCk •• ." ••
• 19°"'0 '". .. ••
'"I ••••••
FIGURE 3-4
ALTERNATIVE 3:
SUPPLEMENTAL SERViCE (Expanded Coverage)
3-H
!
~
>
i ,
0 c
f
~
~
~
~~ x·~==:~!t;!I=:=-~e~~·=!~~
>< ~I;; .. !~I
~
ATTACHMENT 2
(2 pages)
()
NOTES FOR CAlCutATION OF VEHICLE MILES SAVfr> FROM POT!:NT!Al. SHUTIL£ USERS
CQlumns 1 2 and 3 (Place of Resfd",nce. Number of Em~~es Per{,p.nt af Totan
These co1l1mns establish the residence distribution of Stanford Research Park iSR?, employees Place
(jf re.sjder'lce and nUfTlber of employees are laken from ttle 1991 Co 1"1 Muter Network survey of SRP
emcloyees in firms of 1000+ emp!oy~:s. This dis1.rib'Jtion is as:;uF.led to be representative of the
remainder "" emproyees of SRP. Cities marked with ..... would be candidates for BART end connecting
DB buS service. How'!ver, to be corservativc. these cities were not cor~sjdered as candidate residence
locatfons for .. huttle noer, because-the DB buses pto'/ide re~sonably goed CO\loera~t! of SR? Cities
marked with"· ~ .. were deemed ::0 be 100 close to SAP or te have awkward access to mainGne transit.
SO they were not consicfered as reasonable cand;date residence locations (Dr shun1e riders. The
pi!rceot.age distribution of employee residences ;s therefore based only o~ those residence k>~ations
wtlere employees might rea,sonabl'{ want to use CalTrain to reach SRP, or bus lines that do root
penetrate SRP.
Colum" 4 !Trans;t Station at O_ri.lli.ol
In cases where suburban or outlying bus service would connect with i! CalTrain slation (e.g., Golden
Gate T~ansit from San Rafael to CaITrain San Francisco. Santa CruZ Counw bus to CalTrain S .. n Jose.
County Transit bus from Campbell to CalTrain Santa Clara, etc.). it was assumed tM,:lt commuters
would not use these buses. and would drive from home to the CalTr_in station. A commuter drivfnQ
from home to the rail station would have to use two transil modes ICa1Train c:nd shuttieJ to reach SRP.
It seemed unreasonable to e)(pect this tommuter to add yet another trans;: mode to get to the oriQin
CalTrain stalion. Thus. ~t was conserva.tively assumed that every potential st-utlle user drove to the
oriOit'l CalTrain station, even when b'JS service to the St3lior. was a,.ai1able.
Column 5 lOne Way Miles)
Thi:s. r.epresents the approximate driving mileaQe that is sailed when a commut~r takes transit :0 the
SFiP from the origin station.
cQrumn 6 (Probable ShLJttle A~delsl
The Shuttle Feas.ibility Swdy. Crain and Associates lattached to this appl"ica.fonl. concluded that the
mast probable conservative shuttle ridership would be 3' j round trips per weekday (p. 2·'0). and thal
75.5 percent of th~se intended trips (239 round trips) would be made by employees who Cllrr~nlly
driVE ;a~.::me (pp. 2~'2, 2-'31. Thus. the 239 potential riders wno now dfi",~ alone were divided up
among the various places of residence by mUltiplying trr the percer.tages in column 3.
CQI;!mn 7 (Round Trip Diiving Miles Sa\{J't~:tJ2er Weekday and per Two Years)
The d.a~y numbers are ca[(:ulated b" multiplying one· way miles (column 5) by two afld thtn m\.Jlfiplyin~
by the n.umber or ridei's for each location IcoTumn 6J. Column 8 is ca1cuiat<;!d by mult!plyinQ column
7 by 500 working weekd.ays for two yea rs
wpS1\~en\shuttle Rev 817/.92
OFF.lCE OF n~ Crn' M,v..iAGElt
(415) l29-2J!n
M$. lean Roggenkamp
~ Cit!, of Yolo )1 Ito
"0 EO~ lP!~()
'-"'LO ~tlO C" ;':lC'_;
August 19, 1992
Ma.nager, Environmental Review Seclion
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
939 Ellis S""",
San FranciS(o, CA 94109
Dear Ms. Roggenkamp:
.e· ATTACHMENT 3
The City of Palo Alto is pleased to submit a re.quest ior ABA434 funding for shuttle bus service
between Ihe Califom<14 Avenue CalTn=.in station and the SUn ford Re!.e3..ch Pa~k
One of the requirements of the funding application is a resolution from OUT City Council
authorizing the submittal of the pro1"osal and identify~ng Ihe indlviduai aUlhorized to s'Ubl11it and
carry out lh e proposal.
As our City Council is on vacalion for the tatter half of August and the [~rsl half of September,
we have not been able to schedule such a resolution for review and ap.nroyaL We anticipate that
this resolution wili be considered and approved as wor. as the Council returns, so that we: can
send you the approved reso1u'tion by September 23.
: hope that this will nO'. delay considera.ion of OUT appliC:Hion. Please call me if this presenls
a problem.
Si cercly,
JF:oe