Innovative BRT Operating Solutions through a Congested Segment in San Jose

Transcription

1 Innovative BRT Operating Solutions through a Congested Segment in San Jose Michael Iswalt (Corresponding Author) Arup 560 Mission Street, 7th Floor, San Francisco, CA michael.iswalt@arup.com Phone: Fax: Corey Wong Arup 560 Mission Street, 7th Floor, San Francisco, CA corey.wong@arup.com Phone: Fax: Kevin Connolly Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) 3331 North First Street, Building B2, San Jose, CA kevin.connolly@vta.org Phone: Fax: Submitted for Presentation and Publication 90 th Annual Meeting Transportation Research Board Submitted July 30 th, 2010 WORD COUNT: 5,013 Words + 6 Figures + 3 Tables = 7,263 Words

2 Wong, Iswalt, Connolly ABSTRACT The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) recently developed a BRT Strategic Plan to establish a framework for BRT implementation. Stevens Creek Boulevard, an important east-west thoroughfare linking San Jose with Cupertino to the west, was one of three corridors selected for BRT service. To ensure the operating and ridership objectives along the Stevens Creek corridor, BRT must maintain adequate travel speeds and provide a convenient station location along the Valley Fair segment west of Downtown San Jose. Meeting these objectives will be a challenge because the segment is highly congested and right-of-way constrained. Major shopping centers, existing land uses, and an interstate freeway interchange are all factors that contribute to the operational challenges along the Valley Fair segment. These factors also limit any roadway widening and reconfiguration required to provide sufficient space for dedicated BRT lanes and station platforms. To provide some form of transit priority and a convenient BRT station at Valley Fair, a single reversible bus lane is proposed. This paper discusses the feasibility of a single reversible lane and key elements that led to a preferred configuration and operating plan. A range of options are evaluated including various station configurations and operating strategies. A microsimulation analysis of the options shows that a single reversible lane can generate significant operating benefits for BRT, while not significantly impacting mixed flow traffic. This paper and its results should encourage cities to consider single-lane reversible busways along constrained segments as part of a strategy to implement premium BRT service. Word Count: 249 words INTRODUCTION Overview of the Study The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates bus, light rail (LRT), and paratransit in Santa Clara County, California. The County includes San Jose and Silicon Valley and is located at the southern tip of San Francisco Bay. It has the largest population and job base in the San Francisco Bay Area (as of 2005 with million residents and 873,000 jobs). (1) In mid-2009, the VTA Board adopted the BRT Strategic Plan which calls for implementation of three BRT corridors. Stevens Creek Boulevard is one of three selected corridors for BRT it is an important east-west thoroughfare linking Downtown San Jose with Cupertino to the west. The Valley Fair segment of the corridor is congested and constrained by the presence of two regionally significant retail centers, several closely spaced intersections, and a major freeway interchange. At present, VTA bypasses this segment by operating on a parallel road to the north. However, the BRT Strategic Plan calls for direct service along Stevens Creek with a new station planned at Valley Fair. Analysis prior to the BRT Strategic Plan concluded that dual median bus lanes through the Valley Fair segment are infeasible. To provide direct BRT service on Stevens Creek through this area, several strategies have been proposed including an overhead viaduct and a single reversible bus lane. Against this backdrop, Arup was contracted by VTA to investigate the feasibility of a single reversible lane and identify the optimal configuration for such a lane using microsimulation modeling. This paper presents the analysis process, discusses the range of operating strategies, and highlights overarching recommendations and key decision factors in the evaluation of a single reversible BRT lane. Analysis approaches used and key lessons learned could be applicable to other cities that face similar issues with highly constrained and congested urban arterials that warrant BRT service, but lack the available right-of-way to provide two bus lanes for dedicated bi-directional operations.

3 Wong, Iswalt, Connolly Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) VTA is an independent special district responsible for bus, light rail (LRT), and paratransit operations, congestion management, specific highway improvement projects, and countywide transportation planning in Santa Clara Valley. VTA is both a transit provider and a multi-modal transportation planning organization. VTA operates several tiers of bus service (Community, Local, Limited Stop, Express, and Rapid) with 75 routes and three LRT lines (with 42 miles of service and 62 stations). As of 2009, VTA carries 112,000 bus and 34,000 LRT passengers per day. (2,3) BACKGROUND BRT Plans for the Stevens Creek Corridor The BRT Strategic Plan represents VTA s first step to implement BRT in the County and was adopted in mid-2009 by the VTA Board. The Strategic Plan calls for the implementation of three BRT corridors in the short-term. BRT would operate in a combination of dedicated median bus lanes and mixed flow lanes. BRT stations would allow for right-side boarding and be located at the far-side of intersections. Bus lanes would be 12 feet wide in each direction and separated from mixed flow traffic with a narrow concrete curb. One of the recommended corridors is the 8.6 mile Stevens Creek Corridor, which stretches along Stevens Creek Boulevard and links Downtown San Jose with Cupertino to the west. Stevens Creek Boulevard is primarily a six-lane corridor with clusters of medium-density residential and retail uses. Key destinations include major technology industry employers, two major educational institutions (San Jose State University and De Anza College), and several regionally significant retail centers. The two largest retail centers, Santana Row and the Valley Fair Mall, are located on opposite sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard near I-880 and Winchester Boulevard. Santana Row is a large mixed-use development consisting of 514 condominium residential units, 578,000 square feet of retail space, 114,000 square feet of office space, two dozen restaurants, a hotel and movie theater. Valley Fair Mall consists of 1.5 million square feet of retail space with 7,500 parking spaces. More intense commercial and residential development has been proposed along the corridor. Valley Fair Mall is planning an expansion of up to 600,000 square feet with an additional 3,000 parking spaces. These expansion plans are currently on hold. Future densification along the Stevens Creek Corridor is being considered by the Cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, and Cupertino in their General Plan updates. The BRT Strategic Plan calls for BRT to operate at 10-minute headways (BRT 523), complemented by locals operating at 15-minute headways (Local 23), and recommends dedicated median bus lanes in two segments along the corridor: (i) De Anza College to Finch Ave.; and (ii) Woodhams Road to MacArthur Ave. Outside of these lanes, BRT 523 would operate in mixed flow lanes. FIGURE 1 shows major destinations on the corridor and the proposed BRT operations.

4 Wong, Iswalt, Connolly 3 FIGURE 1 Stevens Creek BRT Corridor and Major Destinations

5 Wong, Iswalt, Connolly Valley Fair Segment Constraints and Limitations The Valley Fair segment is located at the midpoint of the Stevens Creek BRT corridor. The Valley Fair Mall and Santana Row are two major activity centers that attract shoppers and workers throughout the day. Direct BRT service along Stevens Creek Boulevard that serves a new Valley Fair Station will significantly improve accessibility to both malls from Downtown San Jose to the east as well as Cupertino to the west. The BRT Strategic Plan estimates that about 1,300 daily boardings per day will occur at a new Valley Fair Station. (3) Operating bus service along Stevens Creek is a challenge in fact, VTA currently operates its Local 23 around the north side of Valley Fair Mall to avoid heavy congestion and delay along this stretch of Stevens Creek. Direct BRT operations are hampered by the following limitations (shown in FIGURE 2): A constrained right-of-way that cannot be widened southwards due to existing development along the Santana Row side of Stevens Creek; A substantial volume of vehicle trips during the weekend PM (4:00-6:00PM) and weekday midday (1:00-3:00PM) periods from Valley Fair and Santana Row, particularly in the westbound direction; An outdated cloverleaf interchange at I-880 that imposes a series of difficult merging and weaving maneuvers along Stevens Creek; Freeway congestion on I-880 and I-280, combined with a series of complex connector ramps linking the two facilities; Several closely spaced intersections and driveways along Stevens Creek; Heavy left-turn volumes from Stevens Creek to Winchester Blvd., Valley Fair, and Santana Row from double left-turn lanes; and Insufficient left-turn lane storage capacity, with queues often spilling out of the turn lanes and blocking flows across Stevens Creek.

6 Wong, Iswalt, Connolly FIGURE 2 Major Congestion Points along Westbound Stevens Creek Single Reversible Bus Lane Concept Adoption of a single reversible bus lane for two-way operations is not a new concept, although its application is typically limited to relative short and highly constrained locations where road widening or removing travel lanes is considered infeasible. Within the US, examples of reversible transitways are limited and include a short reversible bus lane segment on the Emerald Express (EmX) in Eugene, Oregon and three short single-tracked segments on VTA s LRT system. The proposed reversible bus lane concept for Valley Fair would operate similar to single-tracked rail segments: The reversible segment is broken down into an individual block or a series of blocks. Only one vehicle may occupy a block at a given time. Entry to the block is controlled by signals at both ends of the block. Vehicles are held at control points prior to entry into a block. This is called block signaling. When one vehicle approaches the block, a loop detector or other device identifies the vehicle. This triggers a call to the signal, which determines whether the block is occupied (e.g., another vehicle is already in the block), or unoccupied (e.g., no vehicle is presently in the block). If the block is unoccupied, the vehicle is allowed to enter. If it is occupied, the vehicle will wait at a control point until the block is cleared.

7 Wong, Iswalt, Connolly Proposed BRT Operating Strategies through the Valley Fair Segment Direct BRT service through the Valley Fair segment can be provided in several ways. One option is to provide dual median bus lanes through this segment. However, initial studies undertaken concurrently with the BRT Strategic Plan conclude that right-of-way is insufficient to accommodate dual median bus lanes as recommended elsewhere on Stevens Creek. Two alternate strategies emerged during the BRT Strategic Plan: Elevated Viaduct A dual-lane transit-only viaduct would be built between Henry and MacArthur, including an elevated Valley Fair Station. Total cost for the elevated viaduct option is estimated at about $100 million. Single Reversible Bus Lane A single-lane reversible bus lane would be constructed along a 0.75 mile segment from Winchester Blvd. to MacArthur Ave. This segment would operate like a single-tracked rail block that is controlled by signals at both ends and only allow one vehicle to operate within each block at a given time. The cost for the reversible bus lane option is estimated at around $10 million. Due to the cost of the elevated viaduct, VTA decided to further explore the at-grade single reversible bus lane concept. STUDY GOALS This study builds on recommendations in the BRT Strategic Plan and assesses the potential for a singlelane reversible busway through the congested Valley Fair segment of the Stevens Creek BRT corridor. A VISSIM microsimulation model was developed to assess various operating strategies and inform design alternatives. Typical measures of effectiveness (MOEs) such as travel time, travel speed, and average delay are used to evaluate various operating and design alternatives. The goals of this study are to: Assess whether a reversible bus lane is operationally feasible; Determine whether the reversible bus lane should serve BRT exclusively or should be shared with local buses; Determine if the bus lane should operate in the peak direction of travel exclusively; Identify which portions of this segment should be reversible; Assess how the proposed Valley Fair station be configured; and Finally, determine the optimal reversible bus lane configuration to generate the best overall travel times for BRT, local bus, and automobiles. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Rationale for Microsimulation Microsimulation models were used to assess the reversible bus lane strategies and identify the optimal configuration. VISSIM was selected because of its ability to effectively analyze multiple travel modes and to model different transit schedules, non-standard physical geometries, and complex signal control logic all critical elements of the reversible lane concept.

8 Wong, Iswalt, Connolly Process The development of future BRT operating alternatives is a multi-phased and iterative process, done in collaboration with VTA staff from its Operations, Planning, and Congestion Management teams. This process is shown in FIGURE 3 and summarized below: An Existing Conditions Model is first developed to calibrate the VISSIM model within the study area. A future No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) is developed, which assumes BRT operations in mixed flow lanes along the Valley Fair segment. Traffic forecasts for this scenario were developed using VTA s regional travel demand model. This model reflects population and employment growth along the corridor. A future Base Alternative FIGURE 3 Alternatives Development Process (Alternative 2) is developed, which incorporates a fully reversible single lane busway (developed by the engineering firm Mark Thomas). Travel time and delay are evaluated for the No Build and Base alternatives. Key deficiencies with the Base Alternative are identified for instance conflict points with mixed flow traffic or congestion points causing delay. Three additional build alternatives (Alternatives 3-5) are then developed that combine various roadway design elements, operating strategies, and station configurations to address these shortcomings. These build alternatives undergo an initial screening to create a shortlist of the most promising build alternatives. The process is iterative, allowing new findings to influence the refinement of alternatives. This screening focuses only on benefits to BRT and local bus performance. The shortlist candidate alternatives are further refined, re-modeled, and evaluated using travel time and average delay as the Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs). The MOEs intend to assess multi-modal performance (BRT, local bus, and automobile), unlike the initial screening analysis. A preferred 2035 build alternative is then selected. This alternative will generate the best overall time savings benefits to BRT, local bus, and automobiles. VTA feedback and input is a constant throughout the study, but particularly in developing the build alternatives and refining operating and facility strategies. This arrangement proved successful in garnering buy-in from the various VTA departments, but also providing a quick means of sensitivity testing and refinement of certain elements of each alternative.

9 Wong, Iswalt, Connolly ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT Key Future Assumptions The operation of Stevens Creek Boulevard within the Valley Fair segment will change considerably in the future. Key assumptions to be modeled for the future 2035 scenarios are as follows: As recommended in the BRT Strategic Plan, BRT and local services are assumed to operate directly on Stevens Creek and serve a new Valley Fair station. A new Valley Fair Station will be built for BRT. Local services may also call at this station or a separate curbside station. The nearby I-880/Stevens Creek Boulevard interchange will be reconstructed. This will improve traffic flow on Stevens Creek by eliminating weaving, removing loop on-ramps and off-ramps, widening and realigning ramps, signalizing ramp intersections, and enhancing pedestrian and bicycle access. The bridge over I-880 will be widened and could then accommodate a single bus lane. Right-of-way takes will need to occur on the north side of the street within the Valley Fair Mall right-of-way due to built up developement on the Santana Row side. Any widening will require coordination with the owners of the Valley Fair Mall and any future development plans for the site. Important Design Considerations Key design variables in developing the build alternatives include: Bus Lane Operation / Transit Operating Strategy Individual blocks along the bus lane can operate two-way reversible or one-direction only. Local buses could potentially benefit from using the reversible bus lane if their presence would not degrade BRT operations. Control Points Buses hold at control points until they can safely enter a reversible block once it is unoccupied and clear. Control points are located at the endpoints of reversible segments. Transition Management The transition from mixed flow to median bus operations requires careful management and planning. Where unassisted merges into or out of mixed flow lanes generate excessive transit delay, queue jump lanes and transit pre-emption signals could be installed. Station Configuration / Location / Operation The Base Alternative assumes separate BRT and local station platforms at Valley Fair Station. BRT would serve far-side, median stations centered on the Santana Row intersection, with locals serving curbside stations. Another option could be a center platform configuration to concentrate rider activity at a single location and reduce confusion for infrequent or new transit users. A center platform configuration would require contraflow operations at the station. Alternative 1 vs. Alternative 2 As described in the process diagram, the No Build and the Base Alternative are first developed and then compared to highlight key operating deficiencies and congestion points. The No Build and Base Alternatives are summarized below: No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) This assumes BRT and local buses operate in mixed flow lanes through the Valley Fair segment without any bus lane enhancements. Today, VTA operates buses around the backside of Valley Fair Mall to avoid congestion on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Base Alternative (Alternative 2) The Base Alternative features a fully reversible lane (i.e., each block operates as a two-way reversible section) from Winchester to Bellerose just west of Bascom (a total length of 0.80 miles). Median Valley Fair Station BRT platforms straddle the

10 Wong, Iswalt, Connolly Santana Row intersection. Local buses operate in mixed flow lanes and serve curbside stations at the Santana Row intersection. Alternative 2 represents the most extensive adoption of reversible lanes of any of the build alternatives. These two alternatives are shown in FIGURE 4:

11 Wong, Iswalt, Connolly 10 Alternative 1 - Corridor Extents and BRT Operations Alternative 1 Valley Fair Station and Santana Row Intersection Zoom-In Alternative 2 - Corridor Extents (refer to Zoom-In View of Valley Fair Station below) Alternative 2 Valley Fair Station and Santana Row Intersection Zoom-In FIGURE 4 Layout and Operating Plan for Alternatives 1 and 2 When comparing the two alternatives, Alternative 2:

12 Wong, Iswalt, Connolly Significantly Improves WB BRT Travel Time WB BRT travel times improve by over 10% versus the No Build Alternative for both time periods. This seems logical as the westbound direction is the most congested and BRT vehicles would skip this entirely. Significantly Worsens EB BRT Travel Times Eastbound traffic congestion in mixed flow lanes is much lighter than in the westbound direction. However, BRT in the eastbound direction sees a significant worsening in travel times versus the No Build Alternative since BRT vehicles are held at control points of the reversible lane segment. Generates Negligible Travel Time Improvements for Locals - Local buses generally experience negligible travel time savings. This makes sense as local buses operate exclusively in mixed flow lanes, similar to how they would in the No Build Alternative. Based on these findings and additional investigation of the model and simulation runs, several key conclusions have been made as follows: Long Reversible Segments Impart Significant Delay BRT vehicles experience excessively long holding times waiting for vehicles to clear the 0.6 mile reversible segment between the station area and Bellerose Rd. These results indicated that designating the Bellerose Rd. to Baywood Ave. segment for one-way operation could improve overall performance. New Crossing across East Leg of Santana Row Intersection Negatively Impacts Traffic Operations A new crosswalk along the east leg of this intersection is required for pedestrians to access the EB BRT platform at Valley Fair Station. The simulation indicates that this new crossing would lengthen this phase and have a critical negative impact on traffic and local transit travel times along Stevens Creek. Westbound Use of the Bus Lane Holds Promise The Existing Conditions, No Build, and Alternative 2 models indicate that the westbound direction of travel remains the most congested, regardless of day or time. This implies that WB BRT (and locals if possible) should be given priority through congestion by operating in the bus lane. Eastbound traffic is less severe and less congestion is experienced it may be unnecessary to provide a bus lane for eastbound operations. Potential for BRT and Locals to Jointly Serve Median Valley Fair Station If the Baywood Ave. to Bellerose Rd. segment is designated for westbound operations only, it is possible that BRT and local buses could jointly serve a median Valley Fair Station. This could significantly reduce the potential for traffic conflicts between traffic turning into and out of the malls and the local curbside bus stops. Development of Other Build Alternatives and Initial Screening Based on these findings above, three variants of Alternative 2 are developed to address these shortcomings. These alternatives all assume a single lane configuration with more limited adoption of reversible operations around the Valley Fair station, combined with a long one-way block traversing the I- 880 interchange. TABLE 1 summarizes the operating strategies and design elements of all alternatives. FIGURE 5 presents the corridor-wide assumptions and Valley Fair station details for the three build alternatives (Alternatives 3-5).

13 Wong, Iswalt, Connolly TABLE 1 Description of Five Future 2035 Alternatives Alt. Name Bus Lane Operations Station Operations & Configuration 1 No Build Curbside platforms at Valley Fair intersections No bus lane east of Winchester (at far-side in WB direction and near-side in BRT and locals in mixed flow EB direction) traffic Curbside platforms for BRT and Locals 2 Median station with side platforms at far-side Bus lane from Bellerose Ave. to Fully of Santana Row intersection for BRT Curb Winchester Blvd. (BRT only) Reversible stations for locals only Three blocks, each fully reversible Bus Lane New crosswalk required on east leg of Santana Locals operate in mixed flow Row intersection 3 Median station with side platforms at far-side Short Short reversible sections from of Santana Row intersection for WB/EB BRT Reversible Winchester Blvd. to Baywood Ave. and WB local Lane with (for WB/EB BRT and WB locals) Near-side curb station for EB local Side Baywood to Bellerose WB only Platforms New crosswalk required on east leg of Santana (BRT and local) Row intersection Westbound- Entire bus lane is for WB Median side platform station for WB only 4 Only Bus operations only (BRT and local) (BRT and local) Lane No reversible bus segments Near-side curb station for EB (BRT and local) Similar to Alternative 3, except Short with center platform Center platform station for WB/EB BRT & Reversible Reversible segment from WB/EB locals 5 Lane Winchester to Baywood for all No curbside stations at Valley Fair with Center BRT and local buses Contraflow operations required to serve center Platform Baywood to Bellerose for WB platform station (for right-side boarding) operations only (BRT and local) Alternative 3 Corridor Extents (refer to Zoom-In View of Valley Fair Station below) Alternative 3 Valley Fair Station and Santana Row Intersection Zoom-In

14 Wong, Iswalt, Connolly 13 Alternative 4 Corridor Extents (refer to Zoom-In View of Valley Fair Station below) Alternative 4 Valley Fair Station and Santana Row Intersection Zoom-In Alternative 5 Corridor Extents (refer to Zoom-In View of Valley Fair Station below) Alternative 5 Valley Fair Station and Santana Row Intersection Zoom-In Stevens Creek 333 FIGURE 5 Corridor and Valley Fair Station Assumptions for Alternatives 3, 4 and 5

15 Wong, Iswalt, Connolly Initial Screening and Key Findings The four build alternatives are then screened against the No Build Project to assess effectiveness in reducing travel times for BRT and local buses during the weekend PM and the weekend mid-day (MD) periods. As shown in FIGURE 6, in general Alternatives 3 and 5 score the best in reducing travel times compared to the No Build case. Alternatives 2 and 4 both worsen BRT travel times in the eastbound direction Alternative 2 calls for eastbound BRT to hold at the control points of the long reversible segment between Baywood and Bellerose. Alternative 4 calls for eastbound BRT to serve curbside stations at the Santana Row intersection delay is incurred when BRT vehicles need to suddenly transition from the center median bus lane to the curbside lane between Winchester and Santana Row FIGURE 6 Corridor and Valley Fair Station Assumptions for Alternatives 3-5 Based on the analysis of the four build alternatives and the initial screening, several conclusions are apparent: Doing Something is Better Than Doing Nothing - The four build alternatives with a single bus lane provide measurable transit operating benefits over the No Build Alternative. Therefore, doing something is better than doing nothing. Long Holding Times Makes Alternative 2 Unattractive - Long holding times at control points can severely limit the effectiveness of the bus lane and can even make buses travel slower than adjacent mixed flow traffic. Poor EB Transit Performances Makes Alternative 4 Unattractive The point of the bus lane is to improve transit performance in both directions, not just one. Although WB transit performance improves in Alternative 4 versus the No Build Alternative since congestion is primarily in this direction of travel, EB transit should also benefit from the bus lane. The Alternative 4 concept of a westbound-only bus lane from Winchester Blvd. to Bellerose Rd. creates a situation where EB BRT and local service greatly suffers akin to the No Build Alternative where EB transit operates in mixed flow lanes. Alternatives 3 and 5 Appear the Most Promising Based on travel times against the No Build Alternative, and overall time savings benefits for BRT and local buses, Alternatives 3 and 5 appear to be the most promising and are selected for the shortlist of promising candidates. Designs and operating strategies for these two alternatives are refined in the following section to better balance travel time savings for all modes for Alternatives 3 and 5.

16 Wong, Iswalt, Connolly EVALUATION OF REFINED ALTERNATIVES Alternatives 3 and 5 were identified as the most promising of the four build alternatives. This section documents the results of the more refined operations microsimulation analysis and compares the performance of Alternatives 3 and 5 to the No Build Alternative. Operational Refinements While the underlying goal in developing the four build alternatives is to maximize transit performance through the study segment, automobile traffic and flow must not be overlooked. Analysis of model results and VTA discussions indicate that improved automobile performance could be attained by enhancing the signal timings and signal coordination. This could not only improve operations along Stevens Creek, but also minimize queuing on the I-880 ramp terminal intersections. Thus refinements to the VISSIM model to better optimize signal timings, coordination parameters, and the operations of the reversible bus lane blocks are made to the model and include the: Insertion of an overlap phase at the Stevens Creek / SB I-880 off-ramp intersection; Optimization of the traffic signal timing splits at each intersection; and Optimization of coordination parameters between closely spaced traffic signals from Winchester Blvd. to the I-880 interchange. These refinements focus on improving traffic signal progression throughout the corridor to lessen travel time impacts on automobiles. Analysis of Refined Shortlist Alternatives The refined analysis of Alternative 3 vs. Alternative 5 is based on two measures of effectiveness (MOE): Travel time and speed throughout the study area Average system delay, which is calculated by summing cumulative delay and dividing by the number of vehicles by mode during a given time period. Delay is defined as the difference between the modeled congested travel speed and the free flow travel speed (40 mph). TABLE 2 compares the travel time reductions generated by Alternative 3 versus those from Alternative 5 for BRT, local bus, and automobiles/trucks. In general, Alternative 5 provides the best all-around gains for the three travel modes tested during the two time periods. Also, Alternative 5 generates the largest: Travel time savings for BRT in the westbound Weekend MD period as well as during the Weekday PM period in both directions. Local bus travel time savings in the eastbound Weekend MD period and during the Weekday PM period in both directions. Automobile travel time savings in the Weekend MD period and during the Weekday PM period in the westbound direction; and Time savings for both directions during the Weekend MD period and the westbound Weekday PM period.

17 Wong, Iswalt, Connolly Time Period Weekday PM Weekend MD TABLE 2 Percentage Change in Travel Time vs. Alternative 1 % Reduction in Travel Time vs. Which Alternative Performs Direction Mode Alternative 1 (No Build) Better? Alternative 3 Alternative 5 Alternative 3 Alternative 5 BRT 20% 23% Westbound Local Bus 15% 25% Auto/Truck -1% 8% BRT 19% 20% Eastbound Local Bus 9% 13% Auto/Truck 13% -4% BRT 54% 61% Westbound Local Bus 43% 33% Auto/Truck 30% 37% BRT 18% 12% Eastbound Local Bus 11% 29% Auto/Truck 19% 37% Average system delay for each alternative in minutes by mode and time period is shown in TABLE 3. Overall, Alternative 5 generates the most significant reductions in average delay along the study corridor for all modes during the two test periods. For BRT during either time period, Alternative 5 generates the largest reduction in average delay. This reduction is most pronounced for WB BRT operations during the Weekend MD period where Alternative 5 reduces delay by about 20% more than Alternative 3 does. Time Period Weekday PM Weekend MD TABLE 3 - Average System Delay by Time Period by Mode Average Delay (Minutes) % Reduction in Average Delay vs. Alternative 1 (No Build) Alt. # BRT Local Bus Autos BRT Local Bus Autos % 34.8% 3.4% % 29.4% -3.1% % 38.1% 17.8% % 42.3% 26.4% Final Recommended Alternative In summary, after additional refinement and analysis, both Alternatives 3 and 5 generate significant operating benefits to BRT and local buses in terms of travel time/speed as well as reduced average delay and interchange performance compared to the No Build Alternative. Automobile performance is also generally enhanced by each of the refined alternatives. When comparing Alternative 3 to Alternative 5, Alternative 5 stands out as holding the most promise for the following reasons: Greater Travel Time Savings for All Modes Alternative 5 provides the best all-around travel time gains for all modes during the analysis periods. Even with local buses operating in the bus lane (with WB locals operating from Winchester Blvd. to Bellerose Rd. and EB locals operating from Winchester Blvd. to Baywood Ave.), Alternative 5 still shows greater travel time savings on average compared to the No Build Alternative than Alternative 3, in which only the WB BRT and locals operate in the bus lane.

18 Wong, Iswalt, Connolly Lower Average Delay per Vehicle - Alternative 5 generates the most significant reductions in average delay against the No Build Alternative along the study corridor for all modes during the two test periods. Joint BRT-Local Service to a Single, Combined Valley Fair Station Alternative 3 calls for WB/EB BRT and WB locals to serve side platform stations staggered across the Santana Row intersection. Alternative 5 calls for a single center platform to be served by BRT and locals in both directions. The center platform in Alternative 5 has the potential to provide a better ridership experience by providing one location for riders to board and alight buses. Alternative 5 also provides a better opportunity for a signature station at Valley Fair. No Need for New East Crosswalk at Santana Row The center platform configuration for Alternative 5 would be located west of the Santana Row intersection and would not require a new crosswalk on the east leg. Alternative 3 requires a new crossing along the east leg of the intersection to reach the eastbound median platform. This would reduce allocated time for Stevens Creek through movements and lengthen average journey times on Stevens Creek for transit as well as automobiles. Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Environment at Several Locations The center platform station for Alternative 5 would improve the pedestrian crossing experience at the Santana Row intersection by providing a wider median refuge. Alternative 5 also calls for a new signal at Henry Ave. to allow for transitions into and out of the bus lane for WB and EB locals. A new signal at Henry Ave. would create a new pedestrian crossing at a location that currently lacks signalized crossings. In conclusion, this study recommends that VTA proceed with Alternative 5 Short Reversible Lane with Center Platform as its preferred alternative. CONCLUSIONS AND GOING FORWARD Four reversible lane build alternatives are developed for the Valley Fair segment of Stevens Creek between Winchester Blvd. and Bascom Ave. since dual median bus lanes are deemed infeasible here. These alternatives are tested using VISSIM microsimulation models to assess feasibility. The four alternatives show the potential for reduced travel times for transit (BRT and local buses) compared to the future 2035 No Build Alternative. Two alternatives, Alternatives 3 and 5, exhibit the most promise for achieving reliable and fast transit service in both the eastbound and westbound directions and are shortlisted for additional refinement and analysis. Alternative 5 is recommended as the preferred solution as it generates the greatest overall travel time benefits for BRT, local bus, and automobiles/trucks. In addition, it generates the lowest average delay for various modes, allows for joint BRT-local use of a center platform Valley Fair Station that improves the crossing experience at Valley Fair, eliminates the need for a new east crosswalk, and also provides the opportunity for a new signature Valley Fair Station. Going forward, implementation of a reversible bus lane through Valley Fair has relevance today, even if the Stevens Creek BRT project will not be fully constructed in the foreseeable future. Construction of a Valley Fair Station and reversible lane would be an initial step in establishing direct and reliable transit service through this congested stretch and would help to expand the ridership base to/from Valley Fair and Santana Row with more convenient Local 23 service. This new facility could serve as the initial stage of a multi-phased BRT implementation process on Stevens Creek Blvd. that would eventually entail dual median bus lanes from De Anza College from Winchester Blvd. Key upcoming issues include coordinating with Valley Fair Mall and Santana Row on the right-of-way take needed, the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara, as well as Caltrans to assess potential impacts of a reversible bus lane on the interchange project.

19 Wong, Iswalt, Connolly This paper presents the analysis process, discusses the range of operating strategies, and highlights overarching recommendations and key decision factors in the evaluation of a single reversible BRT lane. Analysis approaches used and key lessons learned could be applicable to other cities that face similar issues with highly constrained and congested urban arterials that warrant BRT service, but lack the width to provide two bus lanes for dedicated bi-directional operations. This paper and its results encourage agencies to look beyond traditional solutions and at the very least investigate alternate operating strategies to provide premium BRT service to worthy areas, regardless of geometric constraints. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors want to thank VTA staff who provided extensive support and guidance to the Valley Fair BRT microsimulation study development: Andrew Ittigson, Chris Augenstein, Jim Unites, Kermit Cuff, George Naylor, Jason Tyree, David Kobayashi, and Eric Rosenberg. We also want to acknowledge the contributions of William Baumgardner and Anthony Bruzzone of Arup for reviewing and providing keen insight. REFERENCES 1. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Projections VTA Website. Access July 28, VTA Website. Access July 28, Analysis of VTA Demand Data, January 2009.