STATE ROUTE 85 CORRIDOR POLICY ADVISORY BOARD. Monday, December 10, :00 AM AGENDA

Transcription

1 STATE ROUTE 85 CORRIDOR POLICY ADVISORY BOARD Monday, December 10, :00 AM Cupertino Community Hall Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA CALL TO ORDER AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS: This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons desiring to address the Committee on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to 2 minutes. The law does not permit Committee action or extended discussion on any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Committee action is requested, the matter can be placed on a subsequent agenda. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing. 3. ORDERS OF THE DAY 4. Receive Committee Staff Report. (Verbal Report) (Augenstein) CONSENT AGENDA 5. ACTION ITEM -Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of February 26, ACTION ITEM -Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of May 21, REGULAR AGENDA 7. PRESENTATION ITEM -Receive presentation on State Route 85 Transit Guideway Study Status. 8. DISCUSSION ITEM -Receive presentation on reversible lanes in other cities and potential application to State Route PRESENTATION ITEM -Receive a presentation on freeway-based bus transit in other cities.

2 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board Monday, December 10, ANNOUNCEMENTS 11. ADJOURN In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, VTA will make reasonable arrangements to ensure meaningful access to its meetings for persons who have disabilities and for persons with limited English proficiency who need translation and interpretation services. Individuals requiring ADA accommodations should notify the Board Secretary s Office at least 48-hours prior to the meeting. Individuals requiring language assistance should notify the Board Secretary s Office at least 72-hours prior to the meeting. The Board Secretary may be contacted at (408) or board.secretary@vta.org or (408) (TTY only). VTA s home page is on the web at: or visit us on Facebook at: (408) : 中文 / Español / 日本語 / 한국어 / tiếng Việt / Tagalog. All reports for items on the open meeting agenda are available for review in the Board Secretary s Office, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California, (408) , the Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday prior to the meeting. This information is available on VTA s website at and also at the meeting. Page 2 of 2

3 5 State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board Monday, February 26, 2018 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board (SR 85) was called to order at 10:01 a.m. by Chairperson McAlister in Community Hall, Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. 1. ROLL CALL Attendee Name Title Representing Status Mary-Lynne Bernald Alternate Member City of Saratoga Absent Jeannie Bruins Member City of Los Altos Present Barry Chang Alternate Member City of Cupertino Absent Burton Craig Alternate Member City of Monte Sereno Absent Marcia Jensen Alternate Member City of Los Gatos Absent Sergio Jimenez Member City of San José Absent Larry Klein Member City of Sunnyvale Absent Susan Landry Alternate Member City of Campbell Absent Lynette Lee Eng Alternate Member City of Los Altos Absent John McAlister Chairperson City of Mountain View Present Russ Melton Alternate Member City of Sunnyvale Present Howard Miller Vice Chairperson City of Saratoga Present Marico Sayoc Member City of Los Gatos Absent Leonard Siegel Alternate Member City of Mountain View Absent Rod Sinks Member City of Cupertino Present Rowena Turner Member City of Monte Sereno Absent Rich Waterman Member City of Campbell Present Vacant Alternate Member City of San José n/a Vacant Member County of Santa Clara n/a Vacant Alternate Member County of Santa Clara n/a Bijan Sartipi Ex-Officio Member Caltrans Absent Dan McElhinney Alt. Ex-Officio Member Caltrans Absent A quorum was present. 2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS Roland Lebrun, Interested Citizen, commented about the low ridership on Express Bus Line 185 and suggested an alternate solution. Jim Stallman, Interested Citizen, made the following comments: 1) referenced VTA s recent report on Interstate 280 and recommended a similar report for State Route (SR) 85;

4 5 and 2) requested VTA consider adding a high occupancy lane connection on the Saratoga Avenue on-ramp to SR 85. Connie Cunningham, Interested Citizen, made the following comments: 1) expressed support for light rail and bus rapid transit and opposed flex lanes on SR 85; 2) urged VTA to continue with the study; and 3) an aerial option may be suitable for the narrow areas of SR 85. Raphael Villagracia, Interested Citizen, commented on the following: 1) expressed concern about the lack of student input; and 2) survey results indicate students from De Anza, Foothill, and Evergreen Community Colleges support public transit. Ashley Jahja, Interested Citizen, made the following comments: 1) international students rely on VTA to get around; and 2) expressed gratitude for the EcoPass. 3. ORDERS OF THE DAY There were no Orders of the Day. 4. Committee Staff Report Chris Augenstein, Director of Planning & Programming and Staff Liaison, noted that the SR 85 Study is on hold due to funding constraints. On order of Chairperson McAlister and there being no objection, the Committee received the Committee Staff Report. CONSENT AGENDA 5. Regular Meeting Minutes of November 21, 2017 M/S/C (Miller/Sinks) to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of November 21, Regular Meeting Minutes of December 11, 2017 M/S/C (Miller/Sinks) to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of December 11, RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] Consent Agenda Items #5-6 MOVER: Howard Miller, Vice Chairperson SECONDER: Rod Sinks, Member AYES: Bruins, McAlister, Melton, Miller, Sinks, Waterman NOES: None ABSENT: Jimenez, Sayoc, Turner NOTE: M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board Page 2 of 5 Monday, February 26, 2018

5 5 REGULAR AGENDA 7. SR 85 Transit Guideway Study (Study) Overview and Schedule Adam Burger, Senior Transportation Planner, provided a presentation entitled, State Route 85 (SR 85) Transit Guideway Study: Study Progress. Committee and Staff discussion ensued regarding the progress of the Study. Public Comment Roberta Holliman, League of Women Voters, made the following comments: 1) expressed concern that BART will consume all of the 2016 Measure B funds; and 2) urged VTA to not pause the study. Mr. Lebrun made the following comments: 1) prioritize projects based on vehicle miles traveled; and 2) look to private sector for funding. Steven Levin, Interested Citizen, made the following comments: 1) trips include the whole trip not just the portion on SR 85; 2) light rail is currently underutilized on SR 85 and SR 87; and 3) residents want to use their cars. On order of Chairperson McAlister and there being no objection, the Committee received the State Route 85 (SR 85) Transit Guideway Study Overview and Schedule. 8. SR 85 Transit Guideway Study Funding Status Mr. Burger provided a presentation entitled, State Route 85 (SR 85) Transit Guideway Study: Funding Status. Members of the Committee discussed the following: 1) other possible funding options; 2) VTA Board of Directors (Board) perceived support for SR 85 projects; 3) use of light rail versus single driver cars; and 4) continuing the momentum with regard to the study. Committee Members will discuss partially financing the Study with their City Managers, Board Members will bring up the funding issue at a future Board meeting, and staff will look again for money. Public Comment Mr. Lebrun commented on the following: 1) 2000 Measure A money; and 2) finishing the study through the private sector or from the interested cities transportation funds. Savita Vaidhyanathan, Interested Citizen, inquired about using the interest from the collected tax money to continue the study. Mr. Levin noted that taking an action on an item not listed as action on the agenda is a Brown Act violation. On order of Chairperson McAlister and there being no objection, the Committee received the State Route 85 (SR 85) Transit Guideway Study Funding Status. State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board Page 3 of 5 Monday, February 26, 2018

6 SR 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board Meeting Schedule Mr. Lawson directed attention to the SR 85 Corridor PAB meetings scheduled for Members of the Committee requested a meeting be held in mid-april Public Comment Mr. Lebrun recommended the Committee meet bi-monthly. M/S/C (Bruins/Miller) to approve the 2018 State Route (SR) 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board Meeting Schedule. The Committee further requested that a meeting be held in mid- April RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS] Jeannie Bruins, Member Howard Miller, Vice Chairperson Bruins, McAlister, Melton, Miller, Sinks, Waterman None Jimenez, Sayoc, Turner 10. Hypothetical Transit Travel Speed Analysis Mr. Burger provided a presentation entitled, State Route 85 (SR 85) Transit Guideway Study: Hypothetical Transit Travel Speeds. Member Melton left his seat at 11:23 a.m., the quorum was lost, and a Committee of the Whole was declared. Member Melton returned to his seat at 11:24 a.m. and a quorum was re-established. Members of the Committee discussed the following: 1) bus on shoulder; 2) light rail speed; and 3) finding the right number of train cars to make light rail effective. Public Comment Mr. Lebrun commented about the following: 1) station design; and 2) difference between bus rapid transit and express buses. Jim Sutton, Interested Citizen, commented on the following: 1) first mile and last mile difficulty; 2) light rail ridership is declining in other areas as well; and 3) expressed concern with cost of light rail. Mr. Levin commented on the following: 1) the number of people who travel the whole length of SR 85 is low; and 2) time savings when using transit is replaced with wait time. Chairperson McAlister requested the Senate Bill number for the pilot of bus on shoulder. State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board Page 4 of 5 Monday, February 26, 2018

7 5 On order of Chairperson McAlister and there being no objection, the Committee received the Hypothetical Transit Travel Speed Analysis. 11. Transit Costing Analysis and Peer Agency Comparison Mr. Burger provided a presentation entitled State Route 85 (SR 85) Transit Guideway Study: Transit Operating Costs and Peer Comparison. Chairperson McAlister requested the cost of an aerial design. On order of Chairperson McAlister and there being no objection, the Committee received the Transit Costing Analysis and Peer Agency Comparison. 12. Corporate Shuttle Operations Analysis Mr. Burger provided a presentation entitled State Route 85 (SR 85) Transit Guideway Study: Corporate Shuttle Operations Analysis. Due to the lack of time to adequately discuss Agenda Item #11: Transit Costing Analysis and Peer Agency Comparison and Agenda Item #12: Corporate Shuttle Operations Analysis, the Committee requested both items be brought back at the April meeting to be scheduled. Public Comment Mr. Lebrun commented about the following: 1) expense of light rail; 2) Caltrain from Gilroy; and 3) Transportation Network Companies being used in San Francisco. Mr. Augenstein noted that if Members have comments or questions to send them to the Board Secretary. Staff will provide answers at a future meeting. On order of Chairperson McAlister and there being no objection, the Committee received the Corporate Shuttle Operations Analysis. 13. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairperson McAlister provided a handout that reflected a comparison of lighter December 2017 holiday traffic to normal traffic. 14. ADJOURNMENT On order of Chairperson McAlister and there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 12:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Thalia Young, Board Assistant VTA Office of the Board Secretary State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board Page 5 of 5 Monday, February 26, 2018

8 6 State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board Monday, May 21, 2018 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board (SR 85) was called to order at 10:12 a.m. by Chairperson Pro Tem Sinks in Mountain View City Hall, Council Chambers, 500 Castro Street, 2 nd Floor, Mountain View, California. 1. ROLL CALL Attendee Name Title Representing Status Mary-Lynne Bernald Alternate Member City of Saratoga Absent Jeannie Bruins Member City of Los Altos Present Barry Chang Alternate Member City of Cupertino Absent Burton Craig Alternate Member City of Monte Sereno Absent Marcia Jensen Alternate Member City of Los Gatos Absent Sergio Jimenez Member City of San José Present Larry Klein Member City of Sunnyvale Present Susan Landry Alternate Member City of Campbell Absent Lynette Lee Eng Alternate Member City of Los Altos Absent John McAlister Chairperson City of Mountain View Present Russ Melton Alternate Member City of Sunnyvale Absent Howard Miller Vice Chairperson City of Saratoga Absent Marico Sayoc Member City of Los Gatos Present Leonard Siegel Alternate Member City of Mountain View Absent Rod Sinks Member City of Cupertino Present Rowena Turner Member City of Monte Sereno Absent Rich Waterman Member City of Campbell Absent Vacant Alternate Member City of San José n/a Vacant Member County of Santa Clara n/a Vacant Alternate Member County of Santa Clara n/a Bijan Sartipi Ex-Officio Member Caltrans Absent Dan McElhinney Alt. Ex-Officio Member Caltrans Absent A quorum was not present and a Committee of the Whole was declared. 2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS Roland Lebrun, Interested Citizen, made the following comments: 1) suggested using a mapping app, such as Google, that reroutes traffic based upon traffic conditions; and 2) expressed concern about the misappropriation of 2016 Measure B funds. Chairperson McAlister took his seat at 10:14 a.m. and a quorum was established.

9 6 Chairperson Pro Tem Sinks relinquished his seat to Chairperson McAlister who presided over the remainder of the meeting. 3. ORDERS OF THE DAY There were no Orders of the Day. 4. Committee Staff Report There was no Committee Staff Report. CONSENT AGENDA 5. Regular Meeting Minutes of February 26, 2018 M/S/F (Bruins/Klein) on a vote of 5 ayes to 0 noes to 1 abstention to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of February 26, Member Jimenez abstained. RESULT: FAILED Agenda Item #5 MOVER: Jeannie Bruins, Member SECONDER: Larry Klein, Member AYES: Bruins, Klein, McAlister, Sayoc, Sinks NOES: None ABSTAIN: Jimenez ABSENT: Miller, Turner, Waterman REGULAR AGENDA 6. SR-85 Transit Corridor Funding Study Options Adam Burger, Senior Transportation Planner, provided a presentation entitled, State Route 85 (SR 85) Transit Guideway Study: Request Additional Funding, highlighting the following: 1) Other Funding Source Strategy; and 2) City Funding Strategy with Repayment. Members of the Committee discussed the following: 1) the 2016 Measure B lawsuit; and 2) looking to the cities and private sector for funding. Public Comment Savita Vaidhyanathan, Interested Citizen, made the following comments: 1) inquired if similar funds being used for the Light Rail Safety and Speed Pilot Project in downtown San Jose can be used for the SR 85 study; and 2) finding other VTA funding sources. Mr. Lebrun made the following comments: 1) using 2000 Measure A operational funds will sacrifice service; 2) discontinuing the light rail Express; and 3) rescinding 2016 Measure B and bring a rewritten version to the voters. NOTE: M/S/F MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED. State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board Page 2 of 4 Monday, May 21, 2018

10 6 M/S/C (Sinks/Jimenez) to recommend that the VTA Board of Directors consider providing additional non-2016 Measure B funding to State Route (SR) 85 Transit Guideway Study. Further the Committee directed staff to remind the VTA Committees of the promises made as part of 2000 Measure A which have not been fulfilled. RESULT: APPROVED Agenda Item #6 MOVER: Rod Sinks, Member SECONDER: Sergio Jimenez, Member AYES: Bruins, Jimenez, Klein, McAlister, Sayoc, Sinks NOES: None ABSENT: Miller, Turner, Waterman 7. Transit Costing Analysis and Peer Agency Comparison Mr. Burger provided a presentation entitled, State Route 85 (SR 85) Transit Guideway Study: Transit Operating Costs and Peer Comparison. highlighting the following: 1) Light Rail and Bus Hourly Operating Costs; 2) Reasons for light rail operating cost variation; 3) VTA/Boston Light Rail Comparison; and 4) VTA Operating Costs. The Committee engaged in discussion about bringing light rail costs down. On order of Chairperson McAlister and there being no objection, the Committee received a presentation on light rail and bus cost components and peer agency comparison. 8. Preview of Phase 2 of the SR 85 Transit Guideway Study Mr. Burger provided a presentation entitled, State Route 85 (SR 85) Transit Guideway Study: Preview of Phase II: Developing Project Alternatives. highlighting the following: 1) Project Process; 2) Study Phase; 3) VTA Board Decision; 4) Project Phase; 5) Revenue Service; 6) Potential Project Timeline and Costs; and 7) Summary. Member Klein left the meeting at 11:17 a.m. and a Committee of the Whole was declared. Members of the Committee discussed the following: 1) transit and express lanes; 2) funding for the study; and 3) priorities will be fluid and based on funding opportunities. Public Comment Member Sayoc left the meeting at 11:40 a.m. Mr. Lebrun made the following comments: 1) planning based on what is in the future; 2) discontinuing additional funding for light rail until it works smoothly; and 3) make every new lane a managed lane instead of express lanes. NOTE: M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board Page 3 of 4 Monday, May 21, 2018

11 6 On order of Chairperson McAlister and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received a presentation on a preview of Phase 2 of the SR 85 Transit Guideway Study. 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS Member Sinks commented on the recent articles published about the SR 85 study. Member Bruins reminded Committee Members to talk with their City Manager and colleagues in the City Council about the potential request from VTA to help fund the study. 10. ADJOURNMENT On order of Chairperson McAlister and there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Thalia Young, Board Assistant VTA Office of the Board Secretary State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board Page 4 of 4 Monday, May 21, 2018

12 7 Date: December 4, 2018 Current Meeting: December 10, 2018 Board Meeting: N/A BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez Director - Planning & Programming, Chris Augenstein SR 85 Transit Guideway Study Status FOR INFORMATION ONLY BACKGROUND: Progress on the State Route 85 Transit Guideway Study was halted by the ongoing lawsuit against 2016 Measure B. An earlier infusion of non-measure B funding that allowed the study to complete its first phase, which analyzed the travel market, conducted a corridor constraints analysis and undertook an initial round of community engagement, has run out. This memo recaps the status of the lawsuit, the effort undertaken to secure additional non-measure B funding, work done to date and the work remaining in phases II and III of the study. DISCUSSION: 2016 Measure B Lawsuit The lawsuit against 2016 Measure B has been dealt setbacks at Santa Clara County Superior Court and the State of California Court of Appeals. Nevertheless, the plaintiff has appealed the verdict to the California State Supreme Court, which must determine if whether to hear the case. That decision may not be made until the first quarter of If the California State Supreme Court elects to hear the case, it could result in an additional year or two of delay until Measure B funds can be applied to Santa Clara County s transportation needs. Pursuit of alternate funding In summer 2018, VTA reached out to MTC to discuss the possibility of securing funding for the remaining work on the State Route 85 Transit Guideway Study. In July 2018, MTC accommodated VTA s interest by approving a loan of $1.2 million to VTA that would be comprised of federal STP and/or CMAQ funds. These funds would be reallocated unspent regional funds and would come to VTA via an amendment to VTA s agreement with MTC regarding receipt of Congestion Management Agency (CMA) planning funds. This reallocation

13 7 is expected to occur in the first quarter of Repayment of the loan would come from 2016 Measure B, assuming favorable judicial resolution. Repayment would not be required if the plaintiff prevails. The steps toward acquiring the $1.2 million loan are listed below. Step Responsible Status Party MTC approves STP/CMAQ Loan to VTA MTC Complete VTA Board approves loan and authorizes VTA General VTA Complete Manager to execute necessary agreements MTC and VTA execute loan agreement MTC & VTA Complete MTC amends STP/CMAQ funding for the loan into the MTC In Process Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Caltrans/FHWA approve MTC s FTIP amendment MTC Pending MTC requests FHWA authorization through Caltrans to MTC Future proceed with reimbursable work on the STP/CMAQ funds FHWA authorizes use of the funds FHWA Future MTC and VTA amend VTA s agreement for CMA MTC & VTA Future planning fund VTA begins reimbursable work on SR-85 study VTA Future Phase I - Understanding Existing Conditions The Travel Market Analysis, Corridor Constraints Analysis and initial community engagement that occurred during Phase I was intended to provide the PAB and staff with an understanding of transportation in the SR 85 corridor that would assist them in designing concepts for a transit lane project on SR 85. Key findings include: Travel demand exceeds capacity in the northbound AM and southbound PM directions on weekdays resulting in travel speeds that dip below 20 miles per hour, but SR 85 is generally underutilized at other times and directions. As such, a transit service could likely be time-competitive with driving only during peak periods and in the peak direction. This suggests that transit in the corridor may struggle to record ridership that would justify operating service outside of the peak period. Trips along the SR 85 corridor are an amalgamation of many overlapping trip patterns with no dominant origin-destination pairs. This suggests that an all-stop service pattern would be more appropriate than an express or skip-stop service pattern. Most respondents to an online survey indicated interest in switching from driving along the corridor to taking transit if the overall trip time would be time-competitive with driving. Corporate shuttles are more plentiful in the northern end of the corridor, but VTA was unable to gain any information about how many passengers they carry. The longer the trip along the SR 85 corridor, the greater the time savings that can be Page 2 of 4

14 7 achieved by transit riders. As such, transit is more likely to be attractive to those making long trips as time saved en route will offset time spent accessing the station, waiting for transit to arrive and time spent accessing the destination. The low-density, suburban urban form that lines the corridor does not place high concentrations of people near the corridor. Attracting ridership may require expanding the travel shed around station by providing adjacent parking or accommodating bicycle, scooter, and TNC last mile solutions. A light rail project alternative would have greater right-of-way impacts and higher costs than a bus alternative. Phase II - Developing Project Alternatives Phase II will be distinct from phases I and III in that it will be a collaborative and creative effort between the PAB and staff to develop concepts that will be analyzed in greater detail in Phase III. Given project budget, staff bandwidth and an interest in expediting the completion study, narrowing the list of alternatives to four is ideal. An alternative should consist of four elements: A statement of the problem and how the alternative addresses the problem A travel mode (bus, light rail, other) An envisioned operating plan (when and how frequently the service operates) Rough boundaries of the project (does it exist entirely within the SR 85 corridor? Does it extend beyond or deviate from the corridor?) VTA staff will prime this collaborative discussion by developing some basic alternative concepts that can be modified or discarded by the PAB. Phase III - Alternatives Analysis and Community Engagement During this phase, staff will conduct an alternatives analysis of the project designs that the PAB has elected to pursue. The alternatives analysis will compare each of the alternatives across a series of criteria. Standard topics of analysis include: Constructability Right-of-Way Requirements Cost - capital and operations/maintenance Transit Operations - travel time savings, reliability, fleet and employment requirements Potential Ridership Traffic Operations/Safety Potential Environmental Impacts/Mitigations Required - for air quality, noise, land use (parks, open space, sensitive receptors), cultural resources, hydrology, hazardous materials, traffic/transportation and biological impacts Consistency with Current Plans and Policies Funding Potential Page 3 of 4

15 7 Institutional Considerations Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Assessment Project Benefits - reduction in drive alone trips, VMT change, quality of life/mobility choices and economic benefits Upon completion of the alternative analysis, a second round of community engagement will be undertaken that will ask the public to review the alternatives and weigh in on which alternative(s) they prefer and how likely they are to use them. This input will help inform the recommendation that the PAB makes to VTA s Board of Directors about an investment decision for the corridor. PAB Recommendation to VTA Board of Directors The PAB will recommend an investment decision to VTA s Board of Directors. An investment decision is not a specific project design, but rather a statement about the general form of a future project. Prepared By: Adam Burger Memo No Page 4 of 4

16 SR 85 Transit Guideway Study Study Status December 10, 2018

17 2016 Measure B lawsuit County Superior Court Appellate Court State Supreme Court Ruling favorable to VTA Ruling favorable to VTA Pending interest 2

18 Pursuit of alternate funding MTC loan MTC approves STP/CMAQ loan to VTA MTC Complete VTA Board approves loan VTA Complete MTC and VTA execute loan agreement MTC & VTA Complete MTC amends STP/CMAQ funding for FTIP MTC In Process Caltrans/FHWA approve MTC s FTIP amendment MTC Pending MTC requests FHWA auth. to proceed with work MTC Future FHWA authorizes use of the funds FHWA Future MTC and VTA amend agreement for CMA planning fund MTC & VTA Future VTA begins reimbursable work on SR 85 study VTA Future 3

19 SR 85 TGS Study Phase I Peaked, directional travel pattern SR 85 traffic is an amalgamation of overlapping trips Survey: Public interested in non driving option, if fast Corporate shuttles more plentiful in north Longer trips are more attractive to transit 4

20 SR 85 TGS Study Phase II Develop project alternatives Statement of problem to be addressed Travel mode (bus, rail, other) Envisioned operating plan (when and how frequent) Rough project boundaries 5

21 SR 85 TGS Study Phase III Study project alternatives Benefits Feasibility, impacts Costs Community Engagement Round 2 6

22 8 Date: December 4, 2018 Current Meeting: December 10, 2018 Board Meeting: N/A BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez Director - Planning & Programming, Chris Augenstein Reversible Lanes Analysis FOR INFORMATION ONLY BACKGROUND: The SR 85 PAB Chair, John McAlister, recently asked staff to look into the potential for a reversible lane treatment on State Route 85 (SR 85). Such treatments have been implemented on freeway facilities to address directional commute patterns that result in one direction of the freeway being underutilized and one side being over capacity. This brief memo evaluates three different types of reversible lane treatments that have been implemented in other jurisdictions and how SR 85 would need to be modified to accommodate a reversible lane. DISCUSSION: Presently, a directional commute pattern exists on SR 85. On weekdays, travel demand in the peak directions-northbound in the morning and southbound in the evening-exceeds capacity, resulting in a flow rate of about 5,000 vehicles per hour at speeds that are often under 20 MPH. When travel speeds are around 40 MPH, a three-lane freeway can maximize flow rate, reaching around 6,000 vehicles per hour. In the off-peak direction, vehicle volumes peak around 3,000 vehicles per hour-well within the capacity of a two-lane facility. Converting the freeway from a 3:3 lane configuration to a 4:2 configuration would could convert excess capacity in the off-peak direction into additional capacity in the peak direction. Such a treatment would be most applicable to the segment of SR85 west of SR 87 as the presence of light rail tracks in the median east of SR 87 would present a serious design challenge. We evaluate three different reversible lane treatments below. Photos and diagrams of each are included in Attachment A. Golden Gate Bridge The Golden Gate Bridge uses a zipper machine to move a heavy plastic barrier to change the

23 8 northbound and southbound lanes on the six-lane facility between 2:4, 3:3 and 4:2 configurations. The change is made during off-peak periods. The Golden Gate Bridge is a unique facility in that it does not need to accommodate access to on-ramps or off-ramps in its design since drivers who enter the bridge must exit the other side. As such, right of way impacts from entry and exit lanes are non-existent. The Golden Gate Bridge also has no physical support structures located in the median as the towers that suspend the bridge are located along the outside edge of the roadway. This allows the zipper machine to travel unimpeded across the bridge. I-90: Chicago Skyway The Chicago Skyway features two reversible lanes in the median of the roadway that are used for directional travel. Both lanes travel in the same direction and access to the median lanes is controlled by gates at on ramps that prohibit entering the median lanes in a contraflow direction. Entering and exiting the facility occurs at widely-spaced on and off ramps that resemble the letter N where the diagonal segment connects the median reversible lanes to the general purpose lane. Since the entry and exit lanes are at an angle, accommodating them requires more roadway width than a standard travel lane, perhaps 20 or more feet. I-15 between San Diego and Escondido Four express lanes are present in the median of I-15 between SR 78 and SR 163, north of San Diego. The right-of-way for the lanes had initially been reserved for light rail; however, after study, these were converted to carpool lanes and subsequently express lanes. The four lanes are physically separated from general purpose lanes by concrete barriers with occasional openings to allow vehicles to enter and exit. Within the four express lanes, a moveable barrier allows directional capacity to be managed, ranging from 1:3 to 3:1 configurations. Like the Golden Gate Bridge and Chicago Skyway, there are no support structures located between lanes. Rather, they are located in-line with the concrete barriers separating the express lanes from the generalpurpose lanes. Like the Chicago Skyway, I-15 uses N type entry and exit lanes, but they do not use gates to control access as at least one lane is open in each direction at all times and each travel direction is divided by a physical barrier. I-15 also uses flyover ramps to connect the express lanes directly with other interchanges. SR 85 Application Given current traffic flows, the ability to make lanes reversible on SR 85 would allow the configuration of the facility to better match vehicle demand. At this very high level of analysis, it is not clear how that could best be achieved and would likely vary by corridor segment due to varying widths. Such lanes may not be feasible in narrow sections of SR 85 or where existing physical structures constrain right-of-way. Should the PAB desire to study this idea further an engineering analysis could shed more light on design challenges. A partial list of issues that would need to be addressed are described below. Median support structures - Every overpass of SR 85 features concrete support posts anchored into the median. Ideally reversible lanes would not be separated from each other by any physical objects so that vehicles are not forced to drive through a tollboothsized opening at freeway speeds. Relocating the support posts would require redesigning Page 2 of 3

24 8 and reconstructing the overpasses at a very high cost. Right-of-way constraints - In narrow sections of the corridor, it is unlikely that entry and exit lanes can be incorporated within the existing right-of-way. The freeway would need to be widened to provide such access or travelers in the section between US 101 North to I-280 may not be able to enter or exit the lane. An analysis of trip origins and destinations using mobile device location data found that trips on SR 85 are an amalgamation of many overlapping trips and many that travel in the section north of I- 280 are accessing facilities like El Camino Real and Central Expressway. El Camino Real is where the greatest volume of corporate shuttles were observed. As such, excluding entry and exit access in this narrow segment may diminish the appeal of a reversible lane treatment. Possible inefficient use of space - As seen in the Chicago Skyway diagram in Attachment A, whichever entry/exit ramps carry vehicles in the off-peak direction will not be open to vehicles. Finding additional space for entry/exit lanes that can be only utilized 50 percent of the time may not be the best use of space. Responsibility and Maintenance - Maintaining a reversible lane facility will require ongoing maintenance and perhaps daily monitoring to verify that automated mechanisms like gates have been correctly and completely deployed. It is unknown if Caltrans would welcome acquiring such a responsibility or how it would be funded. Some express lane facilities collect revenue from users to pay for ongoing costs. Prepared By: Adam Burger Memo No Page 3 of 3

25 8.a Attachment A Reversible Lane Facilities Attachment A Golden Gate Bridge A zipper machine moves the flexible barrier from a 4:2 to a 3:3 lane configuration.

26 8.a Chicago Skyway Entry Control Attachment A Metal gates prevent vehicles from entering the reversible lanes in the wrong direction. The gates retract to allow vehicles to access the reversible lane.

27 8.a Chicago Skyway View inside reversible lanes Attachment A Signs and overpasses straddle the reversible lanes. Chicago Skyway Entry/exit lanes diagram As shown in the above diagram, the design of the Chicago Skyway requires space for entry and exit lanes (shown in gold) for travelers changing between the reversible and general purpose lanes. The pink brackets mark the right of way needed for these lanes at entry/exit points. Finding such space on SR 85 may be a challenge in narrow segments. One of the entry/exit lanes whichever is in the off peak direction will always be closed.

28 8.a I 15 in San Diego Reversible lanes within enclosed median Attachment A View of I 15 express lanes at end of open section for entering and exiting. The view is of a 2:2 weekend or off peak lane configuration. The end of an entry lane is shown to the right of the double yellow striping. Signage straddles the express lane right of way.

29 SR 85 Transit Guideway Study Reversible lanes in other cities, potential SR 85 application December 10, 2018

30 SR 85 unbalanced commute volumes Generalized peak period traffic volumes 3 Inefficiency 6,000 cars/hour Travel Lanes 2 1 ~5,100 cars/hour ~3,200 cars/hour 4,000 cars/hour 2,000 cars/hour Peak direction Off peak direction 8

31 Golden Gate Bridge 9

32 Chicago Skyway 10

33 Closed access 11

34 Open access 12

35 13

36 I 15 San Diego 14

37 I 15 San Diego 15

38 I 15 San Diego 16

39 I 15 San Diego 17

40 SR 85 Reversible Lanes Application Concern about bridge pillar conflicts, discontinuous median Right of way limitations in north and south Possible inefficient use of space Maintenance and monitoring responsibility 18

41 9 Date: December 4, 2018 Current Meeting: December 10, 2018 Board Meeting: N/A BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez Director - Planning & Programming, Chris Augenstein Freeway-based bus transit in other cities FOR INFORMATION ONLY BACKGROUND: This memo discusses different design, investment, and funding strategies for freeway-based bus services implemented by three agencies: LA Metro, Sound Transit, and Denver RTD. These case studies are presented with the intent of helping the State Route 85 (SR 85) Policy Advisory Board (PAB) and public understand the range of project options pertaining to potential bus alternatives. Station photos and route schedules are found in Attachment A. DISCUSSION: Los Angeles - Silver Line The Metro Silver Line connects Downtown Los Angeles with the City of El Monte and the San Pedro/LA Harbor area of Los Angeles. Most of the route lies along the I-10 and I-110 freeways with small detours into Downtown Los Angeles, El Monte and San Pedro. Though a bus route, the service functions similar to rail in many ways, with substantial in-line freeway stations (see Attachment A), rapid all-door boarding and routing that offers a transit alternative to solo-driving on congested freeways during peak periods. The service operates all day with extra, skip-stop express buses added during peak periods. A total of 2,352 free parking spaces are provided across seven parking lots located adjacent to stations along the route. A paid park-n-ride lot featuring 1,031 spaces is located at the El Monte Transit Center at the eastern terminus of the route. The service uses 45-foot buses that provide the versatility to operate on city streets, mixed-flow freeway lanes and dedicated bus lanes (an upgrade to 60-foot articulated buses is planned). The design of the service transcends the bus rapid transit (BRT) label it initially garnered. While uniquely branded, high capacity and fast, like BRT, the service breaks the BRT mold with shared lanes and stop spacing that ranges from a few blocks to nine miles. The nature of the service

42 9 varies depending on the urban context-short spacing on city streets and wide spacing on highways to cater to the needs of travelers along different parts of the route. The Silver Line operates in the El Monte Busway on I-10 and the Harbor Transitway on I-110. Both facilities are 11 miles long and are actually high-occupancy toll lanes, which are better known as express lanes. While the buses must mix with cars in those lanes, which can slow travel speeds, the revenue collected from solo-drivers using the express lanes helps purchase buses for the Silver Line and covers some of the operating cost. Dynamic pricing for solo drivers manages the travel speeds to ensure that buses maintain a travel-time advantage over general purpose lanes. With a dedicated operational funding stream from express lane revenue, the service level on the Silver Line is more sustainable and insulated from the fluctuations of LA Metro s overall operating budget. Seattle Express Bus Route 532 and 535 Sound Transit operates several express bus routes on freeways and major arterials. This memo focuses on Routes 532 and 535, which operate partially-overlapping service between Bellevue and the cities of Lynnwood and Everett with a long common segment along I-405 (see map in Attachment A). The longer of the two routes, Route 532, operates during peak periods, connecting outlying Everett with Bellevue, with more trips in the southbound AM peak and northbound PM peak directions than off peak directions. Route 535 operates bi-directionally all day, but only travels as far north as Lynwood. In this way, the overlapping routes are collectively flexible and responsive to transit demand, providing commuter-oriented, directional service in the weekday peak periods and serving as a high-speed link in the Seattle-area all-day transit network at other times. Like the Silver Line, Route 535 uses a mix of in-line freeway stations, freeway on-ramp/offramp stations and stations that are off-corridor where the route deviates from the freeway. Many of these stations are connected to park-n-ride lots and require significant right-of-way and high capital costs. Sound transit operates 28 express routes at a cost of about $140 million annually. For comparison, VTA s express bus program, which includes 12 routes that operate solely in the peak period, costs about $10 million annually and the entire bus operating budget is about $240 million. The high frequency of express service in the Seattle metro area and use of freeway stations by multiple routes helps justify the cost of freeway station construction. Routes 532 and 535 operate in an express lane, but have not yet received any operating funding from the arrangement. The express lanes generate about $24 million annually, but to date, the state legislature has chosen to spend those funds on express lane operating expenses and I-405 infrastructure improvements rather than transit operations. Denver Flatiron Flyer Unlike LA Metro and Sound Transit s approach to freeway-based service, which involves significant infrastructure, Denver RTD s Flatiron Flyer aims for a smaller scale and lower cost approach. The Flatiron Flyer is actually six routes with different stopping patterns that operate along the US 36 corridor using common stop infrastructure (see stopping pattern diagram in Attachment A). The Flatiron Flyer is part of a package of improvements including the widening of US 36 by 40 feet to accommodate new express lanes, improve travel speeds and personthroughput between Denver and nearby Boulder. Park-and-ride lots and pedestrian access bridges were constructed at some stops. Some existing overpasses were reconstructed to Page 2 of 3

43 9 accommodate a wider freeway facility. Stations along the route are relatively simple, consisting of shelters located along the edge of US 36, as is the case at the Bloomfield Station, or along the shoulder of on-ramps/off-ramps like at Table Mesa Station. Notably, the level of development along the US 36 corridor is relatively minimal compared to the SR 85 corridor, making land acquisition for roadway widening, parking facilities and station right-of-way less daunting. On-ramp/off-ramp deviations require the bus to pass through traffic signals, which adds delay to the trip that would not be encountered with an in-line facility. However, where right-of-way constraints (and perhaps cost constraints) are present along the SR 85 corridor, the delay that occurs from serving ramp-based stations may be an acceptable tradeoff to avoid the significant construction costs, right-of-way acquisition and community impacts required to build median-based stations. The schedules for the six Flatiron Flyer routes range from all-day service to peak-period service with the number of trips on each route seeming to correspond with demand. Some routes make dozens of trips while others make less than ten. The result is a very customized and potentially adjustable service. Prepared By: Adam Burger Memo No Page 3 of 3

44 9.a Attachment A Freeway Based Bus Transit Attachment A LA Metro Silver Line In Line Stations In line stations along I 110 allow the Silver Line to pick up and drop off passengers without exiting the freeway. To prevent stopping in the travel lane, right of way to accommodate the bus lanes and stations approximately 40 feet in all is needed. Passengers access such stations using stairs, elevators or bridges.

45 9.a LA Metro Silver Line Harbor Gateway Station Attachment A A view of the Harbor Gateway Station from northbound I 110. Silver Line buses enter a bus only facility in the median. Buses cross sides of the freeway so that right side bus doors serve a median platform. Stairs and elevators allow passengers to connect to the Green Light Rail Line, which travels perpendicular to the Silver Line at an elevated level of the interchange. A view of the Harbor Gateway Station from southbound I 110

46 9.a Sound Transit Express Buses 532 and 535 Attachment A I 405 and 128th Street Station A substantial in line station at I 405 and 128 th Street in Kirkland. Routes 532 and 535 serve the bus bays located on the ramps that connect directly to the median express lanes on the northern side of the overpass. A few from the center of the 128 th street overpass facing the stations served by Routes 532 and 535.

47 9.a Sound Transit Express Buss on ramp type station Attachment A A break in the fence allows direct access to an adjacent park and ride lot.

48 9.a Denver RTD Flatiron Flyer Attachment A Flatiron Flyer Stopping Patterns along US 36 Flatiron Flyer frequency and span of service by route variant AM peak eastbound Midday eastbound PM peak eastbound AM peak westbound Midday westbound PM peak westbound FF1 15 min 15 min 15 min 15 min 15 min 15 min FF2 10 min 10 min 10 min 10 min FF3 15 min 15 min FF4 15 min 15 min 15 min 15 min FF5 30 min 3 trips 3 trips 30 min FF6 3 trips 3 trips

49 9.a Flatiron Flyer Stations Attachment A The bus must exit the median express lane prior to arriving at Bloomfield Station to enter a right side bus only lane that serves a side running station. A pedestrian bridge provides access to a park and ride lot located on the opposite side of the roadway. The Table Mesa Station is located along the side of a US 36 on ramp and features a bus only lane, shelters, bicycle parking and pedestrian access bridge.

50 SR 85 Transit Guideway Study Freeway based bus transit in other cities December 10, 2018

51 Silver Line In line Station 20

52 Harbor Gateway Station 21

53 I 405/128 th Station 22

54 I 405/128 th Station 23

55 I 405 Onramp/Park n ride Station 24

56 Flatiron Flyer Denver One alignment, seven routes Some routes operate all day Some routes operate single run Part of US 36 capacity expansion 25

57 Table Mesa On ramp Station 26

58 Bloomfield Side Station 27

59 Freeway Bus Service Flexible and adaptable Multiple operating patterns possible Less infrastructure than rail, lower cost Express lanes can be potential funding source 28

60

61

62

63