TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Thursday, March 13, 2014 1:30 PM VTA Conference Room B-104 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 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) (Ristow) 5. Receive Chairperson's Report. (Verbal Report) (Capurso) 6. Receive Reports from TAC Working Groups. (Verbal Report) Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Systems Operations & Management (SOM) Land Use/Transportation Integration (LUTI) CONSENT AGENDA 7. Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2014. 8. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive the FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1927 Administration 408.321.5555 Customer Service 408.321.2300

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Technical Advisory Committee March 13, 2014 REGULAR AGENDA 9. DISCUSSION -Discuss and provide input on ways to maximize Committee input and effectiveness in assisting VTA achieve the five 2014 priorities established by the Board. 10. ACTION ITEM -Recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve the programming of FY 2014/15 Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Manager (TFCA 40%) funds to projects. 11. DISCUSSION -Receive report on Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan. 12. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive a Progress Report on the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines Update 13. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive a report on the Capitol Expressway Pedestrian Improvements Project OTHER 14. Receive an update on MTC Activities and Initiatives. (Verbal Report) (Committee) 15. Review the TAC Committee Work Plan. (Ristow) 16. ANNOUNCEMENTS 17. 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) 321-5680 or board.secretary@vta.org or (408) 321-2330 (TTY only). VTA s home page is www.vta.org or visit us on www.facebook.com/scvta. (408) 321-2300: 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) 321-5680, the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday prior to the meeting. This information is available on VTA s website at http://www.vta.org and also at the meeting. Page 2

8 Date: February 5, 2014 Current Meeting: March 13, 2014 Board Meeting: N/A BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Technical Advisory Committee General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez Chief Operating Officer, Michael A. Hursh Transit Operations Performance Report - FY2014 Second Quarter BACKGROUND: FOR INFORMATION ONLY The FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report presents the second fiscal quarter's Year-To-Date (July 2013-December 2013) key performance information for VTA Operations. This report is routinely produced after each quarter and at the end of the fiscal year. A summary of the FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report follows. Summary of Performance: Ridership (page 8 of the report) Bus ridership through the first six months of FY 2014 totaled 16.2 million, a 0.4% increase compared to the same period of the previous fiscal year. Average weekday ridership was 105,025 down 0.3%. Light rail ridership recorded 5.5 million boardings through the second quarter of FY 2014, an increase of 2.3% compared to the same period last year. Average weekday ridership was also up by 2.1% from 34,154 recorded last year to 34,858 this year. Overall, system ridership (both bus and light rail) was up by 0.8%. Average weekday ridership increased from 139,510 last year to 139,883 this year. Key Performance Indicators (page 7 of the report) The daily service reliability performance for the system (both bus and light rail) but during the first six months of FY 2014 was 99.64%, lower than last year s 99.76% but exceeding the established goal of 99.55%. Through FY 2014 second quarter, bus on-time performance recorded 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1927 Administration 408.321.5555 Customer Service 408.321.2300

8 84.9%, down from last year s 87.1%. Light Rail s on-time performance was 85.0%, down from last year s 87.8%. Bus recorded 10,328 miles between major mechanical schedule losses, exceeding the established goal of 8,000 miles. Light rail miles between major mechanical schedule losses recorded 35,828, a 23.0% increase compared to the same period in FY 2013. The 12-month trend was 46,862 miles, exceeding the goal of 40,000 miles. With the exception of bus and light rail maintenance personnel, all met established absenteeism goals. Paratransit (page 21 of the report) Through the first six months of FY 2014, Paratransit ridership decreased slightly by from 366,428 in FY 2013 to 365,906 this year. The net operating cost during the first six months of FY 2014 was $8.25 million, up 2.8% compared to the same period last fiscal year, primarily due to the vendor contractual rate increase that took effect July 1, 2013 and increases in rent and utilities. The net operating cost per Paratransit passenger trip through the second quarter of FY 2014 was $22.56, 2.9% more than the $21.92 net cost per trip recorded in FY 2013 but less than established goal of $26.75. Inter-Agency Partners and Contracted Services (page 6 of the report) Most of VTA s Inter-agency partners and contracted services recorded ridership increases: Dumbarton Express ridership was 160,887 up by 9.1%. Highway 17 Express ridership was 180,959, up 5.7%. Monterey-San Jose Express ridership was 16,178, down by 3.7%. ACE ridership was 522,263, up by 18.5%. Caltrain ridership was 8.4 million, up by 9.1%. ACE shuttle ridership was 181,175, up by 22.3%. Prepared By: Lalitha Konanur Memo No. 4286 Page 2 of 2

8.a Transit Operations Performance Report 2014 Second Quarter Report (July 1, 2013-December 31, 2013)

8.a

8.a Transit Operations Performance Report 2014 Second Quarter Report (July 1, 2013 December 31, 2013)

8.a Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report TABLE OF CONTENTS page Executive Summary Summary of Performance 1 Event Highlights 3 Key Performance Indicators 7 Ridership Summary 8 Route Performance Boardings Per Revenue Hour 9 Average Peak Load (Express) 13 Route Productivity 14 Paratransit Operating Statistics 21 Glossary Prepared by: Operations Analysis, Reporting & Systems

8.a Executive Summary

8.a SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report Ridership (page 8 of the report) Bus ridership through the first six months of FY 2014 totaled 16.2 million, a 0.4% increase compared to the same period of the previous fiscal year. Average weekday ridership was 105,025 down 0.3%. Light rail ridership recorded 5.5 million boardings through the second quarter of FY 2014, an increase of 2.3% compared to the same period last year. Average weekday ridership was also up by 2.1% from 34,154 recorded last year to 34,858 this year. Overall, system ridership (both bus and light rail) was up by 0.8%. Average weekday ridership increased from 139,510 last year to 139,883 this year. Key Performance Indicators (page 7 of the report) The daily service reliability performance for the system (both bus and light rail) but during the first six months of FY 2014 was 99.64%, lower than last year s 99.76% but exceeding the established goal of 99.55%. Through FY 2014 second quarter, bus on-time performance recorded 84.9%, down from last year s 87.1%. Light Rail s on-time performance was 85.0%, down from last year s 87.8%. Bus recorded 10,328 miles between major mechanical schedule losses, exceeding the established goal of 8,000 miles. Light rail miles between major mechanical schedule losses recorded 35,828, a 23.0% increase compared to the same period in FY 2013. The 12-month trend was 46,862 miles, exceeding the goal of 40,000 miles. With the exception of bus and light rail maintenance personnel, all met established absenteeism goals. Paratransit (page 21 of the report) Through the first six months of FY 2014, Paratransit ridership decreased slightly by from 366,428 in FY 2013 to 365,906 this year. The net operating cost during the first six months of FY 2014 was $8.25 million, up 2.8% compared to the same period last fiscal year, primarily due to the vendor contractual rate increase that took effect July 1, 2013 and increases in rent and utilities. The net operating cost per Paratransit passenger trip through the second quarter of FY 2014 was $22.56, 2.9% more than the $21.92 net cost per trip recorded in FY 2013. Through the first six months of FY 2014, the net cost per trip is $22.56 which is 15.7% less than established goal of $26.75. 1

8.a Inter-Agency Partners and Contracted Services (page 6 of the report) Most of VTA s Inter-agency partners and contracted services recorded ridership increases: Dumbarton Express ridership was 160,887 up by 9.1%. Highway 17 Express ridership was 180,959, up 5.7%. Monterey-San Jose Express ridership was 16,178, down by 3.7%. ACE ridership was 522,263, up by 18.5%. Caltrain ridership was 8.4 million, up by 9.1%. ACE shuttle ridership was 181,175, up by 22.3%. 2

8.a SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY EVENT HIGHLIGHTS FYTD 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report (July 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013) July 1-4, 2013 BART workers strike. July 11, 2013 Google leases former Agilent Technologies headquarters on Page Mill Road in Palo Alto, adjacent to Stanford Research Park and near a Caltrain Station. July 15, 2013 VTA light rail slow-speed derailment at Baypointe. July 24, 2013 Citation Homes announces plans to build 381 housing units in a dense mixed-use project at 737 Montague Expressway in addition to its development next door. Both sites are directly across the street from the Milpitas BART station under construction. July 25, 2013 Uber launches the uberx taxi-like service in Silicon Valley. July 2013 Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 7.2%. July 2013 Unleaded fuel averaged $3.96 a gallon. August 6, 2013 Integral Communities announced a development adjacent to the Milpitas BART station site that will include 600 new housing units and 60,000 square feet of retail space. August 14, 2013 Cisco Systems announces plans to cut 4,000 employees, or 5% of its workforce, following an earlier cut of 500 employees in March 2013. August 15, 2013 VTA Board approved increase in UPLIFT passes to 2,775 per quarter and implemented a two-year Transit Assistance Program (TAP) to provide easier access to transit for low-income individuals. August 15, 2013 Google leases former site of Mayfield Mall and Hewlett-Packard on San Antonio Road in Mountain View, across from San Antonio Caltrain Station. August 16, 2013 KT Properties acquired 1.7 acres adjacent to San Pedro Square in downtown San Jose with the intention of building two residential towers with more than 600 housing units. August 16, 2013 The Irvine Company begins work on three projects that will add roughly 2,000 new apartment homes to the South Bay, with communities at River Oaks (1,308 units), adjacent to VTA headquarters on North First Street and Stewart Village in Sunnyvale. August 17, 2013 State labor officials reported that the South Bay lost 4,000 jobs in July 2013 and that job growth has slowed significantly compared to the previous year. 3

8.a August 17, 2013 AOL announced it was cutting 500 employees from its Patch local news unit, half of the 1,000 employees. August 18, 2013 Spare the Air day. August 29, 2013 Bay Area Bike Share launched in Palo Alto, Mountain View and San Jose. August 2013 Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 6.6%. August 2013 Unleaded fuel averaged $3.84 a gallon. September 7, 2013 Spare the Air Day. September 16, 2013 Brocade Communications laid off 6% of its workforce, or 300 people, and announced plans to consolidate space as it restructures. September 18, 2013 VTA hosted a bike clinic at PARK(ing) Day in San Jose. September 21, 2013 Rain pounded the Bay Area on the last day of summer, with single-day totals that equaled a typical month s precipitation. The San Jose airport reported 0.66 inches of rain. September 23, 2013 In its largest property purchase of the year, Google paid $235.5 million to acquire a 6-building portfolio in Mountain View that includes the Mountain View Technology Center on Fairchild Drive and Gateway Center on Ellis and Middlefield. September 27, 2013 The Transportation Authority for Monterey County announced plans to bring train service from Salinas to San Jose, with stops in Gilroy, Morgan Hill, Castroville, and Pajaro. September 30, 2013 VTA broke ground on Capitol Expressway transit improvements including reconstruction of the Eastridge Transit Center. September 2013 Unleaded fuel averaged $3.95 a gallon. September 2013 Rainfall was 367% of normal in September due to an unusually heavy rainstorm on September 21st. October 1-16, 2013 Federal Government shuts down over funding bill, employees furloughed. October 6, 2013 Rock and Roll Half Marathon in San Jose results in multiple bus reroutes. October 14, 2013 Service changes implemented on Lines 25, 35, 60, 89, 140, 304, 328, and 330. 4

8.a October 21, 2013 BART workers went out on strike. BART service shut down until the afternoon of October 22 nd. October 25, 2013 Google joins Intuit, Samsung, and two other developers to form Mountain View Transportation Management Association an agency to collectively run shuttles for major employers in the city and run a new publicly accessible route between corporate campuses and downtown Mountain View. October 25, 2013 San Jose ranks 5 th among cities with the strongest local economies in the U.S. in the On Numbers Economic Index. October 28, 2013 Cisco Systems lays off 899 workers in San Jose. October 2013 There was no rainfall, so Octobers totals were below the norm of 0.80 inches. October 2013 The unemployment rate for October 2013 was 6.4%. October 2013 Unleaded fuel averaged $3.80 per gallon. November 12, 2013 San Jose tops the list of jumps in worsening traffic congestion among the nation s top 100 most congested cities. November 14, 2013 Lockheed cuts 200 jobs in Sunnyvale. November 28, 2013 Turkey Trot Race in downtown San Jose. November 28-29, 2013 VTA operated holiday service on Thanksgiving and modified weekday service on November 29 th. November 29, 2013 Christmas in the Park and VTA Historic Trolley operates downtown San Jose. November 29-30, 2013 Winter Spare the Air Days. November 2013 Rainfall was 46% of normal for the month. November 2013 The unemployment rate for November 2013 was 6.3%. November 2013 Unleaded fuel averaged $3.59 per gallon. December 4-6, 2013 Bay Area hit by record-low temperatures. December 6-8, 2013 Large American Communications Network convention held at SAP Center. Extra bus service and rail cars added to handle crowds. December 8-18, 2013 Unprecedented 11 Spare the Air days in a row. 5

8.a December 15, 2013 Santa Run in downtown San Jose December 23-29 &31, 2013 Winter Spare the Air Days. December 31, 2013 Hewlett-Packard announces layoffs of 34,000 workers. December 31, 2013 BART and Muni announce fare increases to take effect in January 2014. December 2013 Unleaded fuel averaged $3.57 per gallon. December 2013 Rainfall was only 5% of normal for the month. October-December 2013 Various (non-vta) construction projects throughout the county caused delays to VTA routes. 6

8.a Key Performance Indicators

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report 8.a FY 2011 Annual FY 2012 Annual FYTD 2014 FY 2013 2nd Annual quarter Met Goal? FYTD 2014 Goals SYSTEM (Bus & Light Rail) Total Boarding Riders (in millions) 41.41 42.43 43.15 21.70 No >= 22.10 Average Weekday Boarding Riders 134,058 137,299 140,402 139,883 No >= 142,800 Boardings per Revenue Hour 31.7 31.9 32.0 31.3 YES >= 28.9 Percent of Scheduled Service Operated 99.75% 99.72% 99.73% 99.64% YES >= 99.55% Miles Between Major Mechanical Schedule Loss 1 10,733 11,065 13,110 11,209 YES >= 9,000 Miles Between Chargeable Accidents 99,381 94,649 88,300 73,391 No >= 112,300 Passenger Concerns per 100,000 Boardings 12.9 12.5 13.7 16.8 No <= 10.6 BUS OPERATIONS Total Boarding Riders (in millions) 31.40 32.05 32.40 16.19 No >= 16.50 Average Weekday Boarding Riders 102,187 104,583 106,161 105,025 No >= 107,500 Boardings per Revenue Hour 26.8 26.9 26.7 25.9 YES >= 24.0 Percent of Scheduled Service Operated 99.73% 99.69% 99.70% 99.61% YES >= 99.50% Miles Between Major Mechanical Schedule Loss 1 9,810 10,202 12,080 10,328 YES >= 8,000 Miles Between Chargeable Accidents 92,339 85,926 80,608 66,745 No >= 100,000 On-time Performance 88.6% 88.4% 87.6% 84.9% No >= 92.5% Operator Personal Time-off 9.5% 8.8% 8.5% 8.4% YES <= 10.0% Maintenance Personal Time-off 8.7% 8.2% 7.4% 8.3% No <= 8.0% Passenger Concerns per 100,000 Boardings 15.8 15.5 17.1 20.9 No <= 11.8 LIGHT RAIL OPERATIONS Total Boarding Riders (in millions) 10.01 10.37 10.74 5.51 No >= 5.60 Average Weekday Boarding Riders 31,871 32,716 34,241 34,858 No >= 35,300 Boardings per Revenue Hour 75.6 75.4 78.3 78.7 YES >= 74.0 Percent of Scheduled Service Operated 99.98% 99.97% 99.98% 99.96% YES >= 99.90% Miles Between Major Mechanical Schedule Loss 1 39,821 32,489 40,723 35,828 No >= 40,000 Miles Between Chargeable Accidents 2 243,349 441,847 366,503 370,220 No >= 1,107,000 On-time Performance 87.7% 89.4% 88.5% 85.0% No >= 95.0% Operator Personal Time-off 10.2% 6.6% 5.9% 7.5% YES <= 10.0% Maintenance Personal Time-off 7.4% 7.1% 7.3% 9.3% No <= 8.0% Way, Power, & Signal Personal Time-off 3.6% 6.3% 6.3% 4.3% YES <= 8.0% Passenger Concerns per 100,000 Boardings 3.9 3.3 3.3 4.8 No <= 2.8 Fare Evasion Rate 6.8% 7.8% 3.9% 2.9% YES <= 5.0% PARATRANSIT 7.8 Passengers per Revenue Hour 2.60 2.60 2.50 2.50 YES >= 2.30 Net Cost per Passenger $23.43 $22.73 $22.69 $22.56 YES <= $26.75 Ontime Performance ³ 96.8% YES >= 92.0% Passengers per Revenue Hour³ 2.60 YES >= 2.40 Complaints per 1,000 passenger Trips³ 0.37 YES <= 1.0 Schedule Calls Response Time (minutes)³ 1.26 YES <= 2.0 Days of Service Calls Response Time (minutes)³ 1.00 YES <= 2.0 ADA Eligibility Certification within 21 Days³ 100.0% YES >= 100.0% Preventative Maintenance Inspections Ontime³ 99.6% YES >= 95.0% Major Accidents and Incidents per 85,000 Passenger Trips³ 0 YES <= 1.0 Non-Major Accidents and Incidents per 85,000 Passenger Trips³ 0 YES <= 2.0 Note: Ridership goals were developed using budget projections. 1 Mechanical failure that prevents the vehicle from completing a scheduled service due to limited vehicle movement or safety concerns. 2 Goal is no more than one chargeable accident in a year. 3 New ADA Paratransit Performance Indicators for Paratransit effective FY 2014 7

8.a Ridership Summary

8.a SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RIDERSHIP SUMMARY (Directly Operated, Inter-Agency Partners, and Contracted Services) FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report FYTD 2014 2nd quarter FYTD 2013 2nd quarter % Change Directly Operated Services Bus 16,189,663 16,129,095 0.4% Average Weekday Riders 105,025 105,356-0.3% Light Rail 5,509,376 5,386,755 2.3% Average Weekday Riders 34,858 34,154 2.1% Inter-Agency Partners Total Directly Operated Services 21,699,039 21,515,850 0.9% Average Weekday Riders 139,883 139,510 0.3% Dumbarton Express 160,887 147,436 9.1% Average Weekday Riders 1,257 1,161 8.3% Highway 17 Express 180,959 171,135 5.7% Average Weekday Riders 1,132 1,077 5.1% Monterey-San Jose Express 16,178 16,803-3.7% Average Weekday Riders 87 88-1.1% Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) 522,263 440,811 18.5% Average Weekday Riders 4,145 3,555 16.6% Caltrain 8,427,499 7,727,480 9.1% Average Weekday Riders 52,590 48,373 8.7% Caltrain Shuttles (in Santa Clara County) 610,779 756,420-19.3% Average Weekday Riders 4,698 5,956-21.1% Contracted Services Paratransit 365,906 366,428-0.1% Average Weekday Riders 2,580 2,620-1.5% ACE Shuttles 181,175 148,171 22.3% Average Weekday Riders 1,438 1,195 20.3% Total Contracted / Inter-Agency 5,106,605 4,854,339 5.2% Combined Total Ridership (in Santa Clara County) 1 26,805,644 26,370,189 1.7% 1 These figures are based on estimated ridership in the VTA service area for Caltrain, ACE, Highway 17 Express, Dumbarton Express, and Monterey- San Jose Express. Paratransit, Light Rail Shuttles, ACE Shuttles, and Caltrain Santa Clara County Shuttles are operated wholly within the service area, therefore, 100% of the ridership is included. 8

8.a Route Performance

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Weekday Boardings per revenue hour FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report 22 23 25 26 55 60 61 62 64 66 68 70 71 72 73 77 323 522 20.4 28.9 29.9 27.8 26.2 23.6 23.0 28.4 30.2 25.6 28.2 25.8 25.8 25.4 28.9 32.4 36.4 37.8 Core Standard: 28.0 boardings per rvenue hour 10 27 31 35 40 46 47 51 52 53 54 57 58 63 81 82 89 18.3 17.4 18.0 18.8 15.9 21.3 22.9 29.3 23.3 21.8 28.3 24.4 25.7 26.5 32.2 32.2 33.3 Local Standard: 24.1 boardings per revene hour 13 13.7 14 15.1 16 17 18 19 6.6 21.0 20.0 19.0 Community Bus Standard: 16.6 boardings per revenue hour 32 19.3 34 11.5 37 16.6 39 20.9 42 11.0 45 16.0 48 15.7 49 12.0 65 15.1 88 22.8 200 11.5 201 31.1 ACE Shuttles 22.0 Note: ACE shuttles are not considered in the calculation of the standard which is VTA-based only. 9 8.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Weekday Boardings per revenue hour FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report 18.4 Limited Standard 17.2 Boarding Per Revenue Hour 15.1 Express Standard: is 60% Maximum Load Factor 15.4 20.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 50.5 86.1 Light Rail Standard: 67.2 boardings per revenue train hour 64.9 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 * Line 900 is the Ohlone/Chynoweth Almaden line * Line 901 is the Alum Rock - Santa Teresa Line * Line 902 is the Mountain View - Winchester Line. 10 8.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Saturday Boardings per revenue hour FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report 22 23 35.9 36.4 25 26 55 19.6 24.5 26.4 Core Standard: 25.5 boardings per revenue hour 60 23.2 61 17.0 62 18.9 64 21.3 66 68 28.3 28.8 70 26.7 71 72 24.3 24.4 73 26.4 77 28.3 522 22.3 10 12 27 31 35 40 46 47 54 57 63 81 82 10.5 12.8 17.9 15.7 20.8 16.2 17.1 19.0 18.9 16.4 18.8 22.8 25.4 Local Standard: 17.9 boardings per r7venue hour 14 18 19 32 39 42 48 49 200 4.5 10.9 11.2 12.4 12.4 12.8 16.1 17.3 19.3 Community Bus Standard: 15.0 boardings per revenue hour 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 900* 901* 902* 57.1 61.5 65.7 Light Rail Standard: 61.4 boardings per revenue train hour 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 * Line 900 is the Ohlone/Chynoweth Almaden line * Line 901 is the Alum Rock - Santa Teresa Line * Line 902 is the Mountain View - Winchester Line. 11 8.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Sunday Boardings per revenue hour FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report 22 38.0 23 32.0 25 26 55 19.0 21.0 28.0 Core Standard: 24.1 boardings per revenue hour 60 25.0 61 14.0 62 17.0 64 20.0 66 26.0 68 24.0 70 23.0 71 27.0 72 25.0 73 23.0 77 24.0 10 12 27 31 11.0 16.0 25.0 27.0 Local Standard: 18.8 boardings per revenue hour 35 40 17.0 18.0 47 24.0 54 16.0 57 20.0 63 14.0 82 19.0 14 9.0 18 19 39 3.0 12.0 22.0 Community Bus Standard: 15.0 boardings per revenue hour 48 12.0 49 9.0 200 7.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 900* 48.0 901* 902* 52.0 57.0 Light Rail Standard: 52.3 boardings per revenue train hour 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 * Line 900 is the Ohlone/Chynoweth Almaden line * Line 901 is the Alum Rock - Santa Teresa Line * Line 902 is the Mountain View - Winchester Line 12 8.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report Express Routes Average Peak Load Weekday 101 38.0% 102 103 104 46.5% 61.3% 61.7% Express Standard: is 60% Peak Load 120 48.1% 121 58.4% 122 36.7% 140 64.6% 168 56.9% 180 25.5% 181 50.1% 182 40.3% DB 35.2% Hwy 17 45.0% MST 55 15.1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Saturday / Sunday 181 Saturday, 57.8% 181 Sunday, 64.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Note: HWY 17, MST and DB are not considered in the calculation of the standard which is VTA- based only. 13 8.a

8.a Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time Period FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report Core Routes WEEKDAY ROUTE PEAK MIDDAY OFF PEAK TOTAL 22 34.6 41.5 37.3 37.8 23 32.3 41.0 36.4 36.4 Weekday Service Periods 25 27.5 30.9 25.7 28.9 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM & 26 27.1 34.8 24.5 29.9 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM 55 27.8 28.9 22.2 27.8 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM 60 22.8 32.1 23.2 26.2 Off Peak 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM 61 21.9 28.8 11.6 23.6 62 19.9 29.4 11.9 23.0 64 27.8 31.5 16.2 28.4 66 27.9 34.7 24.6 30.2 68 23.8 28.4 24.3 25.6 70 26.3 31.3 24.1 28.2 71 22.7 32.2 22.6 25.8 72 24.4 28.2 22.6 25.8 73 28.4 37.6 28.6 32.4 77 24.0 28.1 18.9 25.4 323 19.5 21.3 20.4 Legend: 522 27.9 30.0 30.5 28.9 Below standard Standard 25.9 31.7 23.8 28.0 No Service 14

8.a Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time Period FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report Core Routes SATURDAY ROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL 22 29.3 38.1 35.4 35.9 23 34.2 38.5 30.2 36.5 Saturday Service Periods 25 27.0 25.7 26.6 26.0 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 26 25.4 24.5 19.6 24.2 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 55 26.0 22.1 21.7 22.3 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM 60 27.6 24.8 25.0 25.1 61 16.4 20.8 11.3 18.7 62 23.7 17.5 14.6 18.1 64 20.1 22.3 15.5 20.9 66 27.5 30.7 23.3 28.9 68 26.7 33.7 28.1 31.3 70 32.7 27.9 23.8 28.1 71 39.0 25.5 23.9 26.3 72 26.9 24.1 11.9 23.2 73 24.8 25.9 20.0 25.2 77 33.6 30.7 18.3 30.3 522 7.4 22.6 0.0 22.0 Standard 26.4 26.8 21.8 26.1 SUNDAY ROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL 22 28.2 42.0 34.9 37.9 23 30.6 33.6 27.9 32.3 Sunday Service Periods 25 25.4 31.4 17.6 28.5 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 26 19.9 21.2 21.3 21.0 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 55 20.1 19.6 17.5 19.4 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM 60 26.2 26.8 14.1 25.0 61 13.8 15.6 7.6 14.5 62 14.9 18.7 12.1 17.4 64 18.9 21.3 14.9 20.2 66 23.2 28.9 18.9 26.4 68 21.3 27.0 19.3 24.4 70 22.9 23.6 20.0 23.1 71 24.4 30.5 15.6 27.1 72 24.4 26.6 18.5 25.2 73 16.4 25.2 17.5 23.3 Legend: 77 27.8 24.2 15.7 24.0 Below standard Standard 22.4 26.0 18.3 24.4 No Service 15

8.a Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time Period FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report Local Routes WEEKDAY ROUTE PEAK MIDDAY OFF PEAK TOTAL 10 20.7 22.0 21.0 21.3 27 16.2 21.8 15.3 18.3 Weekday Service Periods 31 21.4 27.4 13.1 22.9 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM & 35 17.2 18.1 14.7 17.4 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM 40 29.8 31.6 15.2 29.3 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM 46 33.4 29.5 0.0 32.2 Off Peak 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM 47 21.4 27.6 14.5 23.3 51 31.9 35.1 0.0 33.3 52 25.5 19.3 0.0 21.8 53 32.6 31.7 0.0 32.2 54 30.3 26.4 25.9 28.3 57 21.2 29.4 18.3 24.4 58 18.0 16.3 23.8 18.0 63 17.1 21.3 18.0 18.8 81 15.7 17.1 8.1 15.9 Legend: 82 24.6 29.2 14.3 25.7 89 24.7 47.1 0.0 26.5 Below standard Standard 23.6 26.5 16.9 24.1 No Service 16

8.a Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time Period FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report Local Routes SATURDAY ROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL 10 20.5 27.6 15.3 22.8 12 0.0 25.4 0.0 25.4 Saturday Service Periods 27 18.3 18.7 8.5 17.9 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 31 17.3 15.7 0.0 15.7 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 35 22.1 21.5 15.0 20.8 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM 40 13.0 16.5 0.0 16.2 46 0.0 12.8 0.0 12.8 47 17.0 17.3 15.6 17.1 54 14.8 19.6 17.0 19.0 57 19.4 18.9 18.3 18.9 63 16.3 15.9 0.0 16.4 81 0.0 10.5 0.0 10.5 82 17.6 19.4 14.2 18.8 Standard 17.6 18.4 15.0 17.9 SUNDAY ROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL 10 15.3 30.8 21.2 25.2 Sunday Service Periods 12 0.0 27.1 0.0 27.1 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 27 0.0 15.6 0.0 15.6 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 31 0.0 10.5 0.0 10.5 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM 35 21.0 18.3 14.7 18.3 40 0.0 17.4 0.0 17.4 47 32.7 24.6 17.8 24.4 54 10.0 16.4 5.2 15.7 57 15.1 22.2 5.0 19.9 63 0.0 13.9 0.0 13.9 Legend: 82 0.0 18.7 0.0 18.7 Standard 18.8 19.6 15.0 18.8 Below standard No Service 17

8.a Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time Period FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report Community Bus WEEKDAY ROUTE PEAK MIDDAY OFF PEAK TOTAL 13 16.1 11.2 6.1 13.7 Weekday Service Periods 14 13.2 16.3 0.0 15.1 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM & 16 24.3 7.1 0.0 21.0 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM 17 5.9 7.0 0.0 6.6 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM 18 16.5 24.0 0.0 20.0 Off Peak 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM 19 16.6 22.8 6.1 19.0 32 19.1 19.9 15.4 19.3 34 0.0 11.5 0.0 11.5 37 15.1 18.5 0.0 16.6 39 17.6 27.4 15.3 20.9 42 9.4 12.8 10.9 11.0 45 18.2 13.5 0.0 16.0 48 13.7 20.3 10.3 15.7 49 10.9 14.4 8.6 12.0 65 13.9 16.4 0.0 15.1 88 31.3 13.1 0.0 22.8 200 0.0 0.0 11.5 11.5 201 33.8 29.3 21.6 31.1 Standard 17.2 16.8 15.0 16.6 18

8.a Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time Period FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report Community Bus SATURDAY ROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL Saturday Service Periods 14 0.0 11.2 0.0 11.2 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 18 0.0 3.1 0.0 3.1 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 19 0.0 18.2 0.0 15.6 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM 32 0.0 17.3 0.0 17.3 37 0.0 8.8 0.0 8.8 39 0.0 20.5 0.0 20.5 42 0.0 11.9 0.0 11.9 48 14.3 13.7 8.0 13.3 49 24.2 9.8 6.4 10.6 200 0.0 0.0 12.6 12.6 Standard 19.3 15.0 15.0 15.0 SUNDAY ROUTE BASE Sunday Service Periods 14 8.6 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 18 3.1 19 12.2 39 22.1 Legend: 48 12.0 Below standard 49 8.6 No Service Standard 15.0 19

8.a Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time Period FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report Light Rail WEEKDAY ROUTE PEAK MIDDAY OFF PEAK TOTAL Weekday Service Periods 900* 44.9 65.0 40.8 50.5 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM & 901* 97.8 87.5 48.6 86.1 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM 902* 67.7 64.1 52.9 64.9 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM Standard 70.1 72.2 47.4 67.2 Off Peak 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM SATURDAY ROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL Saturday Service Periods 900* 30.0 64.4 45.2 57.1 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 901* 40.6 74.7 64.0 65.7 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 902* 41.4 67.9 61.5 61.5 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM Standard 37.3 69.0 56.9 61.4 SUNDAY ROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL Sunday Service Periods 900* 27.4 54.4 35.9 47.8 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 901* 33.0 65.8 55.8 57.2 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 902* 32.5 61.1 43.6 51.6 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM Standard 31.0 60.4 45.1 52.2 Legend: Below standard No Service * Line 900 is the Ohlone/Chynoweth Almaden line * Line 901 is the Alum Rock to Santa Teresa Line * Line 902 is the Mountain View to Winchester Line. 20

8.a Paratransit Operating Statistics

8.a SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY PARATRANSIT OPERATING STATISTICS FY 2014 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report FYTD 2014 2nd quarter FYTD 2013 2nd quarter Percent Change RIDERSHIP Clients 263,786 267,482-1.4% Attendants 56,980 54,474 4.6% Companions 45,140 44,472 1.5% Total Ridership 365,906 366,428-0.1% Average Weekday Trips 2,580 2,620-1.5% Average Weekday Client Trips 1,855 1,906-2.7% Active Clients 6,694 6,613 1.2% Average Trips per Client 39 40-2.6% PREMIUM SERVICES Same Day Trips 737 1,181-37.6% Second Vehicles 104 170-38.8% Open Returns 232 190 22.1% Service Area Surcharge Trips 1,476 2,464-40.1% Subscription Trips 50,840 53,990-5.8% Total 53,389 57,995-7.9% LEVEL OF SERVICE Revenue Miles 3,099,583 2,889,939 7.3% Revenue Hours 143,445 142,258 0.8% Passenger Miles (NTD) 4,052,945 4,126,736-1.8% ELIGIBILITY Total Data Cards Received 3,409 3,566-4.4% New Applicants Certified 1,105 1,175-6.0% New Applicants Denied 299 294 1.7% Clients Recertified 1,211 1,369-11.5% Clients Denied Recertification 330 362-8.8% Total Eligibility Assessments 2,945 3,200-8.0% EXPENSES AND REVENUES EXPENSES Eligibility Certification Costs $271,030 $230,597 17.5% Broker Costs $1,813,873 $1,759,220 3.1% Vendor Costs $7,766,400 $7,493,397 3.6% Total Operating Costs $9,851,303 $9,483,214 3.9% REVENUES Client Fare $999,136 $995,160 0.4% Other Fare $528,453 $417,078 26.7% Non-VTA Broker Revenue $69,369 $41,974 65.3% Total Revenue $1,596,959 $1,454,212 9.8% Net Expenses $8,254,344 $8,029,002 2.8% Fare Recovery Rate 15.51% 14.89% 4.1% Capital Expenses $36,702 $48,925-25.0% Total Expenses $8,291,046 $8,077,927 2.6% COST PER PASSENGER TRIP (excludes capital expenses) Total Reported Costs $26.92 $25.88 4.0% Fare Revenue $4.17 $3.85 8.3% Non-fare revenue $0.19 $0.11 72.7% Net Cost $22.56 $21.92 2.9% 21

8.a Glossary

8.a GLOSSARY AVERAGE FARE PER BOARDING This measure is calculated by dividing the total fare revenue (cash, passes, tokens, and Eco Pass) by total boarding riders. It measures the rider contribution towards the farebox recovery ratio. AVERAGE WEEKDAY BOARDINGS The average number of persons who board the transit system on a day that normal weekday revenue service is provided. BOARDINGS PER REVENUE HOUR This is a productivity measure comparing the number of boardings to the number of revenue hours operated. It measures service utilization per unit of service operated. The Revenue hours is the time when a vehicle is available to the general public to carry passengers. This will include layover but exclude deadheads. BRT (BUS RAPID TRANSIT) ROUTES The BRT route is a multi-component transit improvement that includes preferential treatment at traffic signals to improve bus operating speed and on-time performance. It operates in mixed traffic and relies on priority for buses at traffic signals to provide much of its time advantage over conventional buses. Currently, VTA operates line 522, the only BRT route in the system. COMMUNITY BUS ROUTES Community Bus service is characterized by weekday frequencies of 30 minutes or more in both the peak and midday periods. Service span is 14 hours or less, usually 12 hours for weekdays. Community Bus services operate 7 days per week or less. These routes are defined as neighborhood-based circulator and feeder routes that travel within a limited area.they may be distinguished from Core and Local service by a unique and smaller vehicle. CORE ROUTES Core network routes are defined as bus routes or shared corridors that feature weekday frequencies of 15 minutes or less during the peak and midday periods and/or service spans of 18 hours or more. Core routes operate 7 days per week. They typically travel on long distance corridors, which connect major trip generators such as universities, regional shopping malls and highdensity housing and employment sites. Multiple core routes will sometimes operate on the same corridor where demand warrants, providing additional service frequency and transfer opportunities. Core network corridors are typically large arterial streets and intersect with freeways and expressways. DEADHEAD: Time during movement of a transit vehicle without passengers aboard, typically from the operating division to the start of the route. EXPRESS & LIMITED SERVICE ROUTES Express routes generally operate during peak periods and are primarily commuter oriented. Midday, evening, and weekend service may be offered on regional express lines. Express routes emphasize direct service, use freeways and expressways to reduce travel time, and make few stops. Limited Service routes are characterized by limited stops. FEEDER ROUTES Feeder routes are short-length lines, usually less than 10 miles in length, that provide feeder or distribution service to and from major stops, transit centers, activity centers or rail stations. This classification of service includes neighborhood lines, which link residential areas to rail stations, activity centers, and/or transit centers; and shuttle lines, which serve industrial areas from nearby rail stations or transit centers.

8.a LAYOVER: Break the driver or the vehicle is given at the end of a trip before it starts operating its reverse route, or if the route is circular, before beginning its next trip LIMITED STOP ROUTES Limited-stop service generally operates during peak periods and is primarily commuter oriented. Midday, evening, and weekend service may be offered on limited-stop lines. Limited-stop routes use major arterials, freeways, and/or expressways; and make fewer stops than grid routes, but more stops than express routes. LOCAL ROUTES Local network routes are defined as bus routes or corridors that feature weekday frequencies of 30 minutes or more during the peak and midday periods and/or service spans less than 18 hours. Local Network routes operate 7 days per week or less. They typically travel on medium distance corridors, serving minor trip generators such as schools, hospitals and mediumdensity housing and employment. They also provide feeder service to the core network or to rail stations and transit centers. MILES BETWEEN CHARGEABLE ACCIDENTS Safety measure that captures the number of total scheduled miles traveled between each occurrence of a preventable accident. A preventable accident is defined as accidents in which the transit driver is normally deemed responsible or partly responsible for the occurrence of the accident. MILES BETWEEN MECHANICAL SERVICE LOSS Service quality measure capturing the number of total scheduled miles traveled between each mechanical breakdown that result in a loss of service to the public. SPECIAL SERVICE ROUTES Special services routes only operate on certain days of the week or on a seasonal basis to address a specific service need. NATIONAL TRANSIT DATABASE (NTD) The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA's) primary national database for statistics on the transit industry. Recipients of FTA s Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307) grants are required by statute to submit data to the NTD. Each year, NTD performance data are used to apportion over $4 billion of FTA funds to transit agencies in urbanized areas (UZAs). Annual NTD reports are submitted to Congress summarizing transit service and safety data. The NTD is the system through which FTA collects uniform data needed by the Secretary of Transportation to administer department programs. The data consist of selected financial and operating data that describe public transportation characteristics. The legislative requirement for the NTD is found in Title 49 U.S.C. 5335(a). ON-TIME PERFORMANCE A reliability measure capturing the percentage of transit vehicles departing or arriving at a location on time. On-time performance is measured only for specific locations called timepoints for which a schedule is published. A bus transit vehicle is considered on time if it departs a location within 3 minutes before and 5 minutes after its published scheduled time. A light rail transit vehicle is considered on time if it departs a location within 1 minute before and 5 minutes after its published scheduled time. At the first timepoint location of a trip, the vehicle is measured based on arrival time, not departure time. At the last timepoint location of a trip, early arrival regardless of the number of minutes is considered on-time. PASSENGER CONCERNS PER 100,000 BOARDINGS A customer service measure that captures the number of passenger complaints/concerns per 100,000 boardings. This measures reports the amount of customer complaints received on the service that is attributed to an operating division.

8.a PEAK LOAD (Express) - The Express bus standard is 60% of the seated vehicle loading capacity. This singular standard is needed due to the special characteristics of Express Bus lines where seat turnover is low. PERCENT SCHEDULED SERVICE OPERATED This service reliability measure indicates the percent of service hours completed based on published schedule. A service is considered not completed when scheduled service hours are lost due to equipment failure, missed or late pull-outs caused by operator absenteeism, pullouts, accidents/incidents, or natural causes. PERSONAL TIME OFF (PTO) This is defined as time off for non-scheduled absences such as: sick, industrial injury, FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act.), excused/unexcused leave, union business, and suspensions. REVENUE HOURS: Time when a vehicle is available to the general public to carry passengers. This will include layover but exclude deadhead. STANDARD (Boardings per revenue Hour): This is the average boardings per Revenue Hour and applies to Community Bus, Local, BRT, and Light Rail. The minimum standard is 15 boardings per revenue hour. TOTAL BOARDINGS The total number of boarding riders using VTA directly operated bus service and light rail service. Riders are counted each time they board a bus or light rail vehicle.

9 Date: March 4, 2014 Current Meeting: March 13, 2014 Board Meeting: N/A BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: THROUGH: FROM: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Technical Advisory Committee General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez Executive Policy Advisor, Jim Lawson SUBJECT: Advisory Committee Input and Contribution to Help Achieve VTA's 2014 Priorities BACKGROUND: FOR INFORMATION ONLY At the January 9, 2014 VTA Board of Directors meeting, Board Chairperson Ash Kalra defined his vision for VTA and its five main priority areas for 2014, to be implemented by General Manager Nuria Fernandez. The five priorities for 2014 are: Increasing transit ridership by 10% Providing outstanding service to Levi s Stadium Continuing towards completion of Phase I of VTA s extension of BART to Silicon Valley and securing funding for Phase II Working with the community to implement Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Building relations with the communities VTA touches through listening and feedback These focus areas will help enable VTA to deliver the transportation system of Silicon Valley s future. DISCUSSION: To achieve these ambitious goals will require participation, input and contribution from VTA s five advisory committees. To this end, at each committee s March meeting (April for the Committee for Transit Accessibility) staff will be soliciting and discussing with each committee potential ideas to enhance its meaningful contribution to the Board of Directors in support of the five priorities and recommendations on possible changes to achieve these improvements. Topics staff would like to receive each advisory committee s input on regarding the 2014 priorities are: Ideas on how each advisory committee can specifically assist VTA with achieving the 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1927 Administration 408.321.5555 Customer Service 408.321.2300

9 priorities. Identifying and including items on each committee s work plan that are aligned with the 2014 priorities and that fall within each committee s mission. Actively reviewing both the work plan and agenda to provide greater opportunity for discussion, exchange of ideas and meaningful committee input on important topics related to the five priorities. In keeping with enhanced advisory committee input to help achieve the 2014 priorities, VTA will be scheduling a joint advisory committee workshop to update members on current planning efforts and timelines for providing service to the new Levi s Stadium that opens in August 2014, and to solicit member input, ideas and perspective on the planning, integration and community outreach efforts moving forward. This workshop is tentatively targeted for the last week in March. Members will be notified in advance when the meeting date is determined. IMPLEMENTATION/SCHEDULE: Implementation of the Board-defined top five priorities is under way and will continue throughout the year. Efforts to enhance advisory committee input and contribution towards achieving these priorities will continue throughout the year. Prepared By: Stephen Flynn, Advisory Committee Coordinator Memo No. 4525 Page 2 of 2

10 Date: March 5, 2014 Current Meeting: March 13, 2014 Board Meeting: April 3, 2014 BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Technical Advisory Committee General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez Chief CMA Officer, John Ristow 2014 TFCA Program Manager Fund Policy-Related Action: Yes Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve the programming of FY 2014/15 Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Manager (TFCA 40%) funds to projects. BACKGROUND: The Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) is generated by a $4.00 surcharge on vehicle registrations in the nine-county Bay Area. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) administers the funds; money is available for allocation to alternative fuels, arterial management, bicycle, and trip-reduction projects that reduce vehicle emissions. State law is very specific as to how the funds may be spent. BAAQMD returns 40% of TFCA funds to the county in which they are collected for allocation by a program manager. This fund is called the TFCA Program Manager Fund (TFCA 40%). VTA is the program manager for Santa Clara County and project sponsors apply directly to VTA for funding. The VTA Board of Directors allocates these funds to projects in Santa Clara County, subject to approval by BAAQMD. To be approved by BAAQMD, all TFCA projects must conform to BAAQMD's board-adopted policies, cost-effectiveness requirements, and the County Program Manager Fund Expenditure Plan Guidance-Fiscal Year Ending 2015. At its December 9, 2004 meeting, the VTA Board of Directors set aside up to 25% of the annual TFCA 40% allocation to bicycle projects in the Countywide Bicycle Expenditure Plan (BEP) for FY2010/11-FY2029/30. Eligible BEP projects are funded "off the top" subject to VTA Boardadopted screening criteria and BAAQMD policies cited above. Since TFCA 40% funds cannot be "banked" from year to year, if less than the set-aside amount can be programmed to qualified 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1927 Administration 408.321.5555 Customer Service 408.321.2300

10 BEP projects, the remainder is programmed via the competitive process and the difference does not carry over to the following years. Unless the program is undersubscribed, the competitive projects are evaluated by a scoring working group of the Technical Advisory Committee's Capital Improvement Program Working Group. The scoring group consists of transportation professional staff members from VTA's Member Agencies, and they serve on a volunteer basis. Each year, this group meets, reviews project applications and ranks the projects subject to the BAAQMD policies and the VTA Board s TFCA 40% Screening/Scoring Criteria, as adopted on December 12, 2013. DISCUSSION: There is a total of $2,459,265 available for TFCA 40% projects in this cycle. VTA received seven applications from project sponsors requesting a total of $1,785,916. This year, five applications were for non-bep competitive projects, and two were for BEP. Since the eligible requests are far less than the funds available, VTA staff simply reviewed the applications received for minimum qualifications and are recommending them for funding, without the scoring working group meeting to score and rank them. BAAQMD requires Program Managers to Allocate (program) all new TFCA funds within six months of the date of the Air District s approval of the Expenditure Plan, and the program is undersubscribed, VTA staff issued a supplemental call-for-projects for $673,349. While the results of this supplemental call were not available at the time this memorandum was written, VTA staff anticipate including them in the final Committee and Board recommendations. BEP Projects: This year, project sponsors submitted two BEP projects for a total request of $498,000. As shown on Attachment A-Santa Clara County FY 2014/15 TFCA 40% Program, the projects are: the City of Saratoga Blue Hills School Railroad Safety Crossing and VTA's Capitol Expressway Pedestrian Improvements. Additional project details can be found on Attachment B- Recommended Project Descriptions. Competitive Projects: The total grant request for the five non-bep project applications is $1,287,916. As shown on Attachment A, the projects are, (1) the City of Morgan Hill Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, (2) City of San Jose Bay Area Bike Share System Expansion, (3) City of Santa Clara's Saratoga Avenue Signal Timing and Interconnect Project, (4) County of Santa Clara's Almaden, San Tomas and Montague Expressways' Signal Timing, and (5) VTA's DASH Light Rail shuttles. Additional project details can be found on Attachment B-Recommended Project Descriptions. ALTERNATIVES: The VTA Board may request other programming alternatives. However, all projects submitted for consideration in the TFCA program must adhere to state law and the BAAQMD policies Page 2 of 3

10 cited above. FISCAL IMPACT: As the program manager for Santa Clara County, VTA distributes the TFCA 40% grant funds directly to the project sponsors, retaining 5% to cover administrative expenses. The projected expense and revenue reimbursement are included in the FY15 Adopted Congestion Management Program Fund Operating Budget. The grant revenue for the Light Rail Shuttles project, for which VTA is the project sponsor, is reflected in the FY15 Adopted VTA Transit Fund Operating Budget. Prepared by: Amin Surani Memo No. 4402 Page 3 of 3

Attachment A Santa Clara County FY 2014/15 TFCA 40% Program 10 Revised Project Sponsor Project Name Total Cost Grant Request Grant Recommended Match $ Match % TFCA Cost/Ton Competitive Projects Morgan Hill Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations $50,000 $24,000 $24,000 $26,000 52% $88,941 San Jose San Jose Bay Area Bike Share System Expansion $187,023 $130,916 $130,916 $56,107 30% $425,285 San Jose San Jose Bay Area Bike Share System Expansion 2 $179,032 $125,322 $125,322 $53,710 30% $481,133 Santa Clara Saratoga Ave. Signal Timing & Interconnect $498,000 $498,000 $498,000 $0 0% $68,990 S C County Signal Timing-Almaden Expy, San Tomas Expy, $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $0 0% $39,181 Montague Expy VTA Light Rail Shuttles $982,379 $360,000 $360,000 $622,379 63% $89,359 VTA Eastridge Transit Center EV Charging Stations $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 0% $70,217 Subtotal $1,463,238 Bicycle Expenditure Plan (BEP) Projects Saratoga Blue Hills School Railroad Safety Crossing $345,880 $300,000 $300,000 $45,880 13% $83,929 VTA Capitol Expressway Pedestrian Improvements $1,547,200 $198,000 $198,000 $1,349,200 87% $89,806 Subtotal $498,000 Total $4,114,514 $1,961,238 $1,961,238 $2,153,276 Total Available Funds $2,459,264.59 Total Available Funds for Supplemental Call-for-Projects $498,026.59

Attachment B Santa Clara County FY 2014/15 TFCA 40% Program Recommended Project Descriptions 10 Revised NON-BICYCLE EXPENDITURE PLAN PROJECTS Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Morgan Hill will purchase and install 4 slow electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and 2 quick EV charging stations in a new parking structure located in the City s downtown area. San Jose Bay Area Bike Share System Expansion San Jose will add an additional bike share station in San Jose s Fountain Alley, located in San Jose s downtown transit mall, as part of the Bay Area Bike Share system. This grant will fund capital costs for a large bike share station with 13 bikes and 23 docks. The grant will also fund installation and launch costs, and five years of operational costs. San Jose Bay Area Bike Share System Expansion 2 San Jose will add an additional bike share station on the northwest corner of Market Street and Park Avenue in downtown San Jose as part of the Bay Area Bike Share system. This grant will fund capital costs for a large bike share station with 11 bikes and 19 docks. The grant will also fund installation and launch costs, and five years of operational costs. Saratoga Avenue Signal Timing & Interconnect Santa Clara will install communications infrastructure for traffic signals and server to server communications, allowing for interconnection, coordination, management, proactive and reactive adjustment of traffic signal timing and install new state of the art traffic signal controllers that will communicate with the City s Naztec ATMS system at City Hall. Almaden Expressway Weekday and Weekend, San Tomas Expressway Weekday, and Montague Expressway Weekday Traffic Responsive (TR) Signal Timing The County will develop and implement weekday Traffic Responsive (TR) signal timing system on San Tomas Expressway and Montague Expressway, and weekday and weekend TR signal timing system on Almaden Expressway. A total of 48 signalized intersections would be included, for a total of 22.3 miles. Light Rail Shuttles VTA will use TFCA funds to help support operations of the Downtown Area Shuttle (DASH) in downtown San Jose. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations for Eastridge Transit Center VTA will install five level-2 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at the transit center located near Eastridge Mall along Capitol Expressway between Tully and Quimby Roads in the City of San Jose. The Eastridge Transit Center is the second busiest transfer point in VTA s system, served by eleven bus lines which provide access from East San Jose to downtown San Jose. A project to reconstruct and modernize the transit center is currently under construction. The EV stations would be installed in the transit center parking area beginning in early 2015 and become operational by mid-2015 with the transit center opening. B1

Attachment B Santa Clara County FY 2014/15 TFCA 40% Program Recommended Project Descriptions BICYCLE EXPENDITURE PLAN PROJECTS Blue Hills School Railroad Safety Crossing Project (Reconnect Saratoga) Saratoga will construct a pedestrian railroad crossing allowing a pass through Joe s Trail at De Anza from Guava Court to Fredericksburg Drive. (BEP VTP ID B75) Capitol Expressway Pedestrian Improvements VTA will upgrade the signal at the intersection of Capitol/Loop to include a pedestrian phase and install pedestrian sensors and implementing pedestrian adaptive signal timing to automatically extend the pedestrian crossing green time when pedestrians are in the crosswalk; will install a pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of and Capitol Expressway/Eastridge Loop; will install a sidewalk approximately 1,200 feet in length on the east side of Capitol Expressway between the Eastridge Loop and the shopping plaza driveway; and will install a median fence on Capitol between Tully Road and the Eastridge Loop. (BEP VTP ID B68) B2

11 Date: March 3, 2014 Current Meeting: March 13, 2014 Board Meeting: April 3, 2014 BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Technical Advisory Committee General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez Chief CMA Officer, John Ristow Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan - Update BACKGROUND: FOR INFORMATION ONLY Providing safe, comfortable and convenient pedestrian infrastructure is key to supporting transit, providing mobility choices for all riders - including those who do not or cannot drive - improving quality of life, and improving the safety, health, and economic vitality of our county. VTA and its Member Agencies have developed pedestrian access studies in conjunction with individual transit development projects, but VTA has not to-date conducted a comprehensive assessment of pedestrian access to transit needs. The need for a comprehensive planning process that identifies pedestrian deficiencies and proposed improvements at a countywide level represents an opportunity to improve of VTA s Congestion Management Agency program and transit service within the county. Recognizing the importance of pedestrian issues to transit, mobility, safety, quality of life, and health, and in accordance with the Congestion Management Agency s FY2014-15 Work Program, VTA staff is increasing pedestrian planning efforts. As one component of this effort VTA staff is developing a Countywide Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan. DISCUSSION: In October 2013, VTA staff began initial work on a Countywide Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan. The Plan will inventory and evaluate pedestrian-related access improvements within walking distance of major transit corridor stations and stops in Santa Clara County. The Plan will help VTA address pedestrian deficiencies and safety concerns, identify areas and corridors with the greatest needs, and establish an implementation plan that advocates for pedestrian improvements. The Plan is scheduled for completion in early 2016. 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1927 Administration 408.321.5555 Customer Service 408.321.2300

11 Outcomes The Plan will result in the following outcomes: A thorough assessment of existing pedestrian conditions and needs related to pedestrian access to major transit corridors; A list of capital projects that can improve pedestrian access to transit; An implementation structure to plan, fund, and deliver the projects; Broad community support for advocating for and implementing the Plan. Planning Area The draft planning area is derived from previous planning efforts that consider the socioeconomic, land use, and transit characteristics of Santa Clara County: Priority Development Areas identified in 2008 by the Association of Bay area Governments (ABAG) and by Metropolitan Transportation Commission with assistance from VTA and member agencies, and the Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas identified by VTA in the 2003 Community Design and Transportation Manual. Given the large size of the county, and large number of transit stops, the Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan will focus efforts on a subset of transit stops within a planning area. Within this planning area, the project team will focus efforts on high frequency and/or highridership stops, including, but not limited to: proposed Bus Rapid Transit stops, Light Rail stations, and all regional transit stops (e.g. Caltrain, BART, ACE, Amtrak). Within this planning area, sites may be prioritized based on socio-demographics, community priorities, concentrations of transit riders with unique needs (e.g. seniors, people with disabilities, youth), and other factors. Attachment A presents the draft planning area. Outreach Outreach for the Plan will consist of four tracks: Task Force: The Task Force will serve to guide the plan direction, review interim work products, build relationships and generate broad support for the plan. Task Force members will include representatives from affected agencies, community based organizations, major transit passenger generators, education and social service providers, advocacy groups, and other relevant entities. Staff is scheduling the first Task Force meeting for March 2014. VTA Committees: The project team will rely on VTA s committee structure to solicit input elected officials, VTA Member Agency staff, and other decision makers. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and Committee for Transit Accessibility will be closely involved in plan development, and the other committees and working groups will receive updates Page 2 of 3

11 at key points. Local Agency Outreach: The project team will hold one-on-one meetings with local agencies public works, planning, and law enforcement staff to share the plan schedule and scope, to confirm existing conditions, and to identify planned and potential pedestrian improvement projects. Community Outreach: Community outreach will focus on the general public, transit riders, minorities, youth, seniors, people with disabilities, low-income communities, community and neighborhood groups, special interest groups, employers, business associations, and other interested stakeholders. The project team will work with non-profits, faith based groups, and service providers to present the Plan at community meetings and events that target these stakeholders. The project team will also develop ways in which stakeholders can provide input outside these venues. Funding Total project cost is estimated at $300,000. In December 2013, VTA was selected to receive a $100,000 Safe Routes to Transit grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and TransForm to apply toward this Plan. Matching funds will be covered through the FY 2014 & FY 2015 CMP Work Program, which includes staff time for Pedestrian Programming Activities. Work Conducted To-Date This item was taken to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the Committee for Transit Accessibility in January 2014. Both committees expressed support for the plan, and committee members were invited to participate in the Task Force. To date, staff has conducted initial document review, initiated development of the initial project list, and started implementing the outreach plan. The Task Force has been formed, and includes representatives of the disabled community, low-income and minority communities, seniors, business interests, pedestrian advocacy organizations, public health, and city staff. Plan updates can be found at the web page: www.vta.org/pedestrian-plan NEXT STEPS: An official award letter for the Safe Routes to Transit grant from MTC is anticipated in March 2014. After receipt of the letter, VTA will be submitting an allocation request package for MTC approval, after which VTA can receive the funds. Prepared By: Lauren Ledbetter Memo No. 4503 Page 3 of 3

11.a PALO ALTO (/ 101!"#$ 880!"#$ 680 MOUNTAIN VIEW }þ7 23 MILPITAS DRAFT!"#$ 280 LOS ALTOS HILLS LOS ALTOS }þ 85 SUNNYVALE SANTA CLARA MORGAN HILL South County CUPERTINO!"#$ 280 }þ 87 SARATOGA CAMPBELL SAN JOSE (/ 101 (/ 101 }þ 85 MONTE SERENO GILROY }þ7 1 LOS GATOS 0 2.5 5 Miles Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan - Draft Project Area Cores, Corridors, Stations Areas Priority Development Areas o 0 2 4 Miles Source: VTA GIS Date: 12.23.2013

12 Date: March 5, 2014 Current Meeting: March 13, 2014 Board Meeting: April 3, 2014 BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: THROUGH: FROM: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Technical Advisory Committee General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez Chief CMA Officer, John Ristow SUBJECT: Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines Update - Progress Report 1 BACKGROUND: FOR INFORMATION ONLY As the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County, VTA is responsible for maintaining the county s Congestion Management Program (CMP) and establishing the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines that Member Agencies use when analyzing the transportation impacts of land use and development projects on the CMP transportation system. VTA s TIA Guidelines also generally serve as the basis for Member Agency analysis of impacts on the local transportation system. In addition, the Guidelines are often used by local agencies as a reference for the Transportation Analysis in environmental documents. In late 2012, VTA began to lay the groundwork to update the TIA Guidelines, responding to a number of trends and changes that have occurred since the last update of the Guidelines in early 2009: Progress on implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 375 and the Sustainable Communities Strategy, with the corresponding emphasis on reductions in automobile trips and Vehicle- Miles-Traveled (VMT) The 2010 updates to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Transportation checklist, which allowed agencies more flexibility in determining how to perform transportation analysis The release of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), including new Multimodal Level of Service measures Additional emphasis on Complete Streets policies in General Plan Circulation Elements A trend for major development projects in Santa Clara County to pursue aggressive reductions in automobile trip generation These and other trends provided the impetus for VTA to proceed with an update of the TIA Guidelines. This update is included in the FY 2014 & FY 2015 CMP Work Program (in Item 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1927 Administration 408.321.5555 Customer Service 408.321.2300

12 2.6) adopted by the VTA Board of Directors in June 2013. VTA staff provided presentations on the TIA Guidelines Update goals, proposed work areas, schedule, and outreach strategy at all five VTA Advisory Committees between April and June 2013. DISCUSSION: This item is intended to provide a Progress Report on the TIA Guidelines Update prior to the release of the draft updated Guidelines. Topics covered in this section include the goals and desired outcomes of the update; progress in addressing key topics; outreach efforts to date; next steps; and schedule. Goal and Desired Outcomes The goal of the VTA TIA Guidelines update is to emphasize the reduction of auto trip generation rates and take a balanced, multimodal approach to addressing congestion impacts and transportation solutions of development projects. The desired outcomes of this effort include: 1. Recognize projects and plans that reduce their auto trip generation rates and associated congestion impacts. 2. Improve the Guidelines to provide more meaningful, relevant analysis of alternative transportation modes in TIA reports. 3. Lessen emphasis on auto capacity and increase emphasis on multimodal and operational improvements in mitigation measures. 4. Provide more comprehensive and relevant information in TIAs to support better decisionmaking. Progress in Addressing Key Topics In mid-2013, VTA identified a number of key issues to be addressed in this update of the TIA Guidelines. These issues emerged from the work plan that was presented to VTA Advisory Committees and Working Groups in spring 2013, as well as input from Member Agency staff and other stakeholders. Over the past nine months, VTA staff has worked with transportation/engineering and planning staff from Member Agencies, with periodic input from other stakeholders, to address the key issues in the Guidelines. At this point, general consensus has been reached on about two-thirds of the key topics. Several topics are still being discussed, and are anticipated to be addressed by late spring 2014. Later sections of this report provide more information on Outreach Efforts, Next Steps and Schedule. Table 1 summarizes a selection of the Key Issues, their status, and the proposed approach that has been developed through discussions with staff and stakeholders. These Key Issues have been grouped by broader Topic Areas, which relate back to the Goal and Desired Outcomes of this effort. Attachment A provides a more detailed summary of all the Key Issues that have been addressed to date, along with the proposed approach or draft new text for the TIA Guidelines. Page 2 of 5

12 Table 1 - Summary of Select Key Issues in TIA Guidelines Update Key Issue Status Proposed Approach Topic Area: Improve TIA Process TIA Notification Resolved Process Addressing Resolved Comments on TIAs Maintain TIA Notification requirement; clarify expectations; shift to web-based form Add explicit Response to Comments step; For TIAs prepared with an EIR and for comments related to CMP compliance, written response required; for other comments, response encouraged Topic Area: Emphasize Reduction of Auto Trip Generation Auto Trip Reduction Statement Resolved Add requirement for Auto Trip Reduction Statement at start of TIA. A draft of the Statement is included as Attachment B. Auto Trip Reductions: Resolved Add new section for Customized Reductions where the following elements are required: Approach for State a commitment to a specific trip reduction target Customized Reductions Auto Trip Reductions: Approach for Standard Reductions Re-Orient Parking Analysis Resolved Resolved Provide a description of the types of Travel Demand Measures/trip reduction measures that are proposed State a commitment to periodic monitoring State a commitment to an enforcement structure State a commitment to provide summary level monitoring data to VTA: every two years, for new projects; other data sharing encouraged Leave existing reductions unchanged; Add reductions for Proximity to BART and Bus Rapid Transit stations; BART reduction will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, BRT reduction will be policy-driven, same percentage as rail proximity Remove existing section, add as sub-section under Auto Trip Reductions/TDM and only require discussion if parking management is part of project s trip reduction efforts; Make clear parking adequacy is not a CMP issue, but still allow discussion for local or CEQA purposes Topic Area: Improve Analysis of Alternative Modes Existing Pedestrian/ Bicycle Facilities Resolved Clarify that maps are required for both pedestrian and bicycle conditions; Better define study area, emphasizing project frontages and paths to major attractors Page 3 of 5

12 Pedestrian/ Bicycle Analysis In Progress Shift from HCM 2000/capacity-based methodology to Quality of Service (QOS)-based methodology; (Project Conditions and Mitigations) Move discussion of ped/bike capacity to Special Projects chapter; Define study area for analysis; Require quantitative QOS analysis when projects or their mitigations make changes to roadway geometry, intersection geometry, or signal operations; Revise existing descriptive checklist to be clearer and provide opportunity to describe benefits, and not just negative impacts. Transit Analysis In Progress Approach still being discussed Topic Area: Improve Guidance on Mitigation Measures Approach to Mitigation Measures In Progress Approach still being discussed The remaining key issues, including Transit Analysis and Mitigation Measures, will be discussed at Technical Working Group Meeting #3 in April. Outreach Efforts to Date Throughout the TIA Guidelines Update process, VTA has taken great care to incorporate input from a wide variety of stakeholders. Outreach efforts to date have included: Frequent consultation with Member Agency transportation/engineering and planning staff through the Systems Operations & Management (SOM) and Land Use / Transportation Integration (LUTI) Working Groups of the VTA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC); Formation of an ad hoc TIA Guidelines Update Technical Working Group (TWG) consisting of Member Agency and Caltrans representatives, who have provided input through two web surveys and two in-depth meetings in October 2013 and January 2014; a third meeting is scheduled for April 2014; Presentations to all five VTA Advisory Committees in April through June 2013; Several meetings with representatives of advocacy groups including TransForm, Greenbelt Alliance, California Walks, and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG); Presentations to a variety of other groups including the SVLG Transportation Policy Committee; the SVLG Public Officials Luncheon; the Moffett Park Business Group Board of Directors; and the Joint Venture Silicon Valley Public Sector Climate Task Force; A forum with transportation and environmental consultants in February 2014. VTA staff has received and synthesized the input from these various groups to ensure that the TIA Guidelines Update is responsive to emerging trends and opportunities (as described in the Background section above), and reflective of local conditions and needs in Santa Clara County. Page 4 of 5

12 A more detailed summary of outreach activities is provided in Attachment C. Next Steps and Schedule VTA will continue to address the remaining key issues in the Guidelines in consultation with Member Agency staff and other stakeholders. Staff will continue outreach efforts and work on developing a full draft of the updated TIA Guidelines. The following are the key upcoming milestones: Technical Working Group Meeting #3 - April LUTI and SOM Working Group discussions, other outreach - April/May Release of draft updated TIA Guidelines - June Review/comment/revision period - June/July Action Item to adopt new VTA TIA Guidelines - August VTA Committee meetings, August 28 th VTA Board of Directors meeting Prepared By: Robert Swierk Memo No. 4450 Page 5 of 5

Attachment A VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #1 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 1 7 TIA Guidelines Update TWG Meeting #1, 10/1/2013, Meeting Summary and Proposed Text VTA TIA Guidelines Update Technical Working Group (TWG) Summary of Meeting #1 and Proposed Text Changes for Key Issues in Ch. 1 7 This document summarizes the discussion of the TIA Guidelines Update Technical Working Group (TWG) Meeting #1 and contains proposed draft text to address six key issues in Chapters 1 through 7 of the current VTA TIA Guidelines. These proposed text changes, developed by VTA staff, are based on the discussion at the TWG meeting. Previous input includes the TWG web survey as well as a review of the TIA Guidelines of several other Congestion Management Agencies in the Bay Area. This document covers the following six main topics: a. TIA Notification process b. Addressing comments on TIAs c. Maps of existing pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities d. Pedestrian and bicycle analysis methodology e. Express Lane analysis methodology f. Freeway segment analysis scenarios For each topic, a summary of the key issue and TWG discussion is shown in the left column, and the proposed draft text is shown in the right column. In the right column, underlined text represents new wording, while strikethrough text represents deleted wording. In addition, a brief discussion is included at the end of this document on an item raised at TWG Meeting #1 by the Santa Clara County Roads & Airports Department representative. We welcome your input on these and other topics in the TIA Guidelines. If you have any suggestions or questions, please feel free to contact Rob Swierk at robert.swierk@vta.org, or (408) 321 5949. Page A-1 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #1 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 1 7 Key Issue (a): TIA Notification Process Statement of Issue & TWG Discussion Issue: Currently the TIA Notification process is not utilized consistently among VTA s Member Agencies. Staff proposed to maintain the TIA Notification requirement, but improve the process and emphasize electronic/web based submittals. TWG Discussion: A TWG member noted it would be helpful for cities to use a web portal to upload documents and notify interested agencies. A TWG member requested that the process allow multiple contacts for a given agency. Staff responded that this would be feasible and the contact list would be maintained by VTA at the back end. A TWG member asked when the notification process would apply, given that agencies are generally notified of major projects through the CEQA process. Staff responded that while the majority of projects that require a TIA also go through the CEQA process, there are some that do not. The group discussed lengthening the review period to longer than 10 days. However it was concluded that the quick turnaround time is important to move projects through the process. The group discussed whether electronic TIAs would be stored on VTA s website. Staff responded that due to archiving issues, it would be preferable to include a link to the TIA on the Lead Agency s website. Proposed Draft Text Section 3.1, Page 12: 1. Lead Agency Sends TIA Notification Form to VTA: Lead Agencies are required to send notification that a TIA is being started to VTA, as well as designated contacts for and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members of cities, towns, the County, and Caltrans as appropriate. A sample of the TIA Notification Form that includes the contact information of the TAC members is provided in Appendix A. The purpose of this notification is to inform interested parties agencies of the study and to allow them to comment on the scope of the analysis. A sample of the TIA Notification Form that includes the designated contacts for each of the agencies is provided in Appendix A. A PDF version that may be electronically filled out will be posted on the VTA website. VTA is in the process of developing a web-based TIA Notification Form, which will be linked on the VTA website when available. The Lead Agency shall submit the draft work scope of the TIA along with the TIA Notification Form. Lead Agencies are encouraged to submit TIA Notification Forms and work scopes electronically rather than in hardcopy format wherever possible. Comments from interested agencies on the TIA scoping must be received by the Lead Agency within 10 working days of notification mailing. 2. Lead Agency Submits TIA with Approval Hearing Date: Upon completion of the study and at least 15 calendar days before the project comes up is considered for approval (e.g. City Council or Board of Supervisors hearing), or is recommended for approval (e.g. Planning Commission meeting), the Lead Agency is required to submit the TIA to VTA, as well as designated contacts for cities, towns, the Page A-2 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #1 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 1 7 A TWG member asked that the words interested parties be changed to interested agencies County, and Caltrans as appropriate. With the TIA submittal, the Lead Agency should along with indicate the expected hearing date for project approval or recommendation. The TIA Submittal Form (in Appendix A) should accompany the TIA. Lead Agencies are encouraged to submit TIA reports electronically (via an email with an attachment, or a link to the TIA location online) rather than in hardcopy format whenever possible. A draft version of the TIA may also be submitted earlier in the process for preliminary feedback from VTA and other agencies is also acceptable to VTA. Page A-3 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #1 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 1 7 Key Issue (b): Addressing Comments on TIAs Statement of Issue & TWG Discussion Issue: The TIA Guidelines do not provide guidance on how a Lead Agency should address comments on a TIA Report. TWG Discussion: The group was supportive of the idea that comments should be addressed. A TWG member proposed that for issues of CMP compliance the language should allow Lead Agencies to either correct the situation or explain how they are already meeting the standards. A TWG member proposed that email would be an acceptable way to address comments on CMP requirements, in addition to a revised TIA or supplemental memo. The group agreed that for comments not relating to compliance with the CMP, the TIAG should encourage (but not require) responses and not specify how to reply. Proposed Draft Text Section 3.1, Page 14: 3. VTA Responds: Before the expected date of project approval, VTA will review the TIA for consistency with CMP standards and with VTA s CDT Manual. VTA will forward a response to the Lead Agency staff prior to approval by the Planning Commission and/or City Council with copies sent to the jurisdiction's members on the Technical Advisory Committee and Policy Advisory Committee and appropriate VTA Board member(s). 4. Lead Agency Staff Addresses Comments: Upon receiving comments on the draft TIA report from VTA or other agencies, Lead Agency staff should address these comments. If an EIR is being prepared for the project, the Lead Agency shall respond in writing to comments on the TIA and transportation analysis if they are received through the CEQA comment process, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. If an EIR is not being prepared, the Lead Agency should contact the agency that submitted comments to discuss them. For comments that address the compliance of the TIA with CMP requirements, the Lead Agency shall submit a written response to VTA and other agencies as appropriate. The response may take the form of a revised TIA, supplemental memo, or email clarification as appropriate. For other comments, not relating to compliance with the CMP, the Lead Agency is encouraged to respond to VTA and other agencies. Page A-4 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #1 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 1 7 Key Issue (c): Maps and descriptions of existing pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities Statement of Issue & TWG Discussion Issue: Current guidelines are out of sync with recent practice in terms of maps and descriptions of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Staff proposed an approach to streamline the requirements for text description of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities to emphasize gaps and deficiencies, and add an item clarifying that a map is required in each case. TWG Discussion: The group was supportive of requiring maps of both bicycle and pedestrian facilities for all projects. The purpose of the maps would be informational, but could occasionally encourage offsite improvements. The group discussed that the map and text description should focus on the project frontages and paths to major attractors such as transit facilities or schools. There could also be a tie in to trip reductions for proximity to transit. A TWG member mentioned a concern about applying this requirement to small projects. A TWG member suggested that the documentation of existing gaps and deficiencies should include Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations. Proposed Draft Text Section 7.4, Page 28 The following information shall be provided for the bicycle facilities within the project area: a. Existing bicycle paths, lanes, and routes as well as bike/pedestrian over and under crossings. b. (moved from item c.) Future planned or programmed bicycle improvements including, but not limited to, those facilities, routes, and programs in Member Agencies' bicycle elements and trail plans. c. (moved from item b.) A basic characterization of existing bicycling conditions in terms of safety and ease of access to the project site, including emphasizing gaps and deficiencies in the bicycle network near the site (e.g., missing bike lanes, narrow outside lanes). existing obstacles to accessing the site including but not limited to presence of bike lanes, narrow outside lanes, nonbicycleproof drainage grates. (BTG 3.22) c. d. Map showing existing bicycle facilities within 2,500 feet of the project boundaries. This map should indicate bicycle paths, lanes, and routes as well as bike/pedestrian over and under crossings. e. The description and map of existing conditions should focus on the project street frontages and paths to major attractors such as transit facilities, schools, shops and services. The following information shall be provided for the project area's pedestrian facilities: a. Existing pedestrian facilities in project area including sidewalks and other non-motorized connections and paths in project area (map). Page A-5 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #1 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 1 7 b. Future planned or programmed pedestrian improvements including, but not limited to, those facilities, improvements, and programs in Member Agencies' pedestrian elements and plans. c. A basic characterization of existing walking conditions in terms of safety and Quality of Service indicators such as tree barriers, landscape buffers, and sidewalk width, comfort, and attractiveness emphasizing gaps and deficiencies in the pedestrian network near the site (e.g., missing crosswalks, missing pedestrian signal heads/phases, inadequate Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations). include ease of access and barriers to transit. d. Map showing existing pedestrian facilities within 1,000 feet of the project boundaries. This map should indicate sidewalks (showing each side of a street), crosswalks, and bike/pedestrian over and under crossings. e. The description and map of existing conditions should focus on the project street frontages and paths to major attractors such as transit facilities, schools, shops and services. Page A-6 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #1 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 1 7 Key Issue (d): Pedestrian and bicycle analysis methodology Statement of Issue & TWG Discussion Issue: Most TIAs currently include a capacity based analysis of these modes, based on VTA s current TIA Guidelines, which is not relevant for most Santa Clara County projects. Staff proposed an approach to reference Quality of Service based methodologies such as HCM 2010, eliminate the requirement to do a quantitative analysis of ped/bike demand (except for Special Project Types), and clarify ped/bike analysis requirements when an intersection modification is proposed. The latter is not a new requirement, but simply provides more guidance on methodology. TWG Discussion: A TWG member made the comment that the TIA Guidelines should include references to other QOS methodologies in a footnote, and that the HCM 2010 methodology should be encouraged rather than recommended. A TWG member asked whether the purpose of ped/bike analysis is disclosure or mitigation. Staff responded that this would be at the discretion of the Lead Agency. A TWG member commented that the TIA Guidelines should allow Lead Agencies the discretion to balance the needs of pedestrians, bicycles and automobile traffic. The group discussed what the desired result is when agencies analyze the secondary impacts of intersection mitigations on bicycles and pedestrians. The analysis is primarily for disclosure, but it could encourage Lead Proposed Draft Text Section 6.2.4, Page 21 LOS Methodology, Bicycle: Chapter 19 of the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 A Quality of Service (QOS)-based methodology such the one in the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (Chapters 16 18), or a similar methodology X, is encouraged can be used for analysis of bicycle facilities conditions. The TIA should include a description of the methodology being used as part of the analysis. X Other QOS methodologies available include the City of San Francisco s PEQI/BEQI and [other methodologies TBD]. Section 6.2.5, Page 21 LOS Methodology, Pedestrian: Chapter 18 of the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 A Quality of Service (QOS)-based methodology such the one in the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (Chapters 16 18), or a similar methodology X, is encouraged can be used for analysis of pedestrian facilities conditions. The TIA should include a description of the methodology being used as part of the analysis. Section 9.3, Page 42 Project Impacts, Bicycle & Pedestrian (excerpts) The evaluation of project impacts on bicycle and pedestrian conditions is addressed by answering the following questions: 1) Effects Of Vehicle Trips on Existing Bike and Pedestrian Conditions 2) Project Site Development and Project Roadway Improvements a. Consistency with Existing Adopted Plans: b. Effects on Existing Bicyclist/ Pedestrian Circulation in the Project Area [Move 3) from this section to Chapter 12, Special Project Types] 3) Project-Generated Bicycle And Pedestrian Trips For projects with significant bike and/or pedestrian generation, as Page A-7 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #1 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 1 7 Agencies to offset secondary impacts through design treatments, or to forgo intersection auto mitigations in some situations. determined by engineering judgment (see Section 8.1.3), it may be necessary to include a quantitative analysis of bicycle and/or pedestrian infrastructure capacity using the methodologies cited in Chapter 6.2.4 and 6.2.5. The purpose would be to evaluate the ability of existing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks, crosswalks, signal cycle lengths, bike paths and trail crossings, to accommodate the bicycle and/or pedestrian trips generated by the project. The specific facilities to include in the analysis would be determined on the basis of engineering judgment. Typical land uses generating enough bicycle and/or pedestrian trips to justify a quantitative analysis of bike and pedestrian capacity are arenas and stadiums, major transit stations, special event sites, TOD developments and schools. Chapter 10, Page 46 Mitigation Measures: 8) Mitigation measures for roadway level of service shall not unreasonably degrade bicycle, pedestrian or transit access, and circulation. If the following are included as recommended mitigation, the TIA should disclose them as a negative effect on bicycling and walking: [excerpt removed] 9) Disclose whether mitigations for traffic LOS would likely increase pedestrian or bicycle delay at intersections due to longer signal cycles, revised phasing, existing inadequate detection, etc. (See BTG Chapter 6 and see also HCM page 18-7 for pedestrian delay at intersections and HCM page 19-5 for bicycle delay at intersections).if a project proposes mitigation for Auto LOS involving an intersection modification (e.g., change to roadway geometry or signal timing), analyze and disclose whether the mitigation would affect pedestrian or bicycle conditions. A Quality of Service-based methodology (as cited in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5) is encouraged, although a text description of changes (such as longer crossing distances, increases in pedestrian or bicycle delay, longer signal cycles, revised phasing, existing inadequate detection) may be substituted. Refer to the VTA BTG Chapter 6 for recommendations on bicycle signal timing and detection at intersections. Page A-8 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #1 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 1 7 Key Issue (e): Express Lane analysis methodology Statement of Issue & TWG Discussion Issue: Express Lanes are currently not addressed in the TIA Guidelines. Staff anticipates the need to provide guidance on topics such as Trip Assignment, LOS analysis, etc. Staff proposed a new section to address Express Lanes, modeled after Section 6.2.3 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes. TWG Discussion: Staff discussed that there are challenges in assigning trips to Express Lanes due to limited access points (for example, Pacific Mall project in Milpitas is located near the EL but cannot be accessed from the EL). A TWG member suggested that Lead Agencies could consult with VTA to determine access and trip assignment. A TWG member suggested putting a maximum range of allowable assignment. A TWG member suggested combining the Express Lanes section with the existing HOV section of the TIAG. Staff noted that full guidance on Express Lanes analysis may require a tech memo that would later be incorporated into the TIA Guidelines. Proposed Draft Text Propose adding a new section on Express Lanes providing basic guidance on methodology: 6.2.4 Express Lanes (High Occupancy Toll/HOT Lanes) In cases where roadways with Express Lanes are analyzed and project trips are assigned to the Express Lane facility, Express Lane usage and impacts must be evaluated. The following applies to the evaluation of an Express Lane: Assignment of trips: To Be Determined. Operational analysis of an Express Lane (including analysis of impacts) shall be documented in the TIA Report. Traffic LOS analysis for an Express Lane should use the following saturation flow rates: - Freeway Express Lane Capacity = 1,650 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) The CMP Monitoring & Conformance Report includes densities and traffic volumes for freeway Express Lane segments. In addition, Section 9.1.1 (Project Impacts Level of Service Analysis) may need to be revised to note that freeway segment impact analysis should be conducted for General Purpose, HOV, and Express Lanes. Page A-9 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #1 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 1 7 Key Issue (f): Freeway segment analysis scenarios Statement of Issue & TWG Discussion Issue: Current guidelines are unclear on which scenarios require freeway segment analysis. Staff proposed clarifying that freeway segment analysis under Existing Conditions is required, but analysis under Background or Cumulative Conditions is encouraged but optional. TWG Discussion: The group agreed that Background and Cumulative should be optional for freeway analysis, due to difficulties in establishing baseline conditions for those scenarios. These difficulties include the lack of comprehensive Approved Trip Inventory (ATI) information in many cities, and the need to use a travel demand model to run the analysis. A TWG member noted that one approach would be to use a growth factor for background analysis but agreed that the scenarios could be optional. Proposed Draft Text 6.2.7 Freeway Segments For existing conditions, the densities for freeway segments in Santa Clara County are included in the most recent annual monitoring report produced by VTA. (excerpt removed) For the analysis of project conditions, the volume (V) used in the density calculation (Equation 1) is (excerpt removed) The Lead Agency is encouraged, but not required, to include an analysis of freeway segments do not need to be analyzed under background and cumulative conditions. 9.1.1 Project Impacts, Level of Service Analysis 2. Freeway Segments at LOS F: A project is said to impact a freeway segment determined to have been at LOS F under existing or background conditions the baseline scenario of the analysis (existing, background, or cumulative conditions), if the number of new trips added by the project is more than one percent of the freeway capacity. This calculation shall be for each direction of travel. Page A-10 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #1 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 1 7 Additional Issue: Signal timing information for intersection Auto LOS analysis Statement of Issue & TWG Discussion Issue: Currently some local agencies use estimated signal timing data derived from TRAFFIX when performing intersection Auto LOS analysis at intersections with traffic adaptive signal timing, when actual intersection timing data would be a better reflection of conditions on the ground. TWG Discussion: Santa Clara County Roads & Airports Department staff pointed out that local agencies should consult with the County when performing Auto LOS analysis at County Expressway intersections, so the County can provide actual signal timing data for the date(s) when the traffic volume data were collected. The group agreed that for CMP intersections, this mainly applies when the local agency is using newly collected traffic volume data (i.e., is not using data from the VTA CMP Monitoring & Conformance Report). Another TWG member noted that actual signal timing data should also be used for local intersections that have trafficadaptive signal timing. VTA staff believes that the TIA Guidelines should not refer to a specific software package for intersection Auto LOS analysis, but rather should refer to the VTA CMP Traffic LOS Analysis Guidelines for guidance. Proposed Draft Text 6.2.1 Urban Arterials The analysis of CMP urban arterials, including expressways, is accomplished by evaluating designated intersections along the arterials. The analysis of these intersections is to be conducted using TRAFFIX, VTA's designated standard software package 1. The use of TRAFFIX following the guidelines and the default values for CMP intersection analysis parameters are provided in Chapter 2 of the VTA CMP "Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines". 1 The LOS analysis procedure is based on the operational analysis of signalized intersections presented in the HCM2000. The LOS criteria shall be those used with the HCM2000 operational analysis method as shown on Table 2. Thresholds for determination of an impact are described in Chapter 9 of these guidelines. 1 For certain situations where more detailed analysis is necessary, such as analysis related to the State highway system, the use of other analysis tools, like Synchro, may be appropriate. VTA The CMP Manager and Caltrans staff should be consulted prior to conducting the analysis. When conducting Auto LOS analysis on County Expressway intersections, the Lead Agency should consult with County staff to determine the appropriate actual signal timing information for the analysis. Lead Agencies are also encouraged to obtain appropriate actual signal timing information for local intersections with trafficadaptive signal timing. The Lead Agency may also conduct additional analysis of coordinated signalized intersections, using other software programs when appropriate, to review the effects of signal coordination. Page A-11 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #2 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 8 12 TIA Guidelines Update TWG Meeting #2, 1/29/2014, Meeting Summary and Proposed Text VTA TIA Guidelines Update Technical Working Group (TWG) Summary of Meeting #2 and Proposed Text Changes for Key Issues in Ch. 8 12 This document summarizes the discussion of the TIA Guidelines Update Technical Working Group (TWG) Meeting #2 and contains proposed draft text that addresses five key issues in Chapters 8 through 12 of the current VTA TIA Guidelines. These proposed text changes, developed by VTA staff, are based on the discussion at the TWG meeting. Previous input includes TWG Web Survey #2 as well as a review of the TIA Guidelines of several other Congestion Management Agencies in the Bay Area. This document covers the following five main topics: a. Auto Trip Reductions Expectations for Customized Reductions b. Auto Trip Reductions Approach for Standard Reductions c. Alternate Methodologies for Auto Trip Generation d. Parking Analysis e. Pedestrian/Bicycle Analysis Under Project Conditions For each topic, a summary of the key issue and TWG discussion is shown in the left column, and the proposed draft text is shown in the right column. In the right column, underlined text represents new wording, while strikethrough text represents deleted wording. Bold italicized text in the right column represents VTA staff commentary. We welcome your input on these and other topics in the TIA Guidelines. If you have any suggestions or questions, please feel free to contact Rob Swierk at robert.swierk@vta.org, or (408) 321 5949. Page A-12 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #2 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 8 12 Key Issue (a): Auto Trip Reductions Expectations for Customized Reductions Statement of Issue & TWG Discussion Issue: Current TIA Guidelines discuss trip reduction practices and define standard trip reduction percentages allowed based on various project attributes, such as mixed uses, TDM programs, and proximity to transit. The Guidelines also discuss the possibility of projects taking larger trip reductions, but the language used is not specific and potentially ambiguous. Based on earlier LUTI and SOM WG discussions and Web Survey #2 feedback, VTA made a proposal to more clearly spell out the expectations for larger reductions. The goal of these changes is to incentivize developments to reduce their auto trip generation, and clarify expectations and make the process more transparent. TWG Discussion: Two TWG members noted that there should be flexibility in the measures used to achieve trip reductions if the target is reached it doesn t matter how the project gets there. A TWG member noted that trip reductions may reduce a traffic impact to Less than Significant and avoid mitigation, therefore it is important to provide detail about how the trip reduction will be reached (Apple 2 a good example). VTA staff asked the TWG about third party trip generation monitoring. The TWG was in general agreement that trip generation should be monitored by a third party, or possibly the local agency, and by driveway counts rather than self reported employee surveys. On the subject of sharing TDM monitoring data with Proposed Draft Text VTA staff will reconfigure Section 8.2 of the TIA Guidelines as Automobile Trip Reductions and Transportation Demand Management to encourage Lead Agencies to document project trip reduction efforts in one place. This content will also be summarized in the Auto Trip Reduction Statement at the start of the TIA. The new introductory text of Section 8.2 will make it clear that Customized Reductions are an accepted alternative to the Standard Reductions listed in Table 4 of the TIA Guidelines. A new subsection will be added to Section 8.2: 8.2.? Customized Trip Reductions Table 4 above describes standard trip reductions that may be taken by projects demonstrating certain project characteristics (mixed use development, TDM programs, and proximity to transit). However, projects may take different trip reduction percentages than those shown in Table 4 if documentation and justification of the reductions are provided in the TIA Report, based on the guidance below. It is recognized that Lead Agencies ultimately make decisions on project approvals, and therefore commitments to certain elements that would justify a Customized Trip Reduction will occur as an agreement between the project applicant and the Lead Agency, and it is responsibility of the Lead Agency to enforce those commitments. For the purpose of a TIA, stating a commitment and providing the documentation noted below is sufficient, provided that the commitment also appears in a legally enforceable document (e.g., Conditions of Approval, Development Agreement, or CEQA Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP)). The following elements are required in a TIA Report for a project taking a Customized Trip Reduction: Page A-13 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #2 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 8 12 VTA, a TWG member asked how often data would be shared and stated that there should not be a step for VTA approval. VTA noted that the reporting would be annual or biennial and there would be no VTA approval step. A TWG member noted that this would create extra work for City staff and suggested that it should not be required. A TWG member noted that the data shared could be limited to a simple table stating how many trips the project generated or what the mode split was compared to the target, and that the data is important for Member Agencies to know whether targets are being reached and know what works and what doesn t in TDM. VTA staff noted the reporting would only apply to projects approved under the new TIA Guidelines after they are adopted by the VTA Board. On the subject of penalty/enforcement, a TWG member requested that VTA provide guidance on an appropriate penalty structure. State a commitment to a specific reduction target (percentage trip reduction, non-auto mode split or trip cap). This statement should specify the starting point for the reduction (e.g., ITE auto trip generation rates based on square footage or number of units, total person-trips based on employee/resident count) and the time period for the reduction (peak hour, peak period and/or full day). For targets based on mode split, the statement should include a clear explanation of how to convert these figures back to auto trip generation rates to allow later monitoring and comparison. Provide a description of the types of TDM/trip reduction measures that are proposed in the program. It is recognized that the list will be preliminary and may change over time. State a commitment to periodic monitoring of project trip reduction. The methodology should follow industry standards to determine auto trip generation rates or mode splits and should be conducted by the Lead Agency or a third party. The TIA report should describe the proposed monitoring approach. State a commitment to an enforcement/penalty structure. Lead Agencies retain flexibility to determine parameters, and the enforcement/penalty structure may take the form of a reinvestment clause where project applicant/owner is required to invest more in trip reduction efforts if not meeting target. State a commitment to provide summary level monitoring data (e.g., auto trip generation rates, mode shares) to VTA, through the Lead Agency. Data shall be provided on a biennial basis as part of the CMP Monitoring & Conformance Program. The following elements are encouraged in a TIA Report for a project taking trip reductions larger than those shown in Table 4: Provide a detailed description of the TDM/trip reduction measures that are proposed in the program. Sharing of trip monitoring reports or more in-depth trip generation or survey data for the purpose of improving the TIA Guidelines in the future. Page A-14 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #2 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 8 12 Key Issue (b): Auto Trip Reductions Approach for Standard Reductions Statement of Issue & TWG Discussion Issue: The current TIA Guidelines have relatively modest percentage reductions for project characteristics like proximity to rail or bus, a TDM program with financial incentives or a shuttle, or mixed use development. Based on TWG Web Survey #2, VTA proposed to leave most of these standard reductions unchanged, but provide guidance on taking trip reductions for proximity to BART and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), which are currently not discussed in the Guidelines. VTA proposed a caseby case approach for proximity to BART, and two options (a policy driven approach or a case by case approach) for BRT. TWG Discussion: A TWG member asked why VTA proposed to use a different trip reduction rate for BART than the one already used for Caltrain. VTA staff responded that the systems have different characteristics, service frequencies, and station area land uses, and therefore a case by case approach is more appropriate for BART. A TWG member suggested that VTA should set a maximum percentage for the case by case trip reduction. VTA staff replied that it is left to professional judgment. VTA staff also noted that more guidance on reductions near BART and BRT may be possible after these systems open in Santa Clara County and empirical data is collected. The TWG came to a consensus that trip reductions for proximity to BRT should be the same as for proximity to Light Rail, while BART should be on a case by case basis. Proposed Draft Text Update to Table 4: Location Within 2,000-Foot Walk of Transit Facility Housing near LRT, BRT or Caltrain Station 9.0%* Housing near a Major Bus Stop 2.0%* Housing near a BART station Case-by-Case** Employment near LRT, BRT or Caltrain Station 3.0%* Employment near a Major Bus Stop 2.0%* Employment near a BART station Case-by-Case** * Note: The LRT/BRT/Caltrain Station, BART Station, and Major Bus Stop reductions cannot be combined. ** Note: See Section 8.2.4 below for a description of the case-by-case method to be applied for proximity to BART stations Update to Section 8.2.4: Housing projects and employment projects that are located near transit have different mode splits resulting in generally lower vehicle-trip generation characteristics. The extent is different for different types of transit facilities. To qualify for the Proximity to Transit trip reduction rates, developments must be located near existing or future light rail stations, Caltrain stations, BART stations, Bus Rapid Transit stations, and major bus stops. For a project to qualify for an auto trip reduction near a future transit station, the transit capital project that will include the station must be under construction at the time of the TIA Notification Form issuance. Page A-15 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #2 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 8 12 The trip reduction values allowed for each type of project are as follows: 1. Housing Near Light Rail, Bus Rapid Transit or Caltrain Station: Housing developments where the walking distance from the unit or the front door of the housing complex to the station is 2,000 feet or less may reduce their trip generation volumes by at most nine percent (9%) 3. Employment Near Light Rail, Bus Rapid Transit or Caltrain Station: Employment sites where the walking distance from the front door of the development to the station is 2,000 feet or less may reduce their trip generation volumes by at most three percent (3%) 5. Case-by-Case Approach for Proximity to BART Stations: Residential and employment developments where the walking distance from the front door of the development to an existing or planned BART station is 2,000 feet or less may apply a trip reduction in a TIA. When proposing such a reduction, Lead Agencies must obtain concurrence from VTA and provide a description of the methodology, source data and justification for the trip reduction in the TIA report. The trip reduction for proximity to BART should take into account the attributes of the station area (land uses, transportation network, pedestrian and bicycle connections to the station) to ensure that the requested reductions are appropriate for the context. VTA may in the future provide suggested trip reduction rates (standard reductions) when data from the Santa Clara County BART stations becomes available. Page A-16 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #2 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 8 12 Key Issue (c): Alternate Methodologies for Auto Trip Generation Statement of Issue & TWG Discussion Issue: Current TIA Guidelines allow the use of automobile trip generation methodologies other than the standard Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) rates, but provides limited guidance on the expectations for TIAs that use such methodologies. VTA staff prepared a brief memo on alternate methodologies and proposed text to provide additional guidance on the use of such methodologies in TIA reports. TWG Discussion: A TWG member noted that ITE rates would be preferred because most standard trip reductions are based on those rates. A project could game the system by choosing the lowest rate and then applying reductions. VTA staff noted that professional judgment should apply to the choice of trip generation rates and trip reductions. A TWG member requested that VTA look at the ITE Manual and provide guidance on which land uses would warrant use of alternate methodologies. Proposed Draft Text The section below provides proposed draft text for Section 8.1.1 in the updated TIA Guidelines. Further information on each of the alternate methodologies is available in the separate memo dated January 27, 2014. Section 8.1.1, Trip Generation Sources and Methodologies Trip generation rates used in the TIA should be from the most recent version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE s) Trip Generation Manual for ITE rates. In special cases (such as for unique land uses)where unique land uses or developments with smart growth characteristics (i.e. infill locations, mixed-used land uses, higher densities, proximity to transit) are present, trip generation rates from other sources methodologies may be substituted used as a substitute for ITE rates. Other sources include, where appropriate: Caltrans Trip Generation Studies SANDAG Traffic Generations Manual & Trip Generation for Smart Growth City of San José Trip Generation Rates MXD Model/SANDAG Model US EPA URBEMIS CARB NCHRP 8-51 Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Rate for Mixed- Used Development Station Area Resident Survey MTC California Smart Growth Trip Generation Tool Caltrans/UC Davis When using trip rates from any of the alternate trip generation methodologies listed, the Lead Agency shall include in the TIA report a full description of the trip generation methodology used and a summary of all inputs and assumptions. Professional judgment should be exercised to avoid double counting when using an alternate trip generation methodology. Some methodologies already account for attributes contained in the Standard Reductions, which should not be taken on top of reductions provided by an alternate methodology. Page A-17 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #2 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 8 12 In cases where the chosen trip generation methodology is based on a limited sample size, Lead Agencies are encouraged to conduct additional research or use local data to validate the trip rates before applying the suggested trip reductions from the alternate methodology. Lead Agencies may also develop Ttrip generation rates may be developed explicitly for use in the transportation impact analysis. If special trip generation rates are developed, techniques in the ITE s Manual of Traffic Engineering Studies should be used. Page A-18 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #2 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 8 12 Key Issue (d): Parking Analysis Statement of Issue & TWG Discussion Issue: Current TIA Guidelines include a short Parking section (9.4.2) that includes a requirement to consider adequacy of parking supply compared to demand along with parking management strategies and bicycle parking. However, CMA legislation does not require any discussion of parking adequacy for CMP purposes, and only mentions parking in relation to parking management and parking cashout, in the context of TDM/trip reduction. Also, recent CEQA changes have reduced the emphasis on parking adequacy analysis for CEQA purposes. Considering these factors and the results of Web Survey #2, VTA staff proposed to remove the existing parking section and relocate its component parts as follows: parking management to be discussed in the new Auto Trip Reduction and TDM section of Chapter 8; parking adequacy discussed under Section 2.3 Other Transportation Issues, with emphasis that it is not required for CMP purposes; and bicycle parking to be discussed in Section 9.3, Bicycle and Pedestrian. TWG Discussion: A TWG member noted that parking is usually covered by parking studies conducted by the Planning Department. A TWG member noted that parking is sometimes the most important concern for residents about a project and the analysis should be included. VTA staff noted that parking adequacy analysis could still be included in a TIA under the provisions of Section Proposed Draft Text Delete Section 9.4.2: 9.4.2 Parking The TIA Report must include an analysis of parking. The evaluation of parking shall consider the following issues: The parking analysis must explicitly discuss the relationship between the project's parking supply, parking demand and parking costs (if any) to vehicle trip reductions applied to the project. The parking analysis shall also consider adequacy of parking supply compared to demand, and fully explain any shared parking assumptions. The parking assessment should identify carpool and bicycle parking and storage to be provided by the project. Calculate the required bicycle parking in accordance with the city s ordinance or, if none, VTA s Bicycle Technical Guidelines (BTG), adopted December 13, 2007, and indicate proposed type of Class 1 and Class 2 parking to be provided by the project. Move component parts to the following Sections: Move discussion of parking management to new Auto Trip Reduction and TDM section of Chapter 8: Parking and Automobile Trip Reduction A parking management plan, shared parking, parking cashout, unbundled parking, carpool parking, and parking layout & design can be ways to encourage the use of alternative modes and reduce auto trips. If the project is using any of these measures as part of its overall TDM/trip reduction strategy, the Lead Agency shall document it in the TIA, and note it in the Auto Trip Reduction Statement. The parking analysis must explicitly discuss the Page A-19 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #2 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 8 12 A TWG member noted that parking could be discussed in a staff report for a project rather than the TIA. A TWG member noted that a potential approach is to delineate CMP vs. local requirements in the TIA Work Scope. relationship between the project's parking supply, parking demand and parking costs (if any) to vehicle trip reductions applied to the project. Move discussion of parking adequacy to Section 2.3: 2.3 Determining Other Transportation Issues to Address The TIA should may also include an analysis of the following issues as determined by the Lead Agency. These analyses are not required for CMP purposes but may be included in a TIA to address local requirements or CEQA: Adequacy of automobile Pparking supply compared to demand or local standards Queuing on local (non-cmp) facilities Site circulation and access Effects to bicycle access, circulation and collision Effects to pedestrian access, circulation and collision Analysis of effects to transit. Move discussion of bicycle parking to Section 9.3 (see Key Issue (e), below for language). Page A-20 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #2 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 8 12 Key Issue (e): Pedestrian/Bicycle Analysis Under Project Conditions Statement of Issue & TWG Discussion Issue: The current TIA Guidelines require an analysis of project impacts on bicycle and pedestrian modes. Current guidance lacks several elements that could be included in bicycle and pedestrian analysis. VTA staff proposed an approach to: Define a study area radius for analysis of bicycle and pedestrian modes; Include a quantitative Quality of Service (QOS) analysis for intersections and roadway segments that will receive geometric or signal timing changes due to the project; Revise existing descriptive checklist to be clearer and provide opportunity to describe benefits in addition to impacts. TWG Discussion: A TWG member stated that the radius for analysis should be consistent with the distance for taking trip reductions to proximity to transit. VTA noted that paths to major attractors (including transit stops) is included in the analysis and that this will also be addressed in the Transit Analysis section. A TWG member noted that this analysis would help mitigate the mitigation measures by requiring analysis of secondary impacts on bicycle and pedestrian modes. A TWG member noted that this analysis could be burdensome for small projects and more information on methodology would be needed. Proposed Draft Text Modify Sections 9.3 and 9.4 as shown below. In addition, similar language about Quality of Service Analysis will be added to the Mitigation Measures chapter to provide clearer guidance on analysis of secondary impacts (which is already required). Section 9.3, Bicycle and Pedestrian, page 42: The TIA Report must include an analysis of bicycle and pedestrian modes under project conditions. The analysis must address project impacts on existing bicyclists and pedestrians as well as the impacts and benefits of site development and associated roadway improvements on bike/pedestrian infrastructure, circulation, quality of service, and conformance to existing plans and policies. (Bike/pedestrian site access and circulation and the provision of bicycle parking are addressed in Section 9.4.) Quality of Service Analysis Projects that propose geometric changes to roadway segments or intersections, or changes to signal operations, shall include a quantitative Quality of Service (QOS) analysis for bicyclists and pedestrians for those locations where changes are proposed. For the methodology, agencies are encouraged to use the approach in the latest Highway Capacity Manual, or a similar methodology, for the QOS analysis. Agencies must include a description/justification of the methodology being used. See Chapter 6 for more information on Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis Methodology. Projects that do not propose geometric changes to roadway segments or intersections, or changes to signal operations, are not required to include a QOS analysis, but such analysis is encouraged for project frontages. Descriptive Analysis In addition to the QOS analysis (if applicable), the TIA Report shall include a descriptive evaluation of project impacts or benefits to bicycle and pedestrian Page A-21 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #2 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 8 12 A TWG member stated that bicycle/pedestrian analysis is important and VTA should consider adopting a countywide threshold. TWG members noted that signal timing is not considered a mitigation measure, and subsequently it was suggested that signal operations changes would be a better term. A TWG member noted that this requirement would require more analysis of the effects of mitigation measures than currently included in typical TIA Work Scopes. conditions. The evaluation of project impacts on bicycle and pedestrian conditions is addressed by answering the following questions:. The descriptive analysis should encompass a radius of 2,500 feet from the project site for bicycle facilities, and a radius of 1,000 feet from the project site for pedestrian facilities. Within this radius, the descriptive analysis should focus on the project street frontages, paths to major attractors such as transit facilities, schools, shops and services, and bicycle and pedestrian deficiencies identified in the Existing Conditions analysis. The following questions should be addressed: 1) Effects Of Vehicle Trips on Existing Bike and Pedestrian Conditions 2) Project Site Development and Project Roadway Improvements 1) a. Consistency with Existing Adopted Plans: Is implementation of the project consistent with How does the project implement, preclude, modify, or otherwise affect proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects and/or policies identified in the lead agency s adopted Bicycle Plan, Pedestrian Plan, Trails Master Plan, and/or bicycle/circulation element of their General Plan? Is implementation of the project consistent with How does the project implement, preclude, modify, or otherwise affect proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects and/or policies identified in other agencies plans i.e. County Bicycle Plan, adjacent cities Bicycle Plan, Bay Trail Plan? What provisions for bicycle parking and storage are provided by the project? Calculate the required bicycle parking in accordance with the city s ordinance or, if none, VTA s Bicycle Technical Guidelines, and indicate proposed type of Class 1 and Class 2 parking to be provided by the project. Proposed bicycle parking locations should be noted on the site plan. 2) b. Effects on Existing Bicyclist / Pedestrian Circulation in the Project Area * Would the project or its mitigation benefit or enhance existing bicycle and pedestrian access and circulation? For example, by providing bike-friendly and pedestrian-friendly improvements like those identified in VTA s Bicycle Technical Guidelines, Pedestrian Technical Guidelines, or Community Design and Transportation Manual. If so, describe. * Would the project reduce, sever or eliminate existing bicycle or pedestrian access and circulation? If so, describe. * Would bicyclists or pedestrians travel routes be impeded by changes to the roadway geometry, including roadway shoulders Page A-22 12.a

VTA TIA Guidelines Update TWG #2 Discussion and Proposed Text Changes Ch. 8 12 where bikes ride, or connections to trails or sidewalks as a direct or indirect result of the project? If so describe. * How does the project address bicycle and pedestrian deficiencies identified in the Existing Conditions analysis? * If a new traffic signal is being installed as part of the project or project mitigation, the TIA should note that adequate bike and pedestrian detection and signal timing should be provided. (See VTA s Bicycle Technical Guidelines BTG Chapter 6.) 3) Project-Generated Bicycle And Pedestrian Trips For projects with significant bike and/or pedestrian generation, as determined by engineering judgment (see Section 8.1.3), it may be necessary to include a quantitative analysis of bicycle and/or pedestrian infrastructure capacity using the methodologies cited in Chapter 6.2.4 and 6.2.5. The purpose would be to evaluate the ability of existing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks, crosswalks, signal cycle lengths, bike paths and trail crossings, to accommodate the bicycle and/or pedestrian trips generated by the project. The specific facilities to include in the analysis would be determined on the basis of engineering judgment. Typical land uses generating enough bicycle and/or pedestrian trips to justify a quantitative analysis of bike and pedestrian capacity are arenas and stadiums, major transit stations, special event sites, TOD developments and schools. Section 9.4, Site Circulation and Access, page 43: [excerpts below] The site circulation and access assessment shall include an analysis of the proposed bicycle access and onsite circulation with recommendations to encourage bicycle trips to the site. Address adverse site circulation issues, if any, which were identified in the Existing Conditions analysis. The assessment of site access shall include an analysis of the proposed pedestrian access and onsite circulation with recommendations to encourage pedestrian trips to the site. Address adverse site circulation issues, if any, which were identified in the Existing Conditions analysis. Also address the extent to which the ability of bicyclists and pedestrians to access the project site is inhibited by manmade and natural barriers such as railroad crossings, rivers, freeways, dead-end streets, and cul-de-sacs. Page A-23 12.a

UPDATED: 4-1-2013 DRAFT AUTO TRIP REDUCTION STATEMENT 12.b PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name: Location: Description: (Refer to Section XX of TIA Report for more details) Size: Density: D.U. Residential D.U. / Acre Sq. Ft. Comm. Acres (Gr.) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Located in a PDA? Y / N Located in the CDT Cores, Corridors and Station Areas? Y / N PROJECT AUTO TRIP GENERATION Auto Trips Generated: (Refer to Section XX of TIA Report for more details) AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr Total Weekday TRIP REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Section XX of TIA Report for more details) Is the project required to meet any trip reduction requirements or targets? If so, specify percent: Reference code or requirement: Y / N TRIP REDUCTION STRATEGIES TRANSIT (Refer to Section XX of TIA Report for more details) Proximity to Transit % Reduction Total Weekday Trips Reduced Residence within 2000 ft walk of rail Residence within 2000 ft walk of bus Employment within 2000 ft walk of rail Employment within 2000 ft walk of bus (max 9%) (max 2%) (max 3%) (max 2%) Note: Percentages here are from March 2009 edition of VTA TIA Guidelines and may change in a future update. Describe walking route to transit, specifically noting sidewalk gaps, barriers, missing crosswalks, etc.: What features does the project offer that will improve walking and biking access to transit? MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT Housing/Retail Type: Hotel/Retail Describe: (Refer to Section XX of TIA Report for more details) Housing/Employment % Reduction Total Weekday Trips Reduced Retail/Employment

DRAFT 12.b OTHER TDM/REDUCTION MEASURES Does project provide a TDM program? (Refer to Section XX of TIA Report for more details) Y / N % Reduction Total Weekday Trips Reduced Financial incentives (max 5%) Note: Percentages here are (parking pricing, transit subsidy, etc.) from March 2009 edition of Shuttle program VTA TIA Guidelines and may (max 3%) change in a future update. Carpool/vanpool program or incentives? Y/ N Describe proposed TDM program, including monitoring, enforcement and funding (for shuttle program): Provide references to reports/data (if applying for greater than default reduction in TIA Guidelines): BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PROGRAMS (Refer to Section XX of TIA Report for more details) Does the project provide bicycle/pedestrian improvements or programs? Y / N Improved sidewalks? New bike lanes? Y / N Y / N Describe: Describe: # of Class I parking spaces (lockers): # of Class II parking spaces (racks): Describe additional bicycle/pedestrian programs (e.g. showers, facilities, subsidies, bike-share, etc.): PARKING MANAGEMENT Parking provided: Shared parking? Parking pricing? Parking cashout? Unbundled parking? Y / N Y / N Y / N Y / N (Refer to Section XX of TIA Report for more details) Compare to local minimum requirement: Describe: SITE PLANNING & DESIGN (Refer to Section XX of TIA Report for more details) Describe features of the site plan and design of the project that encourage walking, biking, and transit use, while discouraging solo automobile trips: TOTAL TRIP REDUCTION % Reduction Total Weekday Trips Reduced

VTA TIA Guidelines Update Summary of Outreach Activities Updated February 18, 2014 Date Meeting/Audience Topics Covered 1 8/8/2012 VTA Land Use / Transportation Integration (LUTI) Working Group Background, goals & desired outcomes, potential work areas, Auto Trip Reduction Statement (ATRS) 2 8/29/2012 VTA System Operations & Management (SOM) Working Group Background, goals & desired outcomes, potential work areas, ATRS 3 11/14/2012 VTA LUTI WG ATRS (blank draft 3 plus filled out examples), Questions on how agencies would use ATRS 4 1/23/2013 VTA SOM WG ATRS (blank draft 3 plus filled out examples), Questions on how agencies would use ATRS, Questions on TIA/Notification Form process 5 2/14/2013 VTA LUTI WG Proposed work plan, schedule and outreach approach 6 2/27/2013 VTA SOM WG Proposed work plan, schedule and outreach approach 7 2/26/2013 Advocacy groups (Silicon Valley Leadership Group, TransForm, Greenbelt Alliance) Background/need, work plan, schedule, ATRS 8 4/10/2013 VTA Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Background/need, work plan, schedule, ATRS 9 4/11/2013 VTA Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Background/need, work plan, schedule, ATRS 10 4/10/2013 VTA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Background/need, work plan, schedule, ATRS 11 5/2/2013 Joint Venture Silicon Valley Public Sector Climate Task Force Background/need, work plan, schedule, ATRS 12 5/8/2013 VTA LUTI WG Summary of feedback received, plan for updates/technical Working Group (TWG), upcoming outreach activities 13 5/22/2013 VTA SOM WG Summary of feedback received, plan for updates/technical Working Group, upcoming outreach activities 14 6/12/2013 VTA Committee for Transit Accessibility Background/need, work plan, schedule, ATRS 15 6/13/2013 VTA Policy Advisory Committee Background/need, work plan, schedule, ATRS Advocacy groups (Silicon Valley Leadership 16 8/8/2013 Group, TransForm, Greenbelt Alliance, Urban Background/need, work plan, ATRS, status of TWG 12.c

17 Date Meeting/Audience Topics Covered Late August early September 2013 WEB SURVEY #1 of TIA Guidelines Update Technical Working Group (TWG) agency staff Key topics from Chapters 1 7 of the current Guidelines 18 10/1/2013 TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP MEETING #1 Key topics from Chapters 1 7 of the current Guidelines Silicon Valley Leadership Group Transportation 19 10/2/2013 Policy Committee Background/need, work plan, schedule, ATRS, relevance to employers 20 10/23/2013 VTA SOM WG Recap of TWG #1, Discussion on auto trip reductions 21 11/13/2013 VTA LUTI WG Recap of TWG #1, Discussion on auto trip reductions (including brief presentations from Sunnyvale/Palo Alto/Friends of Caltrain) 22 12/6/2013 Silicon Valley Leadership Group Public Officials Luncheon Background/need, work plan, schedule, ATRS, relevance to local decision makers 23 Early December 2013 early January 2014 WEB SURVEY #2 of TIA Guidelines Update Technical Working Group (TWG) agency staff Key topics from Chapters 8 12 of current Guidelines 24 12/20/2013 Advocacy groups (Silicon Valley Leadership Group, TransForm, California Walks) Update on recent meetings and activities (TWG #1, Web Survey #2), discussion on Auto Trip Reduction approach 25 1/13/2014 Moffett Park Business Group Board Background/need, ATRS, other update areas, expectations for customized trip reductions, how employers & developers can get involved 26 1/29/2014 TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP MEETING #2 Key topics from Chapters 8 12 of current Guidelines Recap of TWG #2, Preview of final Key Topics (Transit Analysis, Mitigation 27 2/12/2014 VTA LUTI WG Measures, CEQA Scenarios Alignment) 28 2/26/2014 VTA SOM WG Recap of TWG #2, Preview of final Key Topics (Transit Analysis, Mitigation Measures, CEQA Scenarios Alignment) 29 2/27/2014 Consultant Forum (Transportation and Environmental consultants) Background/need, ATRS, summary of Key Topics from TWG #1 and #2, preview of final Key Topics 12.c

13 Date: March 5, 2014 Current Meeting: March 13, 2014 Board Meeting: April 3, 2014 BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Technical Advisory Committee General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez Chief CMA Officer, John Ristow Capitol Expressway Pedestrian Improvements BACKGROUND: FOR INFORMATION ONLY The Eastridge Transit Center, located on Capitol Expressway in San Jose, is the second-busiest transfer point in VTA s system, with 2,400 daily boardings and eleven bus lines. In 2010, VTA completed the Eastridge Transit Center Improvement and Access Plan, funded through a Caltrans Environmental Justice Planning Grant. After collecting extensive public feedback, the study team used the results to inform a larger analysis of pedestrian and bicycle barriers to the Transit Center and identified bicycle and pedestrian projects that would improve access to the Transit Center from neighboring areas. One of the issues mentioned in all community outreach meetings and some feedback forms was a safer and shorter connection between the Transit Center and the shopping center and neighborhoods to the east of Capitol Expressway. Community members also expressed concern about the prevalence of jaywalking across Capitol Expressway. The Capitol Expressway Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing at Eastridge Transit Center is included in the Bicycle Expenditure Program 2040, which address safe pedestrian and bicycle access to the Transit Center. In 2013, VTA staff began taking a closer look at developing pedestrian improvements at this location to address safety and access needs. In fall 2013, VTA was awarded a Highway Safety Improvement Program grant to partially fund pedestrian improvements along Capitol Expressway at the Eastridge Transit Center. Subsequently, VTA was selected to receive a Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) County Program Manager Grant and a County Expressway Pedestrian Program Grant, which together, will fully fund the project. The County Expressway Pedestrian Program is funded by the Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA3). In April, VTA staff will ask the Board of 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1927 Administration 408.321.5555 Customer Service 408.321.2300

13 Directors to approve the project list for the TFCA County Program Manager Fund, which includes this project. In coming months, VTA staff will bring action items to the VTA Board to accept the HSIP grant and the TDA3 Program. This board report describes the project, schedule, and funding plan for the Capitol Expressway Pedestrian Improvements. DISCUSSION: Existing Conditions The project area consists of Capitol Expressway between Eastridge Loop Drive and Tully Road (Attachment A). The Eastridge Transit Center and the Eastridge Mall are accessed via Eastridge Loop Drive. Though the Capitol Expressway/Eastridge Loop intersection is signalized, it does not currently accommodate pedestrians. There is currently no direct ADA-accessible walking route between the transit center and the shopping plaza at Tully Road and Capitol Expressway. Attachment B includes photos of the project area. Jaywalking at this location was mentioned as a concern from community members and is supported by collision data and field observations by VTA staff. As seen in Attachment C, crash data from 2002 to 2011 indicates six auto collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists, with two resulting in pedestrian fatality. For the five collisions in which a violation is reported, the database cites jaywalking as the primary collision factor. Planned Improvements Attachment D, Draft Plan View of Capitol Expressway Pedestrian Improvements, shows a plan view of the proposed improvements. The proposed project will reduce jaywalking, improve pedestrian safety and comfort, and cut the distance between the Eastridge Transit Center and the shopping plaza in half by: Upgrading the signal at the intersection of Capitol/Loop to include a pedestrian phase and installing pedestrian sensors and implementing pedestrian adaptive signal timing to automatically extend the pedestrian crossing green time when pedestrians are in the crosswalk. Installing a pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of and Capitol Expressway/ Eastridge Loop Installing a sidewalk approximately 1,200 feet in length on the east side of Capitol Expressway between the Eastridge Loop and the shopping plaza driveway Installing a median fence on Capitol between Tully Road and the Eastridge Loop to prevent jaywalking Page 2 of 3

13 Funding The total project cost is estimated at $1.547 million, including environmental clearance, right-ofway, design, and construction. Table 1, below, summarizes the status of funding for the project. In December 2013, VTA was awarded a $1,049,200 Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant to fund this project. Subsequently, VTA applied for two local grant sources to fully fund the project. In January 2014, VTA was selected for a $300,000 County Expressways Pedestrian Program Grant. In February 2014, VTA was selected for the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Program Manager Fund for the remaining $198,000. As of the date of this memo, final decisions on these two local grant sources are still pending. Table 1: Funding Sources for Capitol Expressway Pedestrian Improvements Fund Source/ Program Amount Notes Federal/ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) $1,049,200 Awarded. Requires $221,000 local match. TDA 3/ County Expressways Pedestrian Program $300,000 Selected. Pending County and VTA board approvals. Local match to HSIP. TFCA 40%/ TFCA BEP Set-Aside $198,000 Selected. Pending VTA and BAAQMD board approvals. Total Est. Funds $1,547,200 Note: TFCA=Transportation Fund for Clean Air, TDA=Transportation Development Act, BEP=Bicycle Expenditure Program, BAAQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District Schedule The proposed project is adjacent to a County expressway and bordered by Thompson Creek, which is managed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. VTA is discussing the project with both agencies, as well as with the City of San Jose. NEXT STEPS: In the coming months, staff will bring an action item to the VTA Board of Directors to accept the HSIP grant, and continue to coordinate with the County, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and City of San Jose as project development proceeds. Prepared By: Lauren Ledbetter Memo No. 4511 Page 3 of 3

ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP 13.a Eastridge Mall Tully Road 2 5 N 1 5 NOT TO SCALE Legend 1- VTA s Eastridge Transit Center connections to Caltrain, Amtrak, ACE, Dumbarton Express, VTA Light Rail 2- Shopping Plaza 3- Eastridge Loop & Capitol Expressway Intersection 4- Residential Neighborhoods 5- Project Location Proposed Crosswalk Proposed Sidewalk Existing Sidewalks N 3 5 5 5 4 NOT TO SCALE

ATTACHMENT B: PHOTOS OF PROJECT AREA 13.b Eastridge Transit Center on the west side of Capitol East side of Capitol looking north/shoulder is used by bicyclists Eastridge Transit Center on the west side of Capitol Lack of sidewalk on east side of expressway Existing signal with no pedestrian phase Unpaved pedestrian path with utility poles East side of Capitol looking south This signal should be adjusted to accommodate pedestrians The view from the shopping center to the Mall and Transit Center No sidewalk on the east side of Capitol Expressway. Currently there is a 5-foot unpaved path with a fence to the east.

ATTACHMENT C: COLLISION DIAGRAM 13.c Legend Auto-Pedestrian Accident With Injury Auto-Pedestrian Accident With Fatality Auto-Bicycle Accident With Injury Source: SWITRS 2002 to 2011 Crash Data