4.12 Transportation and Traffic

Transcription

1 This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for transportation and traffic. It also describes impacts related to transportation and traffic that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation for significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. Transportation and traffic impacts associated with transit service and ridership, vehicle traffic and circulation, pedestrian and bicycle systems, and parking supply and occupancy are summarized in this section. Information in this section is based on the Traffic Operations Analysis Report prepared for the Project, which is located in Appendix H Regulatory Setting There are no relevant federal and state regulations for identifying environmental effects of the Project on transportation and traffic; however, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does provide guidelines for their evaluation as described below in Section , Criteria for Determining Significance. The following regional and local regulations and plans identify multi-modal improvements as an alternative to automobile travel and support the implementation of bus rapid transit (BRT) on the Project corridor. Discussion of these documents relevant to implementation of the Project is included in Section E.1.9, Land Use and Planning, of Appendix E Bus Rapid Transit Strategic Plan adopted by the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA) Valley Transportation Plan 2035 adopted by VTA Regional Transportation Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Grand Boulevard Multimodal Transportation Corridor Plan prepared by the Grand Boulevard Initiative In addition, the following California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) guidelines document and policy are relevant in providing the guidance of identifying environmental effects of the Project on transportation and traffic: Caltrans (2002) Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies Caltrans (2008) Deputy Directive 64 R-1, Complete Streets Integrating the Transportation System Environmental Setting/Affected Environment This section presents an assessment of the existing transportation and traffic conditions in the study area, and provides a basis for the assessment of future transportation and traffic conditions

2 Study Area The study area for the transportation and traffic analysis considers roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities along the Project corridor that would be affected by Project construction and operation. In addition, the study area includes major roadways surrounding the Project corridor extending from U.S. Highway (U.S.) 101 in the north to Interstate (I-) 280 in the south, that would be affected by the vehicle traffic diverted from the Project corridor (identified as diversion routes in the analysis) Existing Transit Conditions This section summarizes the existing transit service in the Project corridor and other regional and local transit systems that connect to the Project corridor as of March Transit Service within Project Corridor VTA provides light rail, bus, and paratransit service to the municipalities in Santa Clara County. VTA is also the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County, responsible for countywide transportation planning and funding and for managing the County s congestion reduction and air quality improvement program. VTA currently operates two bus routes, Rapid 522 and Local 22, along the Project corridor. Each of these routes runs from the Eastridge Shopping Center in San José to the Palo Alto Transit Center in Palo Alto. Rapid 522, which would be replaced by the Project, is a limited stop service that serves 32 stops in both directions within the Project corridor, averaging 1.2 miles between stops in each direction. Rapid 522 operates from about 4:35 a.m. to 11:15 p.m. on weekdays, about 7:50 a.m. to 11:10 p.m. on Saturdays, and about 8:30 a.m. to 5:50 p.m. on Sundays. During the peak daytime hours on weekdays, Rapid 522 operates at about 15- minute headways. Operating hours vary based on traffic along the corridor. Local 22 provides local bus service 24 hours daily and serves 147 stops 1 in both directions (76 eastbound and 71 westbound) within the Project corridor, averaging 0.25 miles between stops in each direction. During the peak daytime hours on weekdays, Local 22 operates at about 12-minute headways. Rapid 522 and Local 22 have the highest bus ridership in the VTA transit system, carrying nearly 20 percent of all bus riders in Santa Clara County, including midday and peak hour periods. Table 2-2 in Chapter 2, Purpose and Need, shows the weekday daily ridership by time of day for Rapid 522, Local 22, and total VTA transit system. Table shows the observed weekday daily ridership within the Project corridor and the comparison to the total daily ridership for both bus routes. VTA conducted a system-wide, on-board passenger survey from September to November of The survey included both light rail transit and bus riders. According to the survey, many 1 Of the 147 bus stops, 115 stops are Local 22 stops and 32 stops are for both Local 22 and Rapid

3 passengers walk to transit (51 percent of respondents) or transfer from another transit ride (37 percent). After departing transit, even more passengers walked to their final destinations (58 percent), while a substantial number had another transit ride ahead of them (33 percent). Much smaller proportions of riders bike or drive to transit (6 percent and 10 percent, respectively), and even fewer bike or drive on the destination end (5 percent and 5 percent, respectively). Table Rapid 522 and Local 22 Weekday Ridership (Year 2013) Bus Route Daily Ridership within Project Corridor Daily Ridership for Entire Route Rapid 522 3,278 6,034 Local 22 9,234 14,758 Rapid Local 22 12,512 20,792 Source: Traffic Operations Analysis Report in Appendix H. VTA uses transit signal priority (TSP) for the Rapid 522 at most signalized intersections along the El Camino Real corridor. TSP, also referred to as bus signal priority, provides an advantage for buses traveling through intersections by extending the green light phase of traffic signals or reducing the red light phase of traffic signals when a bus is approaching. Rapid 522 adheres to a headway-based schedule in which the bus travels as fast as traffic and signals allow, meaning that buses do not sit idle when they are ahead of published time schedules. Rapid 522 also features queue-jump lanes located at the Page Mill Road/El Camino Real and Arastradero Road/El Camino Real intersections in Palo Alto. These special queue lanes allow buses to bypass traffic at congested intersections by making use of an exclusive right-turn lane and a receiving lane across the intersection. With the TSP system, queue-jump lanes, headwaybased schedule, and fewer bus stops, the Rapid 522 is able to provide faster service along the Project corridor than Local 22. Table shows the average travel time during peak hours between University Avenue and Cahill Street for both bus routes. Table Rapid 522 and Local 22 Peak Hour Travel Time within Project Corridor (Year 2013) A.M. Peak Travel Time (minutes) P.M. Peak Travel Time (minutes) Direction of Travel Rapid 522 Local 22 Rapid 522 Local 22 Eastbound Westbound Source: Traffic Operations Analysis Report in Appendix H. Note: Travel time is based on the bus schedules between University Avenue and Cahill Street. Transit System Connected to Project Corridor Rapid 522 and Local 22 connect to an extensive public bus and rail network in the study area. Table summarizes the transit systems that currently connect to the Project corridor. Bus and rail systems maps showing connections to the Project corridor are included in Appendix H. The Project corridor is connected to the following bus transit systems. VTA Bus: A number of VTA bus routes, including express bus service, connect to the Project corridor at major transit centers and various cross streets

4 Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (AC Transit): AC Transit provides bus and paratransit services to 13 cities and adjacent unincorporated areas in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. AC Transit connects to the Project corridor via bus route U at the Palo Alto Transit Center and via the Dumbarton Express at the Palo Alto Transit Center and on Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road. Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST): MST operates 59 bus routes in Monterey and southern Santa Cruz Counties. MST bus route 55 connects to the Project corridor at the San José Diridon Station. San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans): SamTrans operates 73 bus routes and paratransit service throughout San Mateo County and parts of San Francisco and Palo Alto. SamTrans buses connect to the Project corridor via express bus and El Camino Real routes at the Palo Alto Transit Center. Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (Santa Cruz METRO): The Santa Cruz METRO operates about 30 bus routes year-round to Santa Cruz County. METRO connects downtown Santa Cruz to the Project corridor via the Highway 17 Express route at the San José Diridon Station. Public and Private Shuttle Connections: Shuttles connecting to the Project corridor include transportation services that are provided by transit agencies, community organizations, employers, and academic and cultural organizations. Public shuttles connected to the Project corridor include Stanford Marguerite operated by Stanford University between campus and Palo Alto and San Antonio transit centers, Deer Creek operated by Caltrain between Palo Alto and California Avenue Caltrain stations, and Crosstown and Embarcadero operated by Palo Alto between residential neighborhoods and Caltrain stations. The Project corridor is also connected to the following rail transit systems. VTA Light Rail Transit: The Mountain View Winchester light rail line connects to the Project corridor at the San José Diridon Station. Amtrak: In the San Francisco Bay Area, one Amtrak rail route (Coast Starlight) connects to the Project corridor at the San José Diridon Station. The Coast Starlight connects the San Francisco Bay Area to Seattle and Los Angeles. Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Commuter Rail: ACE provides passenger rail service across the Altamont corridor, spanning San José to Stockton. ACE trains connect to the Project corridor at the Santa Clara and San José Diridon transit centers. Caltrain: Caltrain provides inter- and intra-county commuter rail service to the San Francisco Bay Area between San Francisco and Gilroy. Caltrain connects to the Project corridor at Caltrain stations at San José Diridon, Santa Clara, and Palo Alto transit centers. Capitol Corridor: The Capitol Corridor provides intercity passenger rail service to Sacramento, Oakland, and San José. Commuters traveling on Capitol Corridor trains from Sacramento and the East Bay can connect to the Project corridor at the Santa Clara and San José Diridon transit centers

5 Table Transit Connections within Project Corridor City Transit Center or Cross Street Transit Connections (Provider, Route) San José San José Diridon Transit Center VTA Bus: 63, 64, 65, 68, 81, 168, 181 MST: 55 Santa Cruz METRO: Highway 17 Express Public Shuttles: DASH (Downtown Area Shuttle) VTA Light Rail: Mountain View Winchester Amtrak: Coast Starlight ACE Caltrain Capitol Corridor Santa Clara Santa Clara Transit Center VTA Bus: 10 (Airport Flyer), 32, 60, 81 ACE Amtrak: Coast Starlight Caltrain Capitol Corridor Monroe Street VTA Bus: 32, 60 San Tomas Expressway VTA Bus: 330 Bowers Avenue / Kiely Boulevard VTA Bus: 57, 58 Lawrence Expressway VTA Bus: 328 Sunnyvale Wolfe Road VTA Bus: 26 Fair Oaks Road / Remington VTA Bus: 55 Drive Mathilda Avenue VTA Bus: 54 Bernardo Avenue VTA Bus: 53 Mountain View Castro Street VTA Bus: 51, 52 El Monte Avenue VTA Bus: 52 San Antonio Transit Center VTA Bus: 32, 34, 35, 40 Public Shuttles: Stanford Marguerite Palo Alto Charleston Road / Arastradero Road VTA Bus: 88 Hansen Way / Oregon Expressway / Page Mill Road / California Avenue VTA Bus: 89, 101, 102, 103, 104, 182 AC Transit: Dumbarton Express DB1 Public Shuttles: Stanford Marguerite, Deer Creek Embarcadero Road / Galvez Street AC Transit: U Public Shuttles: Stanford Marguerite, Embarcadero Palo Alto Transit Center VTA Bus: 35 AC Transit: Dumbarton Express DB SamTrans: ECR, 280, 281, 297, 397 Public Shuttles: Deer Creek, Stanford Marguerite, Crosstown, Embarcadero Caltrain Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

6 Existing Traffic Conditions Roadway System The El Camino Real corridor is centrally located in the cities it passes through, intersects many local streets, and serves a wide variety of land uses. The portion of El Camino Real included in the Project transportation study area is roughly parallel to U.S. 101 to the northeast and I-280 to the southwest, and is intersected by major freeways and expressways, including I-880, San Tomas Expressway, Lawrence Expressway, State Route (SR) 85, SR 237, and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway. Figure 3-2 illustrates the Project corridor and major freeways, expressways, and arterial streets that run parallel or perpendicular to the Project corridor. El Camino Real is a six-lane at-grade urban arterial with posted speeds of 35 and 40 miles per hour (mph). The Alameda portion of the Project corridor is a four-lane urban arterial with posted speeds of 35 mph except near schools where the posted speed drops to 25 mph. Major signalized intersections along the corridor are spaced at approximately half-mile intervals. Numerous minor streets cross or meet the corridor at signalized or unsignalized intersections. In general, average daily traffic (ADT) along The Alameda portion of the Project corridor ranges from approximately 23,700 to 29,600. ADT along the El Camino Real portion of the Project corridor ranges from approximately 36,500 to 52,600 vehicles per day, with the average vehicle trip length ranging from 5 to 6 miles. Based on the 2013 traffic counts conducted at several locations along the Project corridor, the highest ADT were recorded east of Bush Street in Mountain View and the lowest ADT were recorded east of Jefferson Street in Santa Clara. Intersection Traffic Operation A total of 75 signalized intersections along the Project corridor and 165 signalized and unsignalized intersections on expected diversion routes were analyzed for the existing conditions. The criteria used to determine the study intersections on the expected diversion routes are described in Section , Methods. Figures through show the study intersections along the Project corridor and on diversion routes (or shown as Off El Camino Real intersections in the figures) by local jurisdictions. For the 75 signalized intersections on the Project corridor, 67 intersections on El Camino Real and eight intersections on The Alameda were identified. Twenty-nine of these study intersections are designated as Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections by VTA, with 24 intersections on El Camino Real and five intersections on The Alameda. As shown in Figures through , additional unsignalized intersections along the Project corridor were also evaluated under the future Project alternatives (in Section and Section ) because these locations would be subject to future signalization as part of the Project or other planned or programmed baseline improvements

7 Source: DKS Associates Figure Study Intersections in San José Graphics ( ) Source: DKS Associates Figure Study Intersections in Santa Clara

8 Source: DKS Associates Figure Study Intersections in Sunnyvale Graphics ( ) Source: DKS Associates Figure Study Intersections in Mountain View

9 Source: DKS Associates Figure Study Intersections in Los Altos Graphics ( ) Source: DKS Associates Figure Study Intersections in Palo Alto

10 Intersection operating conditions are described for the weekday morning (A.M.) peak period typically between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and the weekday evening (P.M.) peak period typically between 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. To analyze the intersection operation at study intersections, peak period intersection turning movement counts were collected in May, October, and November The intersection analysis results include a descriptive term known as level of service (LOS). Level of service is a measure of intersection operating conditions, varying from LOS A, which represents little or no delay, to LOS F, which represents long delays. Methods described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2000) were used to calculate the levels of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections. To identify deficient intersections and required roadway improvements for long-term transportation and land use planning, local agencies established LOS standards or acceptable LOS for roadways within their jurisdictions. Based on the VTA CMP and general plans prepared by study area cities, the acceptable LOS are generally defined as LOS E or better for CMP intersections and LOS D or better for local signalized intersections. Of the 75 existing signalized study intersections along the Project corridor, the majority of the intersections are currently performing at acceptable LOS. Table summarizes the peak hour LOS results at study intersections along the Project corridor. The following four study intersections along the Project corridor operate below acceptable LOS. El Camino Real / Hansen Way during A.M. peak period (Palo Alto). El Camino Real / Calderon Avenue/Phyllis Ave during P.M. peak period (Mountain View). El Camino Real / Mathilda Avenue during A.M. peak period (Sunnyvale). El Camino Real / San Tomas Expressway during P.M. peak period (Santa Clara). For 165 study intersections along the diversion routes, the following nine signalized intersections operate below acceptable LOS. Alma Street / Churchill Avenue during P.M. peak period (Palo Alto). Alma Street / Charleston Road during A.M. and P.M. peak period (Palo Alto) Central Expressway / Mary Avenue during P.M. peak period (Sunnyvale) Lawrence Expressway / Cabrillo Avenue during A.M. and P.M. peak period (Santa Clara). Scott Boulevard / Monroe Street during A.M. peak period (Santa Clara). Lawrence Expressway / Benton Street during A.M. and P.M. peak period (Santa Clara). San Tomas Expressway / Benton Street during A.M. and P.M. peak period (Santa Clara). Lewis Street / Lafayette Street during P.M. peak period (Santa Clara). Lafayette Street / Benton Street during P.M. peak period (Santa Clara). For more detailed information on the intersection traffic counts, traffic operation analysis process, and the results of the intersection LOS analysis for study intersections, see the Traffic Operations Analysis Report in Appendix H

11 Table Existing (2013) Level of Service for Study Intersections along the Project Corridor City Intersection Location by Cross Street Name A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Delay b LOS c Delay b LOS c Palo Alto Palm Dr a 28.2 C 27.7 C University Ave a 17.2 B 25.9 C Medical Foundation Drive 25.5 C 27.1 C Embarcadero Rd/Galvez St a 50.1 D 63.5 E Churchill Ave 18.2 B 21.2 C Park Bl./Serra St 15.9 B 19.7 B Stanford Ave 31.2 C 31.3 C Cambridge Ave 7.0 A 13.5 B California Ave 15.7 B 24.8 C Page Mill Rd/Oregon Expy a 73.4 E 58.5 E Portage Ave 30.2 C 43.2 D Hansen Way 80.2 F 45.7 D Matadero Ave/Margarita Ave 19.6 B 15.1 B Curtner Ave 4.1 A 3.2 A Ventura Ave 13.0 B 11.3 B Los Robles Ave 17.9 B 14.3 B Maybell Ave/El Camino Way 19.8 B 10.6 B Charleston Rd/Arastadero Rd a 37.5 D 38.3 D Dinahs Ct 4.9 A 7.1 A Los Altos Ave/Cesano Ct 21.5 C 12.3 B Del Medio Ave 15.5 B 10.3 B Los Altos San Antonio Rd a 46.9 D 59 E Showers Dr/Los Altos Sq 16.1 B 31.2 C Jordan Ave 7.6 A 7.8 A Ortega Ave 7.3 A 6.4 A Distel Dr 7.2 A 4.4 A Mountain Rengstorff Ave a 13.7 B 17.6 B View d Escuela Ave 19.5 B 15.7 B El Monte Ave a 22.1 C 24.1 C Shoreline Blvd /Miramonte Ave a 60.1 E 45.8 D Castro St a 27.8 C 49.3 D Calderon Ave/Phyllis Ave 35.4 D 62.8 E SR 237/Grant Rd a 59.4 E 57.5 E The Americana / Sylvan Ave 28.8 C 30.4 C Sunnyvale Bernardo Ave 35.4 D 40.2 D Grape Ave 7.6 A 12.2 B Mary Ave a 41.9 D 45.8 D Hollenbeck Ave 28.2 C 30.8 C Mathilda Ave a 80.2 F 50.4 D Sunnyvale (Continued) Murphy Ave 1.7 A 1.6 A Sunnyvale Ave/Sunnyvale Saratoga Rd 19.6 B 37.9 D

12 A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour City Intersection Location by Cross Street Name Delay b LOS c Delay b LOS c Cezanne Dr 9.7 A 13.6 B Fair Oaks Ave/Remington Dr a 35.1 D 48.9 D Maria Ln 9.4 A 13.8 B Wolfe Rd a 39.7 D 52 D Poplar Ave 17 B 14.7 B Henderson Ave 12.8 B 16.5 B Santa Clara Halford Ave 16.7 B 20.7 C Lawrence Exp. SB Ramp a 10.4 B 17.9 B Lawrence Exp. NB Ramp a 23.5 C 14.8 B Lawrence Sq 1.5 A 2.5 A Flora Vista Ave 15.5 B 14.8 B Nobili Ave 3.8 A 4.0 A Pomeroy Ave 12.5 B 16 B Calabazas Blvd 14.7 B 17.6 B Kiely Blvd/Bowers Ave a 33.1 C 38.6 D Bowers Ave 5.3 A 7.4 A San Tomas Expy a 73.7 E 84.1 F Los Padres Blvd 27.3 C 31.1 C Scott Blvd a 39.9 D 48.8 D Lincoln St a 21.0 C 20.0 C Monroe St a 27.4 C 36.4 D Lafayette St a 44.4 D 44.1 D Benton St 10.8 B 26.1 C Palm Dr 13.1 B 17.3 B Campbell Ave (Accolti Way) 12.0 B 19.1 B The Alameda (SR 82) a 13.6 B 17.8 B San José Newhall St 16.2 B 15.5 B I-880 (Southbound) a 21.7 C 12.4 B I-880 (Northbound) a 18.7 B 20.2 C Hedding St a 44.3 D 42.1 D Naglee Ave a 47.6 D 55.2 E Lenzen Ave 12.2 B 9.0 A Julian St 14.5 B 16.2 B Martin and Race St a 34.3 C 30.1 C Source: Traffic Operations Analysis Report in Appendix H. Notes: a Congestion Management Plan intersections designated by VTA. b Delay measured in seconds per vehicle. c LOS designation pursuant to 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. d A new signalized intersection was installed at Clark Avenue (between Escuela Avenue and Rengstorff Avenue) in Mountain View after traffic counts were collected. Therefore, it was not included in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report. Bold font and shading indicate an LOS that is below the acceptable level of service

13 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Conditions Bicycle Facilities Connected to the Project Corridor In general, bicycle facilities in the study area are classified into three categories described below. Class I Bikeway (Bike Path): A completely separate right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with minimal roadway crossings. Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane): A striped lane on a street for one-way bicycle travel. Bike lanes are generally 5 feet wide. Vehicle and pedestrian cross-flows are permitted; vehicle parking is not permitted. Class III Bikeway (Bike Route/ Bike Boulevard): Streets with signs or pavement markings for shared use with cyclists and motor vehicles. Bike routes are generally designated for local residential or collector streets with low traffic volumes. The Project corridor currently does not have striped bike lanes or bicycle signage; therefore it is not a classified bikeway. However, cyclists ride in the Project corridor. Table summarizes the bicycle facilities connected to the Project corridor (Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 2011). VTA maps showing existing bicycle facilities connected to the Project corridor and the surrounding area are included in Appendix H. Major Class I bike routes in the study area include the Guadalupe River Trail (San José), San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail (Santa Clara), and Stevens Creek Trail (Mountain View). Pedestrian Facilities at Bus Stop Areas Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks and crosswalks at intersections and midblock crossings. Within the Project corridor, sidewalks are provided on both sides of El Camino Real/The Alameda with crosswalks at signalized intersections and most of the unsignalized intersections. Overall, there is adequate pedestrian accessibility to the Rapid 522 and Local 22 bus stops, which are in good condition and free from obstructions, but generally lack passenger amenities for waiting. Both Local 22 and Rapid 522 buses are wheelchair accessible in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and equipped with exterior bike racks. Most of the 32 bus stops for Rapid 522 and Local 22 within the Project corridor have shelters and benches, but few of the 115 bus stops for Local 22 have shelters and benches

14 Table Bicycle Facilities Connected to Project Corridor City San José Santa Clara Sunnyvale Mountain View Los Altos Palo Alto Cross Street and Bikeway Class No classified bikeways directly connected to the corridor. Monroe Street Class II Bike Lane Los Padres Boulevard Class II Bike Lane San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Class I Bike Path Calabazas Boulevard Class II Bike Lane Fremont Avenue Class II Bike Lane Fair Oaks Road/Remington Drive Class II Bike Lane Sunnyvale Avenue/Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road Class II Bike Lane Mathilda Avenue Class II Bike Lane Hollenbeck Avenue Class II Bike Lane Bernardo Avenue Class II Bike Lane Knickerbocker Drive Class II Bike Lane Sylvan Avenue Class II Bike Lane Stevens Creek Class I Bike Path Phyllis Avenue Class II Bike Lane Shoreline Boulevard/Miramonte Avenue Class II Bike Lane El Monte Avenue Class II Bike Lane Rengstorff Avenue Class II Bike Lane Showers Drive Class II Bike Lane El Monte Avenue Class II Bike Lane Springer Road Class II Bike Lane San Antonio Road Class II Bike Lane Charleston Road/Arastradero Road Class II Bike Lane Maybell Avenue Class III Bike Boulevard Los Robles Avenue/El Camino Way Class II Bike Lane Hansen Way Class II Bike Lane Page Mill Road Class II Bike Lane California Avenue Class II Bike Lane Stanford Avenue Class II Bike Lane Park Boulevard Class II Bike Lane Churchill Avenue Class II Bike Lane Galvez Street Class II Bike Lane Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

15 Existing Automobile Parking Conditions Existing parking conditions were assessed for on-street parking along the Project corridor, on-street parking on cross streets, and off-street parking lots that are available to the public in the vicinity of the Project corridor (e.g., associated with shopping centers and other retail uses). The existing number of parking spaces was determined by studying aerial surveys of the area, which were taken on Wednesday, October 13, Two passes each were made for morning, mid-day, and evening periods on the same day. The occupancy reported is from the second of the mid-day aerial surveys (during the highest-volume period), which was conducted between 12:30 p.m. and 1 p.m. Weekday parking was evaluated to be consistent with the weekday peak hour traffic analysis. The parking survey extended along the Project corridor between the Arena in downtown San José and the Palo Alto Transit Center. On-street parking on cross streets was surveyed within 500 feet on either side of Project corridor. The off-street parking facilities that are facing the Project corridor were also surveyed within approximately 500 feet of the Project corridor. The survey included parking in shopping centers and other lots where the general public can find unrestricted parking. The survey area has a combination of time-limited parking as well as unrestricted parking. For on-street parking along the Project corridor, the following blocks and travel directions generally have occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent likely because of the proximity to Caltrain stations, Stanford University, and commercial developments. El Camino Real from San Tomas Expressway to Los Padres Boulevard (eastbound). El Camino Real from Maria Lane to Wolfe Road (eastbound). El Camino Real from Mary Avenue to Hollenbeck Avenue (eastbound). El Camino Real from Bernardo Avenue to Grape Avenue (eastbound). El Camino Real from San Antonio Road to Showers Drive (eastbound). El Camino Real from Del Medio Avenue to San Antonio Road (eastbound). El Camino Real from Dinah s Court to Arastradero Road (westbound). El Camino Real between Ventura Avenue and Curtner Avenue (eastbound and westbound). El Camino Real between Stanford Avenue and Serra Street (eastbound and westbound). El Camino Real from Churchill Avenue to Serra Street (eastbound). El Camino Real from Embarcadero Road to Churchill Avenue (eastbound). Parking is generally available along the entire Project corridor on adjacent side streets or in off-street parking lots, except near the last three blocks listed above (between Stanford Avenue and Embarcadero Road). Table shows the existing inventory of on-street and off-street parking spaces in the study area and the occupancy during the midday, which is the highest occupancy period throughout the day

16 Table Parking Inventory and Observed Midday Occupancy City On-Street Parking on Project Corridor Spaces Midday Occupancy Rate On-Street Parking on Cross Streets Spaces Midday Occupancy Rate Off-Street Public Parking Spaces Midday Occupancy Rate Total Parking and Average Occupancy Spaces Midday Occupancy Rate San José % % 2,272 61% 3,390 50% Santa Clara % % 5,213 52% 6,179 49% Sunnyvale % % 6,407 51% 6,911 50% Mountain View 336 8% % 3,512 46% 4,221 43% Los Altos % % 2,531 51% 2,782 50% Palo Alto % % 3,355 45% 4,583 47% Total 1,978 33% 2,798 41% 23,290 51% 28,066 49% Source: Traffic Operations Analysis Report in Appendix H Environmental Impact Analysis Criteria for Determining Significance The State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (14 CCR et seq.) has identified significance criteria to be considered for determining whether a project could have significant impacts related to transportation and traffic. The Project would have a significant impact if it would result in any of the following conditions. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. Conflict with an applicable CMP, including, but not limited to, LOS standards and travel demand measures or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Result in inadequate emergency access. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The CEQA Guidelines are intended to provide general guidance for lead agencies evaluating impacts on the transportation system. The criteria for determining project impacts were identified based on consideration of the applicable policies, regulations, and guidelines defined by the VTA and local jurisdictions and in consideration of the CEQA Guidelines

17 The significance criteria used in this EIR/EA for the transportation and traffic impact analysis are defined in the following sections. Transit Service The Project would create a significant impact related to transit service if the Project results in either of the following conditions. Interferes with existing or planned transit services or facilities, such as by increasing transit travel time. Conflicts or creates inconsistencies with adopted transit system plans, goals, or policies. In addition, the Project would have a beneficial impact on the performance of the transportation system if the Project results in any of these three conditions. A decrease in VMT. A decrease in transit travel time. An increase in transit ridership. Traffic Operation The Project would create a significant impact on the regional and local traffic operation and roadway system if the Project results in any of the following conditions. A substantial increase in regional VMT in the study area. Conflicts or inconsistencies with regional or local transportation plans. Substantial disruptions to local traffic operations, as defined below. For CMP signalized intersections, the significance criteria are defined in the VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for Congestion Management Program (TIA Guidelines) (Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 2009b). A significant impact on a CMP intersection would occur if the Project results in one of the following conditions. The Project causes a CMP intersection to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS E or better) under No Build conditions to an unacceptable level (LOS F) under Build conditions. The Project causes a CMP intersection operating at an unacceptable level (LOS F) under No Build conditions to increase the average delay by 4 seconds or more under Build conditions. For local signalized intersections, the significance criteria are defined in coordination with local jurisdictions along the Project corridor and are based on VTA s TIA Guidelines. A significant impact on a local signalized intersection would occur if the Project results in one of the following conditions. The Project causes an intersection to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS D or better for most intersections) under No Build conditions to an unacceptable level (LOS E or F) under Build conditions

18 The Project causes an intersection operating at an unacceptable level (LOS E or F) under No Build conditions to increase the average delay by 4 seconds or more under Build conditions. The above criteria apply to all local signalized intersections except where a jurisdiction has adopted criteria permitting higher levels of congestion in certain areas or at certain intersections, in which case those criteria are used. The City of Mountain View uses a LOS D standard for local street intersections and LOS E standard for intersections within its Downtown and San Antonio Center areas. Similarly, Sunnyvale accepts LOS E for intersections with heavy regional traffic. For unsignalized intersections, the jurisdictions within the study area generally do not have officially adopted significance criteria with the exception of Palo Alto. Therefore, the significance criteria were based on a review of city standards and practices, where available, and synthesized to develop one standard to use throughout the study area. The significance criteria were developed in coordination with local jurisdictions along the Project corridor. A significant impact on an unsignalized intersection would occur if the Project results in one of the following conditions. The Project causes an intersection to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS C or better) under No Build conditions to an unacceptable level (LOS D or worse) under Build conditions 2 and satisfies one or more traffic signal warrants from the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The Project causes an intersection operating at an unacceptable level (LOS D or worse) under No Build conditions to increase the average delay by 4 seconds or more under Build conditions and satisfies one or more traffic signal warrants. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities The Project would create a significant impact related on bicycle and pedestrian facilities if the Project resulted in any of the following conditions. Interference with existing or planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities. An increase in conflicts between pedestrians/bicycles and vehicles or safety hazards to bicyclists and pedestrians because of a design feature. Inconsistencies with adopted plans, guidelines, or policies, regarding bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Emergency Vehicle Access The Project would create a significant impact if it results in inadequate emergency vehicle circulation or access. 2 The use of LOS C to D as the threshold for defining a potential impact was based on standards provided by the City of Palo Alto

19 Automobile Parking Supply The displacement of existing parking spaces is not considered a significant impact under CEQA. Parking conditions evolve over time as people alter their modes and patterns of travel in response to changing land uses and transportation options. Therefore, the availability of parking spaces is not part of the permanent physical environment subject to environmental review. In addition, the Project is a transit project designed to reduce traffic rather than a project that could result in an increased demand for parking. Revisions to the significance thresholds for CEQA that became effective on January 1, 2010, eliminated effects on parking. The revisions to the CEQA thresholds were based on the decision in San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of SF, 102 Cal.App.4th 65 (Sept. 30, 2002), in which the court ruled that parking deficits are an inconvenience to drivers but not a significant physical impact on the environment. As a result of this change to the CEQA Guidelines, VTA adopted new significance thresholds that did not include the effects of parking on November 4, Therefore, the loss of parking spaces by itself is not considered a direct significant impact on the physical environment in this document. However, parking losses caused by a project could result in a significant indirect impact on the environment if drivers circling for parking result in significant secondary effects on traffic operations or air quality. The other criteria in this document for evaluation of traffic operations and air quality are used as the thresholds for evaluating these secondary effects. NEPA guidance also encourages a discussion of the human environment and social and economic effects of a project. Thus, recognizing that parking has value to local businesses and patrons, community organizations, civic institutions, residents, and visitors, the social effects from parking removal are discussed in Section 5.14, Socioeconomics, and Section 5.15, Environmental Justice, and a discussion of the potential changes in parking under the Build Alternatives is presented in Section , Impacts, for informational purposes Methods The analysis year for the operational impact analysis is 2018 because Project construction is expected to be complete by The operational baseline for the purposes of CEQA is 2018 No Build conditions, because the Project can have operational impacts only once it is built and operating. This baseline consists of existing conditions and the traffic growth anticipated from approved but not yet constructed developments, as well as other expected growth by Although State CEQA Guidelines specify that the baseline should normally be the existing conditions extant at the time of preparation of the environmental document, the existing (2013) conditions are not the conditions that would be affected by operation of the Project. There is nothing illusory about population growth and its inevitable impacts on traffic: population is growing, and population increases do affect traffic, with or without the Project. The Project would not

20 begin to operate until 2018, and, thus, its impact on presently existing (2013) traffic would yield no practical information to decision-makers or the public. An analysis of the environmental impact of the Project on conditions existing in 2013 would only enable decision-makers and the public to consider the impact of the Project if it were here today. The traffic conditions of 2013 will no longer exist (with or without the Project) when the Project is estimated to come on line in An analysis of the Project impacts on 2013 traffic conditions would rest on the false hypothesis that everything will be the same 5 years into the future. Furthermore, the Santa Clara-Alum Rock (SC-AR) BRT project that is currently under construction is expected to begin operating in 2015, which would reduce the headways of Rapid 522 buses from 15 minutes to 10 minutes and increase the headways of Local 22 buses from 12 minutes to 15 minutes. Thus, it would be fundamentally misleading to the public and decision-makers to measure the Project impact by comparing 2018 Build conditions or the somewhat artificial 2013 Build conditions with 2013 existing conditions. Therefore, the conditions under the 2018 No Build Alternative are the basis of comparison rather than the 2013 existing conditions. Nevertheless, a comparison of the traffic operation conditions with the Project in 2013 with the existing traffic operation conditions was conducted to identify the impacted intersections in the study area if the Project were to operate currently. The analysis is documented in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report in Appendix H. However, for the purpose of CEQA, the 2018 conditions are used to determine Project operational impacts in this section and to identify associated mitigation. The section does disclose the existing conditions so that the reader may understand the changes that will occur relative to transportation and traffic both with and without the Project in An analysis was also conducted for conditions with and without the Project in The results of this analysis are presented in Section , Cumulative Impacts, because the 2040 conditions reflect an extensive amount of urban development and projected transportation improvements over the next 26 years. A more detailed description of assumptions, analysis approaches, forecasts of future traffic volume and ridership, and analysis results for 2018 and 2040 conditions is provided in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report in Appendix H. Overview of Measures of Effectiveness The transportation analysis evaluated a range of potential benefits and impacts caused by the Project. A variety of measures of effectiveness was used in the evaluation of the Build Alternatives and was compared with the significance criteria described in Section for transit service, traffic operation, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, emergency access, and parking supply. Analysis was conducted for an area surrounding the Project corridor extending from U.S. 101 in the north to I-280 in the south to allow for a more comprehensive study of area-wide regional transportation impacts and to identify the changes in travel

21 patterns or traffic diversion that would be caused by the Build Alternatives. The most detailed analysis was conducted for the operation of Rapid 522 and Local 22 along the Project corridor, for traffic operations at study intersections within the Project corridor, and for traffic operations on identified traffic diversion routes. The measures of effectiveness are summarized in Table Table : Transportation Analysis Measures of Effectiveness Measures of Effectiveness Description Transit Service Transit Ridership The number of weekday boardings for Rapid 522 and Local 22. Boardings generated by the travel demand model. Travel Time Time for transit (Rapid 522 and Local 22) to travel along Project corridor between University Avenue in Palo Alto and Cahill Street in San José. Regional Traffic Operation Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) Total VMT on all roadways within the study area bounded by U.S. 101, I-280, and Palo Alto to Downtown San José. Comes directly from the travel demand model. Total VHT on all roadways within the study area bounded by U.S. 101, I-280, and Palo Alto to downtown San José. Comes directly from the travel demand model. Analysis Time Period Daily A.M. and P.M. peak hours Daily and A.M. and P.M. peak hours A.M. and P.M. peak hours Average Speed Total VMT divided by total VHT. A.M. and P.M. peak hours Vehicle Diversion Volume on Screenline a Traffic volume on selected roadway segments along screenlines. Comes directly from the travel demand model. Used to determine the vehicle diversion routes and identify analysis intersections on diversion routes. A.M. and P.M. peak hours Local Intersection Traffic Operation Intersection Level of Service Travel Time Average vehicle delay and level of service based on the Highway Capacity Manual method, described in Section Includes intersections on Project corridor and expected diversion routes. Time for auto to travel along Project corridor between University Avenue in Palo Alto and Cahill Street in San José. A.M. and P.M. peak hours A.M. and P.M. peak hours Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Bike and Pedestrian Environment Qualitative assessment of the proposed changes along Project corridor on cyclists and pedestrians. Daily Emergency Vehicle Access Emergency Vehicle Access Qualitative assessment of the proposed changes along Project corridor on emergency vehicle circulation and access. Daily Automobile Parking Supply Parking Supply The number of spaces being eliminated based on the conceptual design plans. Midday Source: Traffic Operations Analysis Report in Appendix H. Note: a A screenline is an imaginary line that runs transverse to the Project corridor through the study area to determine how many vehicles pass through the Project corridor and major parallel streets intersecting the line

22 Forecast Methodology VTA s countywide travel demand model was used to forecast roadway traffic volumes in the study area, develop increases to traffic volumes at study intersections, and predict the growth of Rapid 522 and Local 22 ridership along the Project corridor for years 2018 and 2040 for each alternative. The countywide model uses transportation network and socioeconomic inputs to forecast future transportation conditions and is capable of generating a variety of evaluation measures including those related to transit ridership, auto and transit travel times, vehicle volumes, traffic diversion, VMT, vehicle hours traveled (VHT), and person trips. The VTA countywide model is a modified version of the MTC regional model, developed to be consistent with methodologies used by MTC. A more detailed discussion of the tools, methods and procedures used in developing the travel demand forecasts for the Project is provided in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report in Appendix H. Study Intersections Selection Under the existing conditions described in Section , a total of 75 existing signalized intersections along the Project corridor were analyzed. However, the total number of analyzed intersections varies between Build alternative to take into account planned or programmed baseline improvements and differences between the Build alternatives. A total of 77 intersections were analyzed along the Project Corridor for Alternatives 1 (No Build), 2, 3a, and 3b. This total includes all 75 existing signals plus two new signals (at Clark Avenue and McCormick Drive) that are being installed by others separate from the Project. A total of 79 intersections were analyzed for Alternatives 4a and 4b, and 82 intersections were analyzed for Alternative 4c. The number of intersections differs for these alternatives because new signals would be introduced in the dedicated lane segments to provide protected left turn movements at some intersections. At the same time, some existing signalized intersections, as shown in Table below, would be converted to right-in/right-out only and the signal would be removed. A more detailed discussion of planned transportation improvements included under the No Build Alternative and intersection signalization and improvements associated with each of the Build Alternatives is provided in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report in Appendix H. The analysis also examined 165 signalized and unsignalized intersections off El Camino Real on expected diversion routes, which are determined using the screenline diversion assessment from the travel demand model. While the screenline diversion assessment was intended to provide for a broad, regional picture of potential diversion impacts, the analysis of these intersections was intended to provide a more detailed examination of the potential impacts at intersections off of but in close proximity to El Camino Real. These locations were selected based on the following criteria: 1) location is included in the VTA travel demand model thus allowing for the forecasting of future travel demand

23 2) generally within 0.5 mile of El Camino Real. 3) the sum of all approach volumes increased by 50 vehicles per hour or more. If an intersection met these criteria for any alternative under any future year or time period, it was included for analysis in all scenarios. It should be noted that some locations up to 1 mile away were also included. In some cases these locations were added because they represent intersections along a diversion route that is closer to El Camino Real in other areas. Intersection Levels of Service Analysis The traffic operation analysis at study intersections was performed using Synchro and the procedures from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Synchro is a macroscopic analysis and optimization software package used for evaluating, optimizing, and coordinating intersection signal-timing operations. The existing conditions model was developed using current signal timing plans and peak hour turn movement counts from a combination of existing sources and data collected for this study. To obtain the LOS and the delay for future No Build and Build Alternatives, the existing peak hour Synchro models were modified to reflect future conditions, including forecasted traffic volumes, changes to intersection configurations where applicable to reflect any future baseline improvements and/or the implementation of bus-only lanes as part of some Build Alternatives, and updates to signal phasing and timing. The analysis also took into account changes in pedestrian calls and crossing times, plus bus blockages with the implementation of curbside bulbout stations Impacts Impact TRA-1a: Disrupt existing or planned transit services during construction No Build Alternative (No impact) As described above in Section , Methods, the No Build Alternative is the operational baseline that is compared with the Build Alternatives to determine the impacts of the Project. Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no disruption to existing or planned transit services or facilities during construction because construction would not occur. Build Alternatives (Less than significant) A Project conceptual construction scenario and anticipated activities are described in Section 3.3, Construction Scenario and Urban Design. Project construction would take approximately 2 years to complete. To minimize disruption to the traveling public and shorten the total duration of construction, multiple non-contiguous areas may be constructed simultaneously. Within each area, work would be sequenced such that travel delays for transit vehicles and automobiles would be minimized. During station construction, depending on the Project alternatives, existing bus stops could be relocated to a nearby location, which would potentially disrupt or increase the bus

24 dwelling time and affect the bus schedule. In addition, during excavation, station construction, and pavement rehabilitation operations, temporary lane closures where work is active would be expected, which would potentially increase the travel time for buses traveling through the construction sites. As part of the Project, a transportation management plan (TMP) would be developed in conjunction with Caltrans, local jurisdictions, and transit providers prior to construction. The TMP would provide for advance notice of construction activities and durations, bus stop relocations, and changes of bus schedule and provide ways to minimize disruption to bus services. Therefore, the temporary construction impact on transit services along the Project corridor would be less than significant. Impact TRA-1b: Substantially increase transit travel times or create inconsistencies with adopted plans from Project operation No Build Alternative (No impact) According to VTA travel model forecasts, housing and employment growth in Santa Clara County would lead to increased travel demand along the Project corridor. This growth in demand is expected to be served primarily by transit and auto. As the SC-AR BRT project becomes operational and transit service frequency increases, transit ridership is also expected to increase along the El Camino Real BRT Project corridor. Table shows the anticipated increase in transit ridership within the Project corridor from 2013 to Total weekday ridership along the corridor is forecast to increase by almost 2,000 riders by Ridership of Rapid 522 is expected to increase significantly in 2018, mostly because of the increase in frequency. That change is expected to lead to passengers shifting from the local bus service (Local 22) to Rapid 522 between 2013 and Table shows the forecasted peak hour travel times for Rapid 522 BRT buses and local buses along the Project corridor between Cahill Street and University Avenue. As forecasted, travel times for Rapid 522 BRT buses will increase slightly from 2013 to 2018 due to the significant increase in ridership. Travel times for Local 22 buses will decrease slightly from 2013 to 2018 because of the reduction of passengers. Build Alternatives (Beneficial) Transit ridership is expected to increase along the corridor because the Project would improve the quality of transit service. Transit ridership forecasts are calculated by adding the predicted number of riders in the travel demand models to collected existing rider count data. Table presents the daily ridership on the proposed BRT bus and the local bus (Local 22) within the Project corridor. Between Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, there is an increase of total transit ridership of up to 28 percent (Alternative 4c). The increase in ridership is due to both new transit riders and some riders that switch from the local bus to the BRT bus

25 Table shows the peak hour travel time for BRT and local buses along the corridor between Cahill Street to University Avenue. BRT bus travel time drops significantly as the length of the dedicated lanes increases. When the BRT bus is in mixed flow for the entire corridor (Alternative 2), its travel time is close to the local bus; but, when the BRT bus can use dedicated lanes for the entire corridor (Alternative 4c), travel time is close to auto travel time, shown in Table BRT bus travel time decreases up to 45 percent (Alternative 4c) in the eastbound direction during the P.M. peak hour, between Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative. Local bus travel time increases slightly as the length of the dedicated lanes increases, which is consistent with auto travel time trend among alternatives. Depending on Project alternatives, operation of the Project would increase the travel time of Local 22 but would also shift the ridership from Local 22 to BRT buses. To determine the overall effect of transit travel time riders spend on both BRT and Local 22 along the Project corridor, the average peak hour transit travel time for both Local 22 and BRT buses 3 is calculated using peak hour travel time and the daily ridership. As shown in Table , all Project alternatives would reduce the average bus travel time for both BRT and Local 22 on the Project corridor. In summary, the Project would result in the increase in BRT and total ridership along the Project corridor and reduce the BRT bus travel time and the average transit travel time along the Project Corridor. In addition, increased bus frequency would also improve the connectivity to other transit services along the corridor. Therefore, the impact of the Project relative to transit service would be beneficial. Table Weekday Transit Ridership within Project Corridor by Alternative Bus Route 2013 Existing 2018 No Build 2018 Alt Alt 3a 2018 Alt 3b 2018 Alt 4a 2018 Alt 4b 2018 Alt 4c Rapid 522/BRT 3,278 8,159 9,223 9,561 10,090 10,801 11,808 13,104 Local 22 9,234 6,429 6,080 6,047 5,909 5,847 5,692 5,512 Total 12,512 14,588 15,303 15,608 15,999 16,648 17,500 18,616 Source: Traffic Operations Analysis Report in Appendix H. 3 Average peak hour travel time = (BRT riders x BRT peak hour travel time +Local 22 riders x 22 peak hour travel time) / total riders

26 Table Transit Travel Time within Project Corridor by Alternative Alternative A.M. Peak Westbound a Travel Time b (minutes) P.M. Peak Eastbound a Travel Time b (minutes) Rapid 522/ BRT Local 22 Average c Rapid 522/ BRT Local 22 Average c 2013 Existing No Build Alt Alt 3a Alt 3b Alt 4a Alt 4b Alt 4c Source: Traffic Operations Analysis Report in Appendix H. Notes: a Worse travel direction with higher traffic volumes and longer travel time. b Travel time between Cahill Street and University Avenue derived from the travel demand model, except existing transit travel time is based on the bus schedules. c Average peak hour travel time = (BRT riders x BRT peak hour travel time +Local 22 riders x Local 22 peak hour travel time) / total riders. Impact TRA-2a: Substantially disrupt existing or future traffic operations during construction No Build Alternative (No impact) As described above in Section , Methods, the No Build Alternative is the operational baseline that is compared with the Build Alternatives to determine the impacts of the Project. Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no disruption to existing or future traffic operations during construction because construction would not occur. Build Alternatives (Less than significant) Construction would temporarily increase trucks and employee vehicles on public roadways accessing the Project corridor work sites, but the impact from increased trips on roadway traffic operation would be minimal. However, during excavation, station construction, and pavement rehabilitation operations, temporary lane closures where work is active would be expected. Full roadway closures are not anticipated and travel lanes would be maintained for the duration of construction. Detours and service interruptions would also be expected, but would be limited to non-peak periods to the extent feasible. Temporary lane closures for construction would reduce the vehicle capacity of the roadway segments near the Project corridor work sites and potentially increase vehicle travel time along the Project corridor. Detours would also potentially increase travel time for vehicles traveling through the construction sites. However, described in Impact TRA-1a, a TMP would be developed in conjunction with Caltrans and the local jurisdictions prior to construction to provide a plan for advance notice of construction activities and durations,

27 detours, and access limitations and to minimize disruption to the traveling public. Therefore, the temporary construction impact on traffic operation on the Project corridor would be less than significant. In those areas where dedicated lanes would be constructed, the closure of the dedicated lane would be a permanent closure to general traffic instituted at the start of construction. Permanent impacts are discussed under Impact TRA-2b. Impact TRA-2b: Conflict or create inconsistencies with regional traffic plans or substantially disrupt regional traffic operations from Project operation No Build Alternative (No impact) As described above in Section , Methods, the No Build Alternative is the operational baseline that is compared with the Build Alternatives to determine the impacts of the Project. Therefore, there is no impact for the No Build Alternative. The housing, population, and employment growth in Santa Clara County and the San Francisco Bay Area would lead to increased travel demand in the Bay Area and result in the increase in vehicle traffic volumes and VMT on regional roadway system. Without roadway improvements to increase roadway vehicle capacity, traffic operation conditions on the regional roadway system in 2018 are expected to be worse than the conditions in 2013, with increased travel time and delay. Table shows the increase in VMT and the decrease in average system vehicle speed from 2013 to Build Alternatives (Less than significant) The Project would result in an increase in transit ridership and is consistent with the regional plans (Grand Boulevard Initiative, 2009 BRT Strategic Plan, Santa Clara County Priority Development Area Investment and Growth Strategy, and Plan Bay Area). However, it is anticipated that implementation of the Project would cause autos to divert off the Project corridor to surrounding roads for Build Alternatives that would result in the removal of a general travel lane in each direction. Corridor-wide, this diversion is well-dispersed and there is not much change in regional roadway system mobility measures. The VMT, VHT, and average speed were evaluated as indicators of roadway system performance within the study area, which includes roadways from U.S. 101 to I-280 and from Palo Alto to downtown San José. The 2018 regional (study area) roadway system performance for daily and peak hour periods for each alternative is summarized in Table Daily VMT in the study area is slightly lower after the implementation of the Project due to the shifts from auto to transit. Introducing the dedicated lanes causes the peak hour VHT to increase slightly because the reduced number of lanes for general travel on El Camino Real leads to some diversion from the Project corridor and increased travel time, although there are fewer vehicles on El Camino Real. For the aforementioned system-wide mobility measures, the percentage change between each Build Alternative and the No Build Alternative is very small (less than 1 percent) on a regional basis and within the level of accuracy of the travel demand model

28 Therefore, the impact of Build Alternatives on regional traffic operation would be less than significant. Table Regional Roadway System Mobility Measures by Alternative Alternative Daily VMT VMT A.M. Peak Period VHT Average Auto Speed (mph) VMT VHT P.M. Peak Period Average Auto Speed (mph) 2013 Existing 14,289,255 1,196,720 37, ,277,804 41, No Build 14,684,885 1,234,921 38, ,325,424 43, Alt 2 14,683,818 1,234,927 38, ,325,431 43, Alt 3a 14,678,910 1,234,221 38, ,324,442 43, Alt 3b 14,677,839 1,234,146 38, ,324,384 43, Alt 4a 14,675,610 1,233,223 38, ,323,554 43, Alt 4b 14,675,895 1,233,107 38, ,323,627 44, Alt 4c 14,671,970 1,232,935 38, ,323,167 44, Source: Traffic Operations Analysis Report in Appendix H. Impact TRA-2c: Conflict or create inconsistencies with local traffic plans or substantially disrupt local traffic operations from Project operation No Build Alternative (No impact) As discussed under Impact TRA-1b, the housing, population, and employment growth in Santa Clara County would lead to increased travel demand along the El Camino Real corridor and result in the increase in vehicle traffic volumes along the Project corridor. Without major roadway improvements to increase roadway vehicle capacity, traffic operation conditions on Project corridor in 2018 are expected to be worse than the conditions in 2013, with increased travel time and intersection delay. Table shows the increase in ADT volumes from 2013 to 2018 on selected portions of the Project corridor. In 2018, volumes generally increase along the Project corridor. In Palo Alto, there is a slight drop in traffic volumes along the corridor because of improvements on U.S. 101 that cause a diversion from El Camino Real to U.S Table shows the peak hour travel time for autos along the Project corridor between Cahill Street and University Avenue. The travel time would increase slightly in 2018 as a result of increased traffic volumes. For intersection operations in 2018, vehicle delay generally increases at study intersections along the Project corridor and identified diversion routes. However, no additional intersection is identified to operate at an unacceptable level, other than those intersections identified in Section for existing conditions

29 Table Average Daily Traffic Volumes along Project Corridor by Alternative Location along Project Corridor 2013 Existing 2018 No Build 2018 Alt Alt 3a 2018 Alt 3b 2018 Alt 4a 2018 Alt 4b 2018 Alt 4c East of Hedding Street, San José 29,572 30,884 30,915 30,885 30,876 30,898 30,861 30,876 East of Jefferson Street, Santa Clara 23,680 24,536 24,527 24,401 24,402 24,369 24,374 24,363 West of Bowers Avenue, Santa Clara 37,636 39,056 39,052 38,231 38,236 38,026 38,052 38,047 West of Maria Lane, Sunnyvale 36,462 37,704 37,691 37,527 37,523 36,300 36,087 36,083 East of Bernardo Avenue, Sunnyvale 38,962 39,359 39,349 39,264 39,257 35,998 34,858 34,843 East of Bush Street, Mountain View 52,551 53,974 53,991 53,964 53,962 53,865 48,561 48,364 West of Jordan Avenue, Mountain View 41,392 41,849 41,890 41,846 41,838 41,774 39,439 38,876 East of Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto 42,613 42,345 42,334 42,343 42,350 42,297 41,555 38,788 Source: Traffic Operations Analysis Report in Appendix H. Note: Grey highlight indicates Project segments with dedicated BRT lanes. Table Automobile Travel Time within Project Corridor by Alternative Alternative A.M. Peak Travel Time a (minutes) P.M. Peak Travel Time a (minutes) Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound 2013 Existing No Build Alt Alt 3a Alt 3b Alt 4a Alt 4b Alt 4c Source: Traffic Operations Analysis Report in Appendix H. Notes: a Travel time between Cahill Street and University Avenue derived from the VTA travel demand model. Alternative 2 (Less than significant) Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the transit ridership along the Project corridor with curbside bulbout stations and enhanced amenities for BRT 522. However, because the Project corridor would remain six mixed-flow lanes, the change of vehicle travel patterns along the corridor and in the surrounding area is expected to be minimal. As shown in Table , the change in ADT on selected segments between No Build and Alternative 2 is very small. The vehicle travel time for Alternative 2 is also predicted to be similar to the No Build Alternative, as shown in Table The small changes in traffic volumes are not expected to affect the traffic operations at study intersections. Table summarizes the delay and LOS for intersections that would exceed the significance thresholds during the A.M. or P.M. peak hours. As shown, Alternative 2 would not cause any study intersections on or off the Project corridor to exceed the significance thresholds. Therefore, under CEQA, the impact of Alternative 2 on local traffic operation would be less than significant

30 Alternatives 3 and 4 (Significant and ) Although implementation of Alternatives 3 and 4 would increase transit ridership, it is anticipated that it would cause changes of travel patterns for vehicles traveling along the Project corridor. In particular, dedicated lanes in place of general travel lanes would reduce vehicle capacity of the roadway segments and cause some autos to divert off the Project corridor. Table shows the change in ADT on selected segments along the corridor. The ADT decreases for Project segments with dedicated lanes. The table indicates that the longer the dedicated lanes, the more vehicles traveling on the corridor are expected to be diverted to the surrounding roadway system. Table shows the peak hour travel time for autos along the corridor between Cahill Street and University Avenue. The table indicates that auto travel time increases slightly as the length of the dedicated lanes increases. The auto travel time does not vary much amongst alternatives because as vehicles divert off the Project corridor, the volume of auto traffic relative to the remaining capacity of the roadway stays approximately the same. These changes in transit operation, vehicle travel patterns, coupled with the removal of a general travel lane, would alter the configuration of study intersections along the Project corridor and affect the intersection traffic operation on the corridor and diversion routes. Intersection LOS analysis was performed to identify the impact of each Build Alternative on local traffic operation. A more detailed description of intersection LOS analysis for 2018 Build Alternatives is provided in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report in Appendix H. Intersection Operation on Project Corridor For the analysis of the Project corridor, a total of 77 future year intersections were analyzed along the corridor for Alternatives 3a and 3b, 79 intersections for Alternatives 4a and 4b, and 82 intersections for Alternative 4c. The number of intersections that were analyzed varies across alternatives because new signals were introduced in the dedicated lane segments to provide the protected left turn movements at some intersections. New traffic signals would be installed at Helen Avenue in Sunnyvale for Alternatives 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, and 4c, at driveways between Sunnyvale Avenue and Cezanne Drive and east of Fair Oaks Avenue in Sunnyvale for Alternatives 4a, 4b, and 4c, at Distel Circle in Los Altos and at Bonita Avenue in Mountain View for Alternatives 4b and 4c, and at College Avenue, Deodar Street, Wilton/Barron Avenue, and Vista Avenue in Palo Alto for Alternative 4c. New pedestrian signals would also be installed at Crestview Drive in Mountain View for Alternatives 4a, 4b, and 4c and Pettis Avenue in Alternatives 4b and 4c. In the dedicated lane segments, some mid-block openings would be eliminated; therefore, some existing signalized intersections and mid-block left turn lanes on El Camino Real at some locations would be eliminated and some through movements on minor cross streets across El Camino Real would be eliminated as shown in Table (also see Project Plans in Appendix B for details)

31 Table Summary of 2018 Intersection Operation Impacts by Alternative City Study Intersection Impacted Intersection on Project Corridor Peak Hour 2018 No Build 2018 Alt Alt 3a 2018 Alt 3b 2018 Alt 4a 2018 Alt 4b 2018 Alt 4c Delay a LOS Delay a LOS Delay a LOS Delay a LOS Delay a LOS Delay a LOS Delay a S LO P.M E 63.1 E 63.3 E 63.3 E 62.8 E 60.7 E 82.7 F P.M E 75.3 E 96.3 F 95.9 F F F F Palo Alto El Camino Real at Page Mill Rd/ Oregon Expy b Impacted Intersection on Diversion Routes Palo Alto Alma St / Addison Ave P.M E 47.6 E 47.5 E 47.6 E 47.2 E 47.2 E 58.1 F Alma St / Kingsley Ave P.M F 65.3 F 65.7 F 65.7 F 62.1 F 35.2 E F Alma St / Churchill Ave c P.M E 57.6 E 57.6 E 57.5 E 57.0 E 55.6 E 63.4 E Alma St / Loma Verde Ave A.M F F F F F F F P.M F F F F F F F Alma St / Meadow Dr A.M D 44.8 D 44.8 D 44.7 D 44.0 D 42.6 D 61.5 E P.M D 45.4 D 45.4 D 45.3 D 44.7 D 43.7 D 70.1 E Alma St / Charleston Rd c P.M F 90.2 F 90.3 F 90.1 F 88.9 F F 94.3 F Alma St / The Circle East P.M C 19.3 C 19.4 C 19.3 C 19.4 C 21.9 C 28.0 D Mountain Cuesta Dr / Springer Rd A.M F F F F F F F View P.M F 71.5 F 71.3 F 71.5 F 67.0 F 81.3 F 81.0 F Sunnyvale Fremont Ave / Sunnyvale- Saratoga Rd b,c Santa Clara Lawrence Expy / Cabrillo Ave c A.M F F F F F F F P.M D 50.4 D 56.4 E 56.4 E 62.2 E 61.6 E 61.8 E Bowers Ave / Monroe St c P.M D 55.0 D 55.2 E 55.3 E 55.7 E 55.8 E 55.4 E San Tomas Expy / Benton St c P.M F 86.5 F 94.9 F 94.1 F 94.2 F 94.1 F 94.2 F Source: Traffic Operations Analysis Report in Appendix H. Notes: a Delay measured in seconds per vehicle. b Congestion Management Plan intersections designated by the VTA. c Signalized intersection. Bold Underline font represents locations and conditions where Build Alternatives would result in a significant impact relative to No Build Alternative. Only study intersections that would be significantly impacted by Build Alternatives are summarized in the table

32 There is very little change in peak hour delay or levels of service from the No Build to Build Alternatives at intersections on the Project corridor outside of the dedicated lane segments. Within the dedicated lane segments, most intersections maintain the same LOS as the No Build due to updated signal timing and diversion of vehicles to other routes. Table summarizes the delay and LOS for intersections that would exceed the significance thresholds, described in Section , during the A.M. or P.M. peak hours. As shown, the intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road in Palo Alto would experience a significant impact where the LOS deteriorates to F, under Alternative 4c during P.M. peak hour. Table Locations of Existing Left-Turn Lanes Eliminated by Project Alternative Alternatives City Location Alt 2 Alt 3a Alt 3b Alt 4a Alt 4b Alt 4c Santa Clara Main St X X X X X Pierce St X X X X X Morse Ln X X X X X Buchanan Dr X X X X X Alpine Ave X X X X X Lawrence Sq X X X X X Sunnyvale Between Maria Ln and Wolfe Rd X X X West of Maria Ln X X X Murphy Ave X* X* X* Taafe St X X X Between Mary Ave and Hollenbeck Ave X X X Mountain View Crestview Dr X X X West of Crestview Dr X X X Dale Ave X X X Between Yuba Dr and SR 85 X X Between Mariposa Ave and Pettis Ave X X Los Altos Distel Drive X* X* Ortega Ave X* X* Monroe Dr X Palo Alto Curtner Ave X* Fernando Ave X Olive Ave X Grant Ave X Cambridge Ave X* Source: Parsons Notes: X denotes left-turn lane eliminated: * denotes the removal of the existing traffic signal

33 Intersection Operation on Diversion Routes As traffic diverts away from El Camino Real because of the lane conversion to a dedicated lane, some intersections in the surrounding area may be affected because of the traffic diversion. To understand the impact on the surrounding roads, intersection LOS analysis was performed for 165 signalized and unsignalized intersections on identified diversion routes. Table summarizes the delay and LOS in 2018 for intersections that would exceed the significance thresholds, described in Section , during the A.M. or P.M. peak hours. Figures through show the impacted study intersections along the Project corridor and on diversion routes. The significantly impacted intersections are listed below. Alma Street / Addison Avenue, Palo Alto (Alternative 4c). Alma Street / Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto (Alternative 4c). Alma Street / Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto (Alternative 4c). Alma Street / Loma Verde Avenue, Palo Alto (Alternative 4c). Alma Street / Meadow Drive, Palo Alto (Alternative 4c). Alma Street / Charleston Road, Palo Alto (Alternative 4b). Alma Street / The Circle East, Palo Alto (Alternative 4c). Cuesta Drive / Springer Road, Mountain View (Alternatives 4b, 4c). Fremont Avenue / Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road, Sunnyvale (Alternatives 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 4c). Lawrence Expressway / Cabrillo Avenue, Santa Clara (Alternatives 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 4c). Bowers Avenue / Monroe Street, Santa Clara (Alternatives 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 4c). San Tomas Expressway / Benton Street, Santa Clara (Alternatives 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 4c). In summary, Alternatives 3a, 3b, and 4a would have a significant impact on the operation of four intersections; Alternative 4b would have a significant impact on the operation of six intersections; and Alternative 4c would have a significant impact on the operation of 11 intersections. Local roadway improvements, including signal optimization, signal installation, and roadway striping improvements are proposed as part of Mitigation Measure (MM) TRA-A to improve the operations and to reduce or eliminate the localized significant impact at the impacted intersections. Table summarizes the intersection impacts and the associated mitigation measures proposed to reduce these identified impacts. Detailed description of improvements at impacted intersections for each alterative is included in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report in Appendix H. For the intersections on the Project corridor impacted in 2018, VTA will include feasible improvements in Project construction. For the intersections off the Project corridor impacted in 2018, VTA will fund the full cost for feasible improvements to be undertaken by local jurisdictions. For improvements to be undertaken by local jurisdictions that involve minimal changes to the intersection, such as traffic signal optimization and roadway striping, there is strong evidence that the local jurisdiction can and should implement the mitigation since VTA is paying the full cost and the measure will benefit the community. For improvements to be undertaken by local jurisdictions that involve major changes to the intersection, such as new traffic signals, there is not a definite commitment by the local jurisdiction to implement the mitigation without

34 Source: DKS Associates Figure Impacted Study Intersections in San José Graphics ( ) Source: DKS Associates Figure Impacted Study Intersections in Santa Clara

35 Source: DKS Associates Figure Impacted Study Intersections in Sunnyvale Graphics ( ) Source: DKS Associates Figure Impacted Study Intersections in Mountain View

36 Source: DKS Associates Figure Impacted Study Intersections in Los Altos Graphics ( ) Source: DKS Associates Figure Impacted Study Intersections in Palo Alto