El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Transcription

1 El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) REVISED DRAFT Prepared For Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Prepared By 1970 Broadway, Suite 740 Oakland, CA (510) August 6, 2014

2 Table of Contents SUMMARY OF FINDINGS INTRODUCTION PROJECT HISTORY STUDY AREA PURPOSE AND NEED METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW OF MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS FORECAST METHODOLOGY Countywide Travel Demand Model Overview Transit / Mode Choice Coding Transit and Corridor-wide Analysis Development of Intersection Forecasts TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY EXISTING CONDITIONS CORRIDOR GEOMETRY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ADT Volumes and Vehicle Classification Intersection Turning Volumes INTERSECTION LOS TRANSIT SERVICES AND PERFORMANCE PARKING ALTERNATIVES NO BUILD TRAVEL FORECASTS NEAR-TERM (2018) ANALYSIS TRANSIT RIDERSHIP TRAFFIC VOLUMES SCREENLINE DIVERSION TRAVEL TIMES CORRIDOR MOBILITY MEASURES EL CAMINO REAL INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AM Peak PM Peak DIVERSION ROUTE INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AM Peak PM Peak OPTIONAL BRT STATIONS LONG-TERM (2040) ANALYSIS TRANSIT RIDERSHIP TRAFFIC VOLUMES SCREENLINE DIVERSION i August 6, 2014

3 7.4 TRAVEL TIMES CORRIDOR MOBILITY MEASURES EL CAMINO REAL INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AM Peak PM Peak DIVERSION ROUTE INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AM Peak PM Peak OPTIONAL BRT STATIONS EXISTING (2013) PLUS PROJECT ANALYSIS TRANSIT RIDERSHIP TRAFFIC VOLUMES SCREENLINE DIVERSION TRAVEL TIMES CORRIDOR MOBILITY MEASURES EL CAMINO REAL INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AM Peak PM Peak DIVERSION ROUTE INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AM Peak PM Peak OPTIONAL BRT STATIONS OTHER IMPACTS PARKING ASSESSMENT PEDESTRIAN ASSESSMENT BICYCLE ASSESSMENT MITIGATIONS EL CAMINO REAL INTERSECTIONS DIVERSION ROUTE INTERSECTIONS List of Figures Figure 1: 2018 PM Eastbound Travel Times, University Avenue to Cahill Street... 4 Figure 2: 2040 PM Eastbound Travel Times, University Avenue to Cahill Street... 4 Figure 3: Daily Transit Ridership along El Camino Real in Figure 4: Daily Transit Ridership along El Camino Real in Figure 5: Corridor... 8 Figure 6: Study Intersections in San Jose Figure 7: Study Intersections in Santa Clara Figure 8: Study Intersections in Sunnyvale Figure 9: Study Intersections in Mountain View Figure 10: Study Intersections in Los Altos Figure 11: Study Intersections in Palo Alto Figure 12: Alternative Figure 13: Alternative 3A ii August 6, 2014

4 Figure 14: Alternative 3B Figure 15: Alternative 4A Figure 16: Alternative 4B Figure 17: Alternative 4C Figure 18: Daily Transit Ridership along El Camino Real in Figure 19: 2018 PM Diversion in Santa Clara Figure 20: 2018 PM Diversion in Sunnyvale Figure 21: 2018 PM Diversion in Mountain View Figure 22: 2018 PM Diversion in Palo Alto Figure 23: 2018 AM Westbound Travel Times, Cahill Street to University Avenue Figure 24: 2018 AM Eastbound Travel Times, University Avenue to Cahill Street Figure 25: 2018 PM Westbound Travel Times, Cahill Street to University Avenue Figure 26: 2018 PM Eastbound Travel Times, University Avenue to Cahill Street Figure 27: 2018 PM Impacted 1 Intersections along El Camino Real Figure 28: Daily Transit Ridership - Alternatives 2 and 4C with Optional Stations in Figure 29: Daily Transit Ridership along El Camino Real in Figure 30: 2040 PM Diversion in Santa Clara Figure 31: 2040 PM Diversion in Sunnyvale Figure 32: 2040 PM Diversion in Mountain View Figure 33: 2040 PM Diversion in Palo Alto Figure 34: 2040 AM Westbound Travel Times, Cahill Street to University Avenue Figure 35: 2040 AM Eastbound Travel Times, University Avenue to Cahill Street Figure 36: 2040 PM Westbound Travel Times, Cahill Street to University Avenue Figure 37: 2040 PM Eastbound Travel Times, University Avenue to Cahill Street Figure 38: 2040 AM Impacted 1 Intersections along El Camino Real Figure 39: 2040 PM Impacted 1 Intersections along El Camino Real Figure 40: Daily Transit Ridership - Alternatives 2 and 4C with Optional Stations in Figure 41: Daily Transit Ridership along El Camino Real in Figure 42: 2013 PM Diversion in Santa Clara Figure 43: 2013 PM Diversion in Sunnyvale Figure 44: 2013 PM Diversion in Mountain View Figure 45: 2013 PM Diversion in Palo Alto Figure 46: 2013 AM Westbound Travel Times, Cahill St to University Ave Figure 47: 2013 AM Eastbound Travel Times, University Ave to Cahill St Figure 48: 2013 PM Westbound Travel Times, Cahill St to University Ave Figure 49: 2013 PM Eastbound Travel Times, University Ave to Cahill St Figure 50: Daily Transit Ridership - Alternatives 2 and 4C with Optional Stations in Figure 51: Sample Cross Section of Mixed Flow Segments Figure 52: Sample Cross Section of Dedicated Lane Segments List of Tables Table 1: Description of Alternatives for the El Camino Real Corridor... 2 Table 2: Summary of Results Compared to the Project's Purpose... 3 Table 3: Transportation Analysis Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) Table 4: Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Control Delay Table 5: Traffic Impact Standards for Unsignalized Intersections iii August 6, 2014

5 Table 6: Existing (2013) ADT counts along El Camino Real Table 7: Existing (2013) Level of Service Results for Intersections along El Camino Real Table 8: Transit Travel Times from VTA schedule, between University Avenue and Cahill Street Table 9: Observed Daily Transit Ridership Table 10: Existing Number of Parking Spots Table 11: Observed Midday Occupancy of Available Parking Spots Table 12: Description of Alternatives for the El Camino Real Corridor Table 13: Total Daily Ridership 1 (Westbound + Eastbound) for No Build Alternatives Table 14: Total ADT (Westbound + Eastbound) for No Build Alternative by Year Table 15: Total Peak Hour Auto Volumes (Westbound + Eastbound) for No Build Alternative by Year Table 16: Daily Ridership Comparison between Local Bus and BRT in Table 17: 2018 Average Daily Bi-Directional Traffic (ADT) Volumes along El Camino Real Table 18: 2018 AM Peak Hour Bi-Directional Volumes along El Camino Real Table 19: 2018 PM Peak Hour Bi-Directional Volumes along El Camino Real Table 20: 2018 AM and PM Peak Hour Corridor Mobility Measures Table 21: 2018 Percent Change of Corridor Mobility Measures from No Build (Alt 1) Table 22: El Camino Real Intersection LOS Benefits and Impacts, 2018 PM Table 23: 2018 AM Diversion Route Intersection LOS Summary Table 24: 2018 PM Diversion Route Intersection LOS Summary Table 25: Daily Ridership Comparison between Local Bus and BRT in Table 26: Daily Ridership Comparison between Local Bus and BRT in Table 27: 2040 Average Daily Bi-Directional Traffic (ADT) Volumes along El Camino Real Table 28: 2040 AM Peak Hour Bi-Directional Volumes along El Camino Real Table 29: 2040 PM Peak Hour Bi-Directional Volumes along El Camino Real Table 30: 2040 AM and PM Peak Hour Corridor Mobility Measures Table 31: 2040 Percent Increase of Corridor Mobility Measures from No Build (Alt 1) Table 32: El Camino Real Intersection LOS Benefits and Impacts, 2040 AM Table 33: El Camino Real Intersection LOS Benefits and Impacts, 2040 PM Table 34: 2040 AM Diversion Route Intersection LOS Summary Table 35: 2040 PM Diversion Route Intersection LOS Summary Table 36: Daily Ridership Comparison between Local Bus and BRT in Table 37: Comparison between Local Bus and BRT in Table 38: 2013 Average Daily Bi-Directional Traffic (ADT) Volumes along El Camino Real Table 39: 2013 AM Peak Hour Bi-Directional Volumes along El Camino Real Table 40: 2013 PM Peak Hour Bi-Directional Volumes along El Camino Real Table 41: 2013 AM and PM Peak Hour Mobility Measures Table 42: 2013 Percent Increase of Mobility Measures from No Build (Alt 1) Table 43: 2013 AM Diversion Route Intersection LOS Summary Table 44: 2013 Diversion Route Intersection LOS Summary Table 45: Daily Ridership Comparison between Local Bus and BRT in Table 46: Parking Displacement by Alternative Table 47: Miles of Bike Lanes Added by Alternative Table 48: Mitigation Options for Impacted El Camino Real Intersections Table 49: Mitigation Options for Impacted Intersections off El Camino Real p:\p\10\ vta ecr brt env phase\06 docs\05 toar\11 version 4 - draft\el camino real brt eir - traffic operations analysis report v4-2.docx iv August 6, 2014

6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS El Camino Real is an east-west arterial that connects the cities of Palo Alto, Los Altos, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and San Jose in Santa Clara County. The corridor is centrally located in the cities it passes through, intersects many local streets, and serves a wide variety of land uses including locally-oriented retail stores, regional shopping centers, civic facilities, and numerous residential and office complexes. Communities along El Camino Real have considered many land use and capital improvement plans to develop it as a multi-modal, pedestrian-friendly environment to support and better serve the future planned land uses and intensified development in a sustainable manner. In particular, the Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI) and the GBI Task Force are a collaboration of cities, counties, and local and regional agencies that have been working to improve the performance, safety, and aesthetics of El Camino Real. Current transit service in the corridor is provided by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority s (VTA) local bus Line 22 at 12-minute intervals and limited stop Rapid 522 at 15-minute intervals. Combined, Line 22 and Rapid 522 have the highest bus ridership in the VTA system, carrying nearly one-fifth of all bus riders in Santa Clara County. Within the proposed Project limits along El Camino Real, these two lines currently account for approximately 12,500 weekday boardings. At the same time, daily traffic volumes along El Camino Real vary between 23,000 and 53,000 vehicles per day. Santa Clara County is expected to experience substantial growth in the 30-year period from 2010 to The population of Santa Clara County is expected to increase by 644,006 residents (36 percent) and county employment by 303,540 jobs (33 percent), according to Plan Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission s (MTC) Regional Transportation Plan through As a result of this growth, travel demands on the El Camino Real corridor are expected to increase substantially through However, the capacity of the roadway system within the county is planned to increase by only 5 percent to 6 percent in this same time period. Alleviating the impact of this demand growth will require a modal shift from single-occupancy vehicles toward transit. To encourage this shift, it will be necessary to provide higher quality and more frequent transit alternatives than currently exist. Even without any transit improvements, weekday ridership on the combination of Line 22 and Rapid 522 in the corridor is expected to increase about 70% from 2012 to To help improve the quality of transit service in this corridor, VTA is proposing to implement a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service along El Camino Real. The proposed project (referred to as the Project from here on) will include a BRT corridor extending 17.6 miles from the Palo Alto Transit Center in the City of Palo Alto to the Arena in the City of San Jose. The proposed BRT service will run in shorter headways and utilize traffic control features (e.g. transit signal priority) and streetscape features, (e.g. exclusive transit lanes), to gain mobility and overpass traffic congestion while minimizing delay for transit passengers. The BRT can provide an alternative that encourages a mode shift from singleoccupancy vehicles towards transit and can address the heavy future transportation demand along the El Camino Real corridor. The Project will also address a local need for multi-modal improvements as an alternative to automobile travel on the El Camino Real corridor. Table 1 describes the specific Project alternatives that were analyzed as part of this study. 1 August 6, 2014

7 Table 1: Description of Alternatives for the El Camino Real Corridor Alternative 1 No Build 2 All Mixed Flow 3 4 3A 3B Short Dedicated Lanes Lafayette to Halford Lafayette to Halford + Mixed Flow Long Dedicated Lanes Description This alternative assumes no physical BRT-related improvements within the Project segment, but incorporates other background improvements along El Camino Real including: Implementation of the Santa Clara-Alum Rock (SCAR) BRT by BRT 522 will operate east of the ECR BRT Project, from the Arena in San Jose to the Eastridge Transit Center. This project includes modification of the Line 22 (15 minutes) and 522 (10 minutes) headways. Addition of a landscaped median on The Alameda from White St/Stockton Ave to Fremont St/Schiele Ave in San Jose, blocking left turn access for several existing intersections (signalized and unsignalized) along The Alameda. Modification of the El Camino Real and San Tomas Expy intersection to include dual left turn lanes for all approaches by Installation of a traffic signal at the McCormick Dr and El Camino Real by October of Updating/re-optimization of signal timing (phase splits only; cycle lengths remain constant) at all signalized intersections along El Camino Real in response to changes in travel demands. The BRT service would operate within the mixed-flow lanes along the entire 17.6-mile Project corridor. El Camino Real would remain six mixed flow lanes, three in each direction. This alternative would include development of 14 curbside bulbout stations along the Project corridor. These stations would be BRT branded stations. Under this scenario, there are two alternatives. Under each of these alternatives, there would be mixed-flow lanes with bulbout BRT stations from the SAP Center (formerly HP Pavilion) in San Jose to Lafayette Street in Santa Clara; from Lafayette Street to Halford Street in Santa Clara there would be 2.97 miles of dedicated BRT lanes with median BRT stations. The two scenarios differ in their configuration west of Halford Street in Santa Clara to the Palo Alto Transit Center. These alternatives would also include bus signal priority (BSP) at all signalized intersections that don t currently have it, and modification of all signals within the dedicated lane segment. Does not include any further BRT infrastructure west of Halford Avenue Includes a mixed-flow configuration with bulbout BRT branded stations (similar to Alternative 2) west of Halford Avenue. There are three alternatives considered under this scenario which differ based on the extent of the dedicated BRT lane. Under each of the alternatives, there would be mixed-flow lanes from the SAP Center (formerly HP Pavilion) in San Jose to Lafayette Street in Santa Clara and west of the dedicated lane terminus to the Palo Alto Transit Center. All scenarios include 14 BRT branded stations in each direction, either bulbout or median stations as appropriate. These alternatives would also include several new signalized intersections and signalized pedestrian crossings, and bus queue jump lane at Embarcadero. A few currently signalized intersections would be converted to right-in/right-out only and the signals removed. The number of affected locations varies by alternative. 4A Lafayette to SR- 85 Dedicated lane segment from Lafayette Street in Santa Clara to SR-85 in Mountain View 4B Lafayette to Showers Dedicated lane segment from Lafayette Street in Santa Clara to Showers Drive in Los Altos 4C Lafayette to Embarcadero Dedicated lane segment from Lafayette Street in Santa Clara to Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto Note: The analysis of project alternatives also included testing a secondary set of scenarios with two optional additional stations at Escuela Avenue and at either Embarcadero Road or Churchill Avenue. While these stations could potentially be added to each of the project alternatives, only the boundary conditions were tested: Alt 2 and Alt 4C. Source: Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., 2014 and DKS Associates, August 6, 2014

8 These seven BRT alternatives were tested in the AM and PM peak periods for years 2018 and Additionally, Alternatives 2 and 4C were tested for the current year (2013). Key results from the analysis are compared to the Project s purpose in Table 2. Table 2: Summary of Results Compared to the Project's Purpose Purpose Increase the reliability, frequency and travel speed of transit along the El Camino Real corridor. Improve transit amenities and facilities to provide greater comfort and safety. Enhance the multi-modal character of El Camino Real with street improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists. Contribute to city general and specific plans that call for a greater role for transit to complement local growth strategies. Factor Alt 1 Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt 2 (No Build) 3A 3B 4A 4B 4C Frequency of Rapid 522 will increase from 15-minute Headways headways to 10-minute headways for all alternatives as a result of the SCAR BRT. 2018: -6% -11% -14% -21% -32% -45% Travel Time 1 87 (mins) 2040: -6% -11% -14% -22% -38% -52% 108 (mins) Upgraded 2 Stations Miles of 3 Dedicated Lanes Sidewalk Enhancements 4 X Miles of Bike 3 Lanes : Daily Transit Ridership 14, : 21,678 +5% +7% +10% +14% +20% +28% +3% +11% +13% +19% +29% +40% Notes: 1 Travel time information displayed in this table is for the peak (eastbound) direction during the PM period which corresponds to when the highest travel times occur. 2 Upgraded stations include off vehicle payment kiosks and are branded as BRT stations to increase awareness. Does not include potential additional stations at Escuela or Embarcadero. 3 The miles of dedicated/bike lanes that are added in one direction (eastbound or westbound). 4 Sidewalk enhancements are decreased crosswalk lengths (bulbouts) or possible median refuge (dedicated lanes). As this table shows, the proposed Project, primarily through the implementation of dedicated bus lanes, will produce significant transit travel time savings. Figure 1 and Figure 2 illustrate the comparison of the PM peak direction travel times for the three modes (BRT, local bus and auto) for each Project alternative in 2018 and 2040, respectively. As expected, BRT travel time drops significantly as the length of the dedicated lanes increases. 3 August 6, 2014

9 Figure 1: 2018 PM Eastbound Travel Times, University Avenue to Cahill Street 120 BRT Local Bus Auto Total Travel Time (mins) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C Figure 2: 2040 PM Eastbound Travel Times, University Avenue to Cahill Street 160 BRT Local Bus Auto 140 Total Travel Time (mins) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C The BRT travel time savings, as much as 52% compared to No Build, along with improved station amenities and other enhancements, result in significant increases in transit ridership within the study corridor. Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate the forecasted daily ridership by alternative for 2018 and 2040, respectively. As these figures show, BRT and total transit ridership along the corridor increase as the length of the exclusive lane segment increases. The dedicated lanes and bulbout stations also provide the opportunity to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment. 4 August 6, 2014

10 Figure 3: Daily Transit Ridership along El Camino Real in 2018 Figure 4: Daily Transit Ridership along El Camino Real in August 6, 2014

11 In addition to the above, the analysis examined the potential impact to vehicular travel. On one hand, the proposed Project is expected to reduce vehicular travel demand by encouraging a shift to other modes (transit, walk, bike). However, implementation of dedicated bus lanes would result in the elimination of one general-purpose lane in each direction along El Camino Real. This reduction in traffic capacity may impact the operation of intersections within those segments and may result in the shifting or diversion of some traffic to alternative routes. To assess the potential impacts from the reduction in traffic capacity, intersection level of service (LOS) analysis was conducted for all signalized intersections on El Camino Real within the Project corridor. Furthermore, LOS analysis was conducted for 165 intersections on routes that may serve as alternatives to El Camino Real. The traffic analysis of potential project impacts relies on standards of significance established by the jurisdictions within the study area. The standards of significance are the thresholds used to determine whether a project would result in a significant impact and to indicate a need for mitigation measures. The analysis showed that under Alternative 2, with the development of 14 curbside bulbout stations but no dedicated BRT lanes, no intersections along or off of El Camino Real would be significantly impacted. With the introduction of dedicated bus lanes under Alternatives 3A through 4C, a portion of the traffic demand does shift to alternative routes such that intersection operations along El Camino Real do not change significantly between the No Build and Build alternatives. In addition, the diverted traffic generally is distributed across multiple routes resulting in little change at most off-el Camino Real intersections as well. For 2018, the analysis of the dedicated lane alternatives showed that only one intersection along El Camino Real (Page Mill/Oregon) would be significantly impacted, and only under Alternative 4C. At the same time, between four (Alternatives 3A and 3B) and twelve (Alternative 4C) of the 165 intersections off El Camino Real would be impacted. In most cases, the impacts off El Camino Real would be mitigated through signal timing improvements, re-striping, or the installation of new traffic signals. In a few cases, most substantial improvements, likely involving the need for additional right-of-way, would be required. By 2040, depending on the alternative, two to four intersections along El Camino Real would be impacted, and between 11 and 39 intersections along the diversion routes. Despite the traffic diversion, which may increase the length of the diverting trips, the increase in ridership due to the project will lead to a reduction of the total daily vehicle-miles of travel in the area surrounding the project corridor. 6 August 6, 2014

12 1 INTRODUCTION Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) intends to develop an integrated Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network through Santa Clara County, providing high quality service to areas not served by Light Rail Transit (LRT). El Camino Real is one of three corridors selected for near-term BRT implementation in the BRT Strategic Plan. VTA has contracted with Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. and DKS Associates to provide transportation planning and engineering services for the proposed corridor. The proposed project (referred to as the Project from here on) will include a BRT corridor extending 17.6 miles from the Palo Alto Transit Center in the City of Palo Alto to the Arena in the City of San Jose with improved service running in short headways and utilizing traffic control features (e.g. transit signal priority) and streetscape features (e.g. exclusive transit lanes). The Project proposes to improve reliability, frequency and travel speed of transit along the corridor by enhancing transit operational features, using exclusive lanes at certain segments of the corridor and through application of streetscape enhancements. The Project will also address a local need for multi-modal improvements as an alternative to automobile travel on the El Camino Real corridor to address anticipated growth. The proposed BRT service will run in short headways and utilize traffic control features (e.g. transit signal priority) and streetscape features, like the exclusive transit lanes, to gain mobility and overpass traffic congestion while minimizing delay for transit passengers. As such, it can provide an alternative that encourages a mode shift from single-occupancy vehicles towards transit and can address the heavy future transportation demand in along the El Camino Real corridor. 1.1 Project History In 2009, the VTA Board of Directors adopted the BRT Strategic Plan that examined a system of bus rapid transit corridors to serve the Santa Clara Valley, including the El Camino Real corridor from San Jose to Palo Alto. The VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Plan 2035, completed in 2009, incorporates the recommendations of the BRT Strategic Plan as well as important considerations for land use, environment, economic development, and sustainability in the development of the multi-modal transportation system. El Camino Real [State Route 82 (SR 82)] is one of the main thoroughfares that run through Santa Clara County. Communities along El Camino Real have considered many land use and capital improvement plans to develop it as a multi-modal, pedestrian-friendly environment to support and better serve the future planned land uses and intensified development in a sustainable manner. In particular, the Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI) and the GBI Task Force are a collaboration of cities, counties, local and regional agencies that have been working to improve the performance, safety, and aesthetics of El Camino Real. In addition, VTA prepared the BRT Strategic Plan in 2009 to establish a framework for BRT implementation in Santa Clara County, provide direction on related policy issues, and serve as a vehicle to engage cities and stakeholders. VTA has conducted more than 20 meetings with cities, organizations, and the public to date (beginning in March 2011) to specifically discuss the proposed Project and collect feedback. Concurrently, VTA has been collecting information and preparing technical analyses to assess the feasibility of implementing the proposed Project. 1.2 Study Area The proposed Project is located along a 17.6-mile portion of El Camino Real in the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Los Altos, and Palo Alto between the Arena in San Jose and the Palo Alto Transit Center. Current transit service in the corridor is provided by VTA s local bus Line 22 at 12-minute headways and limited stop Rapid 522 at 15-minute headways. El Camino Real in the cities of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Los Altos, and Palo Alto is a state-owned route under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. The portion of the Project along The Alameda operates on a City of San Jose roadway (for the purposes of this document, references to the Project corridor include the portion of the proposed Project along The Alameda). The El Camino Real corridor is centrally located in the cities it passes through, intersects many local streets, and serves a wide variety of land uses including locally-oriented retail stores, regional shopping centers, civic facilities, and numerous residential and office complexes. In general, traffic volumes are high and trips average 5 to 6 miles in length (Bus Rapid Transit Strategic Plan, Santa Clara VTA 2009). The portion of El Camino Real included in the proposed Project is roughly parallel to Highway 101 (US 101) to the 7 August 6, 2014

13 northeast and Interstate 280 (I-280) to the southwest, and is intersected by San Tomas Expressway, Lawrence Expressway, Interstate 880 (I-880), and State Route 85 (SR 85). Figure 5 illustrates the corridor. Figure 5: Corridor Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Purpose and Need Santa Clara County is expected to experience substantial growth in the 30-year period from 2010 to The population of Santa Clara County is expected to increase by 644,006 residents (36 percent) and county employment by 303,540 jobs (33 percent), according to Plan Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission s (MTC s) Regional Transportation Plan through These growth factors will place a heavy demand on the existing transportation infrastructure because the capacity of the roadway system within the county is planned to increase by only 5 to 6 percent. (Valley Transportation Plan 2035, Santa Clara VTA 2009) VTA Line 22 and Rapid 522 on El Camino Real have the highest bus ridership in the VTA system, carrying nearly onefifth of all bus riders in Santa Clara County. In addition, these lines have similar ridership during the midday and peak periods, which indicates that they serve a regular ridership with diverse travel needs. The all-day use of Line 22 indicates that the corridor needs more frequent and higher quality service. There is substantial travel demand along El Camino Real that could be served by transit. The existing transit service lacks amenities, travel time competitiveness, and reliability that would make it more attractive to new riders. These factors influence the transit-riding experience and discourage a mode shift to transit. To fully implement BRT on El Camino Real and address corridor transportation demand, transit support features and streetscape enhancements will be needed. Given growing corridor congestion and the need to move more people and goods through the corridor, transit amenities must be provided to encourage people to use high-capacity transit. Amenities characteristic of a full-service bus rapid transit system, including upgraded shelters, ticket vending machines, real-time service information, lighting, and security features, do not currently exist in the corridor. 8 August 6, 2014

14 Amenities such as these are identified in the VTA Bus Rapid Transit Service Design Guidelines (VTA, 2007). If Rapid 522 makes the transition to a complete BRT service with all the associated amenities, additional riders would be drawn to this service. According to a U.S. Government Accountability Office report for bus rapid transit (Report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate 2012), transit ridership rises by 30 percent or more along corridors that provide a BRT service, compared with corridors that provide regular transit service. Travel demand forecasting indicates that traffic volumes on the El Camino Real corridor are expected to increase substantially through Preventing gridlock on the El Camino Real corridor under projected future traffic demand will require a mode shift from single-occupancy vehicles toward transit. To encourage this shift, it will be necessary to provide higher quality transit alternatives and more frequent service than currently exist. Weekday ridership on the Rapid 522 within the study corridor averaged almost 3,300 passengers in November (VTA Passenger Counting System, November 2013) Forecasted weekday ridership in 2040 with no transportation improvements would be about 10,000 passengers per day based on the ridership growth estimated by the VTA travel model. System improvements could increase future ridership. However, without transportation improvements, El Camino Real buses will experience substantial congestion that will encourage commuters to use automobiles in lieu of transit. Regional and local planning documents have consistently identified a desire for multi-modal improvements to encourage alternative travel options to automobile travel on the El Camino Real corridor to address anticipated growth. In addition, efforts to better coordinate land use, transportation and capital improvement decisions along the El Camino Real corridor have made advances in recent years. Most notably, the Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI) Task Force, a collaboration of cities, counties, and local and regional agencies, has been working to improve the performance, safety, and aesthetics of El Camino Real. VTA prepared the BRT Strategic Plan in 2009 to establish a framework for BRT implementation in Santa Clara County. El Camino Real was one of the corridors examined and was identified as the next highest priority after the Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT project. Based on the aforementioned transportation needs, the purpose of the Project is to: Increase the reliability, frequency and travel speed of transit along the El Camino Real corridor; Improve transit amenities and facilities to provide greater comfort and safety; Enhance the multi-modal character of El Camino Real with street improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists; Contribute to the implementation of the transit goals and objectives of the Grand Boulevard Initiative (El Camino Real); Contribute to city general and specific plans that call for a greater role for transit to complement local growth strategies; and Improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness of transit services in the corridor. 9 August 6, 2014

15 2 METHODOLOGY The transportation analysis presented in the next chapters examined a range of potential benefits and impacts caused by the Project. A variety of measures of effectiveness (MOEs) was used in the evaluation of the Project alternatives. The analysis was conducted for two horizon years, 2018 and 2040, and included daily as well as both weekday AM peak hour (7-9 AM) and PM peak hour (4-6 PM) metrics. The next section introduces the MOEs that were used for the evaluation of Project alternatives. The following two sections of this chapter discuss in detail the tools used to analyze each MOE. 2.1 Overview of Measures of Effectiveness Analysis was conducted for a wide area surrounding El Camino Real. The most detailed analysis was conducted on the study corridor, with a focus on the transit lines serving the Project segment (Line 22 and Rapid 522) and traffic operations on El Camino Real. A broader corridor extending from US-101 in the north to I-280 in the south was used for a more comprehensive analysis of area-wide transportation impacts. An additional analysis covered the travel patterns of an expanded geographic area around El Camino Real and investigated alternative travel routes. The MOEs for each type of analysis can be found in Table 3. Table 3: Transportation Analysis Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) MOE Description Time Period Study Corridor Level Transit Ridership The number of weekday boardings at each station (Lines 22 and 522). Boardings generated by the travel demand model. Travel Time Time for auto and transit (Lines 22 and 522) to travel along the Project segment defined as University Ave to Cahill St. Intersection Level of Average delay and LOS based on Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 Operational Service (LOS) Method for signalized intersections along El Camino Real. Parking Number of available parking spaces using aerial photographs. Proposed plans determine the number of spaces being eliminated. Bike and Pedestrian Qualitative assessment of the proposed changes along El Camino Real on cyclists and Environment pedestrians. Expanded Geographic Area Level Intersection Level of Average delay and LOS based on Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 Operational Service (LOS) Method for selected intersections off of El Camino Real. El Camino Real Broader Corridor Level Vehicle Screenline 1 Traffic volumes across selected roadway segments and screenlines. Comes directly Diversion Volumes from the travel demand model. Vehicle Miles Total VMT on all roadways within the area bounded by US-101, I-280, and Palo Alto to Traveled (VMT) downtown San Jose. Comes directly from the travel demand model. Vehicle Hours Total VHT on all roadways within the area bounded by US-101, I-280, and Palo Alto to Traveled (VHT) downtown San Jose. Comes directly from the travel demand model. Average Speed Total VMT divided by total VHT. 1 A screenline is an imaginary line that cuts the area to determine how many vehicles pass through the corridor at that location. Daily AM and PM peak hour AM and PM peak hour Midday Daily AM and PM peak hour AM and PM peak hour AM and PM peak hour AM and PM peak hour AM and PM peak hour 10 August 6, 2014

16 2.2 Forecast Methodology This section provides an overview of the tools, methods and procedures used in developing the travel demand forecasts for the Project. Primarily these forecasts were developed using VTA s countywide travel demand model. The VTA countywide model is a modified version of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) regional model, developed to be consistent with methodologies used by MTC. The VTA countywide model includes enhancements to the MTC regional model to provide better detail in Santa Clara County and was designed to more accurately model transit ridership and corridor-level freeway and arterial traffic volumes. The VTA model is a traditional four-step model that includes trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and transit and highway assignment Countywide Travel Demand Model Overview Travel demand forecasting was conducted using VTA s countywide travel demand model. The existing conditions year (base year) is 2013 and forecasts were prepared for 2018, anticipated to be the Project s opening year, and 2040, which provides a conservative 22-year horizon. The countywide model is a traditional four-step model that uses transportation network and socioeconomic inputs to forecast transportation conditions. The following attributes describe the version of the VTA model that was used in this study. Covers the nine-county Bay Area plus four external counties (San Joaquin, Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito) with more detailed zone structure and network in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties; Uses the 2013 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections for estimates of households, population and employment; Generates trips associated with eight trip purposes (home-based work trips, home-based shop and other trips, home-based social/recreational trips, non-home-based trips, home-based school trips, internal to internal zone truck trips, air-passenger trips, and external truck trips); Includes a mode choice step during which the passenger-trips are distributed to different travel modes, including drive-alone auto, shared-ride auto(hov/carpool), transit (submodes), bicycle, and walk, and peak mode choice is based on AM peak period travel times; Provides AM and PM peak hour, 4-hr AM and PM peak period, midday and evening highway assignments that produce vehicle volumes, speeds and travel times by link; and Includes a transit assignment step that provides boardings/alightings by station/stop for each transit route, and passenger trips by link/segment for each transit route. Seven different alternatives were modeled for 2018 and 2040, including the No Build alternative. For more information about the specifics of each alternative, see Section 4. To reflect the differences among the alternatives, the model networks were edited in the following areas: Frequency (headway) of transit service; Presence and location of exclusive transit lanes with assumed travel speeds Presence and location of bus stops with curbside bulb-outs; and Number of general-purpose travel lanes on El Camino Real. The travel demand model was used to generate a variety of evaluation measures including those related to transit ridership, auto and transit travel times, vehicle volumes, corridor mobility, and person trips. These measures are further described in the following sections Transit / Mode Choice Coding The mode choice component of the VTA travel model includes enhancements for application in Santa Clara County and the greater modeling region compared to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regional Model, like a transit submode nest, allowing the models to estimate ridership on the different transit submodes of commuter rail, 11 August 6, 2014

17 express bus, local bus, BART (heavy rail), and light rail. The ridership of those submodes has been calibrated based on transit on-board survey data and transit boarding data. Calibration of submode-specific constants allows for capturing the effect of important attributes not typically included in mode choice utility equations, such as reliability, passenger comfort, and safety. In order to develop the BRT ridership forecasts to support the Santa Clara County BRT strategic plan, the BRT mode was added into the VTA mode choice model as another transit submode. In order to model the BRT operations, the transit characteristics of each alternative were coded in the model networks, updating the transit travel times and implementing the mode choice models and transit assignments. There were three primary modifications to the transit networks to reflect the different BRT alternatives. The first modification was the coding of exclusive transit lanes to ensure the BRT vehicles operated separately from the effects of roadway congestion impacts. For these segments an average fixed operating speed of 35 mph was assumed for vehicles traveling in the exclusive lanes. Travel speed for buses adjacent to the exclusive lanes would be influenced by future levels of roadway congestion. The only modification would be for bus stops that have curbside bus bulbouts operating in mixed-flow traffic lanes. These stops would have a dwell time decrease of 24 seconds per stop that would be applied to the transit vehicle travel times. A dwell time of 30 seconds was also assumed for each BRT stop on the exclusive lane segments. Finally, the presence of travel lanes reserved for exclusive BRT operations would require the reduction of the number of lanes available to traffic on affected roadway segments. After the transit characteristics were coded into the models, the transit travel times were updated and the results input into the mode choice model to estimate trips by mode. Following the estimation of transit trips by the mode choice model, the resulting transit trips were assigned to the transit networks to generate transit boardings by stop, as well as route- and segment-level transit ridership. Auto vehicle trips estimated by the mode choice model were assigned to the roadway networks to determine the vehicle volumes for traffic impact and air quality analysis Transit and Corridor-wide Analysis The VTA travel demand model was used to develop performance measures for the evaluation of the transit operations of the various alternatives including transit ridership, travel times, and person throughput for both the local Line 22 and the Rapid 522/BRT lines. Transit ridership was estimated by adding the forecasted ridership growth from the travel model (model ridership for each alternative - existing model ridership) to existing boarding/alighting counts collected by the VTA Passenger Counting System in November BRT and local bus travel times were estimated using two different methodologies depending on the operating characteristics of each travel segment. For dedicated lane segments, BRT travel times were calculated assuming an operating speed of 35 mph and accounting for stop delay based on the number of stops within each travel segment. For mixed flow segments with BRT service and for Lines 22 and 522, travel times were calculated by multiplying the travel model auto travel times by an autobus friction factor (i.e. the ratio of the scheduled transit travel time to the existing model auto travel time) and accounting for the time savings benefit of the bulbout stations. The auto-bus factor accounts for the difference between the operating characteristics of the vehicles and for the bus stopping to board or alight passengers. This approach is consistent with the general approach used within VTA s travel demand model for determining transit travel time. Appendix A shows the eastbound and westbound travel time factors that were used in the analysis. Corridor-wide measures were developed to capture changes in mobility along the study corridor as well as in a broader area surrounding the El Camino Real corridor. Mobility measures that were based on outputs from the travel demand model include traffic volumes from trips diverting off El Camino Real and the following area-wide measures: vehicle-miles of travel (VMT), vehicle-hours of travel (VHT), and average travel speeds. Finally, parking data (occupancy and total number of spots) were collected through aerial photography, and conceptual design plans were used to determine the number of parking spots that would be eliminated for each Project alternative Development of Intersection Forecasts For the future-year scenarios, the outputs from the travel demand model were not used directly in the operational analysis. Instead, turn-movement volumes were derived using existing counts and the growth forecasted by the countywide model. As the first step in this process, future year approach and departure link volumes for each intersection were calculated by adding changes in forecast demand volumes between the existing year and the 12 August 6, 2014

18 horizon year, as produced by the travel demand model, to existing traffic volumes. This approach is illustrated in the following equation: Horizon year link demand = Existing (observed) link demand Horizen year + model forecast "current year" model forecast The Furness method was then applied to determine individual turning movements at each intersection. The Furness method is an iterative process that creates a balanced set of horizon year turning movements based on the existing year turn movement traffic counts and model forecasted approach and departure link growth. Following this initial development of turning movements, manual adjustments were made as needed to balance demands between adjacent intersections and to re-distribute traffic associated with any movements that would be eliminated with the implementation of bus-only lanes as part of some build alternatives. 2.3 Traffic Operations Analysis Methodology Traffic impacts were measured by looking at AM and PM peak hour operations for the signalized intersections along El Camino Real, and potentially impacted intersections along identified diversion routes. Figure 6 through Figure 11 show the intersections on and near El Camino Real included in this analysis. There are 75 existing signalized intersections on El Camino Real within the study area. However, the number of signalized intersections analyzed varies for the alternative scenarios to take into account planned or programmed baseline improvements and differences between the project alternatives. The analysis also examined 165 signalized and unsignalized intersections off El Camino Real on expected diversion routes. While the screenline diversion assessment was intended to provide for a broad, regional picture of potential diversion impacts, the analysis of these intersections was intended to provide a more detailed examination of the potential impacts at intersections off of but in close proximity to El Camino Real. These locations were selected based on the following criteria: 1) location is included in the VTA travel demand model thus allowing for the forecasting of future travel demand; 2) generally within ½ mile of El Camino Real; and 3) the sum of all approach volumes increased by 50 vph or more. If an intersection met these criteria for any alternative under any future year or time period, it was included for analysis in all scenarios. It should be noted that some locations up to 1 mile away were also included. In some cases these locations were added because they represent intersections along a diversion route that is closer to El Camino Real in other areas. The operations analysis was performed using Synchro and the procedures from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operational methodology. Synchro is a macroscopic analysis and optimization software package used for evaluating, optimizing and coordinating intersection signal-timing operations. The existing conditions model was developed using current signal timing plans and turn movement counts from a combination of existing sources and data collected for this study. Future year turning movement volumes (as discussed in the previous section) were entered into Synchro, and signal timings optimized, before generating the future year LOS and average delay results. Per the 2000 HCM, the operation of intersections is described in terms of level of service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic operations based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, as the best operating conditions, to LOS F, or the worst operating conditions. LOS E represents at-capacity operations. When traffic volumes exceed the intersection capacity, vehicles may wait through more than one cycle to clear the intersection, and operations are designated as LOS F. For intersections, LOS is based on the average control delay per vehicle. Control delay includes the initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. For signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections, the average control delay is computed for all vehicles entering the intersection. At two-way or side-street stopcontrolled intersections, the average control delay is calculated for each stopped movement, not for the intersection as a whole. Table 4 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. 13 August 6, 2014

19 Table 4: Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Control Delay LOS Grade Control Delay per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) Signalized Intersections 1 Unsignalized Intersections 2 A B > > C > > D > > E > > F Notes: 1 LOS is based on average control delay for the intersection as a whole. 2 For all-way stop-controlled intersections LOS is based on the average control delay for the intersection as a whole. For two-way or side-street stop-controlled intersections, Los is based on the average control delay for the worst case movement. Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Figure 6: Study Intersections in San Jose 14 August 6, 2014

20 Figure 7: Study Intersections in Santa Clara Figure 8: Study Intersections in Sunnyvale 15 August 6, 2014

21 Figure 9: Study Intersections in Mountain View Figure 10: Study Intersections in Los Altos 16 August 6, 2014

22 Figure 11: Study Intersections in Palo Alto The traffic analysis relies on standards of significance established by the jurisdictions within the study area that are used to determine whether a project would result in a significant impact and to indicate a need for mitigation measures. According to the Santa Clara VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP) a significant impact at a CMP signalized intersection would occur if the Project causes one of the following: Intersection operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS E or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS F); or Exacerbate unacceptable operations by increasing the average critical delay by 4 seconds or more and increasing the critical volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more at an intersection operating at LOS F; or The V/C ratio increases by 0.01 or more at an intersection with unacceptable operations (LOS F) when the change in critical delay is negative (i.e., decreases). This can occur if the critical movements change. A significant impact on a local (non-cmp) signalized intersection under the jurisdictions of the Cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Los Altos, and Palo Alto would occur if the Project causes one of the following: Intersection operations to degrade from an acceptable level to an unacceptable level; or Exacerbate unacceptable operations by increasing the critical delay by 4 or more seconds and increasing the critical V/C ratio by 0.01 or more; or An increase in the V/C ratio of 0.01 or more at an intersection with unacceptable operations when the change in critical delay is negative (i.e., decreases). This can occur if the critical movements change. In general, the standard for local signalized intersections is LOS D. The City of Mountain View uses a LOS D standard for most local street intersections and LOS E standard for intersections within the Downtown and San Antonio Center areas and CMP facilities. Similarly, Sunnyvale accepts a LOS E for intersections with heavy regional traffic. However, 17 August 6, 2014

23 Sunnyvale does not use the 4-second threshold. It should be noted that the third criteria for both CMP and non-cmp signalized intersections (i.e. increase in V/C ratio but a decrease in average delay) was not observed and is therefore not cited in the discussion of the results in subsequent chapters. With respect to unsignalized intersections the jurisdictions within the study area generally do not have officially adopted significance criteria. Therefore, the traffic impact standard for unsignalized intersections was based on a review of city standards and practices, where available, and synthesized to develop one standard to use throughout the study area. These traffic impact standards were developed in coordination with the Cities of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Los Altos and Palo Alto specifically for this effort. Per these standards, a significant impact at an unsignalized intersection would occur if the Project causes one of the following to occur: 1. Deterioration of intersection operations from an acceptable level (LOS C or better) under the Existing or Future No Build Conditions to an unacceptable level (LOS D or worse) under the Build Conditions and the intersection meets the peak hour signal warrant; or 2. Exacerbation of unacceptable operations by increasing the average critical delay by 4 or more seconds at an intersection operating at LOS D, E, or F and meeting the peak hour signal warrant. With respect to the first criterion, the use of LOS C to D as the threshold for defining a potential impact was based on standards provided by the City of Palo Alto. As described, a peak hour signal warrant analysis [see the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)] was performed for each intersection when the performance degraded below the proposed thresholds. Only the peak hour signal warrant was conducted due to limitations on available data. In cases were an intersection met the first part of the criteria above, but the signal warrant was not met, the intersection was considered deficient, but no mitigation was required as part of the Project. The evaluation process for unsignalized intersections is summarized in Table 5. Table 5: Traffic Impact Standards for Unsignalized Intersections Base Case (Without Project) LOS With Project LOS The Project Is Considered To Have Any C or better No Impact C or better 1 D D or better D D E, F Perform Signal Warrant Analysis If Signal Warrant Not Met: No Impact If Signal Warrant Met: Significant Impact Step 1. Check Delay Threshold 2 o If Thresholds Not Met: No Impact o If Thresholds Met: Perform Signal Warrant Analysis Step 2. Perform Signal Warrant Analysis If Signal Warrant Not Met: No Impact If Signal Warrant Met: Significant Impact Perform Signal Warrant Analysis If Signal Warrant Not Met: Deficiency 3 If Signal Warrant Met: Significant Impact Step 1. Check Delay Threshold 1 o If Thresholds Not Met: No Impact E, F E, F o If Thresholds Met: Perform Signal Warrant Analysis Step 2. Perform Signal Warrant Analysis If Signal Warrant Not Met: Deficiency 2 If Signal Warrant Met: Significant Impact 1 The LOS C threshold was based on standards used by the City of Palo Alto 2 The delay threshold is an increase in average control delay of 4 or more seconds 3 A deficiency is not considered a significant impact and does not require mitigation measures. 18 August 6, 2014

24 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section discusses the current (2013) conditions that exist on the study corridor based on recently collected data. The existing corridor geometry, traffic volumes, intersection LOS, transit services and performance, and parking are covered in this section. 3.1 Corridor Geometry El Camino Real is a six-lane at-grade urban arterial with posted speeds of 35 and 40 mph. Within the Project limits, El Camino Real/The Alameda extends 17.6 miles from the Arena in San Jose through the cities of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Los Altos, and Palo Alto, reaching the Palo Alto Transit Center on University Avenue in Palo Alto. Within San Jose, a portion of El Camino Real was relinquished to the City of San Jose in 2011 and is known as The Alameda. The Alameda portion of the corridor is a four-lane urban arterial with posted speeds of 35 mph except near schools where the posted speed drops to 25 mph. Major signalized intersections along the corridor are spaced at approximately half-mile intervals. Numerous minor streets cross or meet the corridor at signalized or unsignalized intersections. There are 75 signalized intersections on El Camino Real within the BRT Project limits, 67 of which are in State right of way. Twenty-nine of these intersections are designated as Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections. Currently along the El Camino Real corridor, VTA employs active, unconditional priority for the buses at most signalized intersections as part of their transit signal priority (TSP) system. 3.2 Traffic Volumes To support the evaluation of the proposed Project, average daily traffic (ADT) counts were collected at several locations along El Camino Real and peak period turning movement counts were collected at all study intersections. The raw data sheets of the ADT and turning movement counts are provided on the enclosed CD ADT Volumes and Vehicle Classification Table 6 summarized the eastbound and westbound ADT volumes for select locations along El Camino Real. To capture the variation in conditions, the count locations were spread throughout the corridor with at least one location in each city. El Camino Real is serving traffic in the range of 23,000 and 53,000 vehicles per day. The largest counts were recorded east of Bush Street in Mountain View in both the eastbound and westbound directions. The smallest counts were recorded east of Jefferson St in Santa Clara in both the eastbound and westbound directions Intersection Turning Volumes Turning movement counts were collected at intersections both on and off El Camino Real to support the traffic operations analysis. PM counts were provided by VTA for CMP intersections. AM and PM peak hour counts were collected in May and November Counts were collected at the 75 signalized intersections on El Camino Real, plus 9 unsignalized locations that are subject to future signalization as part of the proposed Project or other improvements. Counts were also conducted at 164 intersections off El Camino Real. Once the data was collected, the approach volumes were balanced between adjacent intersections and used to create the existing conditions Synchro model. 3.3 Intersection LOS The existing LOS was calculated using the balanced volumes and the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology in Synchro. Table 7 shows the delay and LOS for intersections on El Camino Real. The majority of the intersections are currently performing at an acceptable LOS. Intersections operating below standard (LOS E for CMP intersections, LOS D for non-cmp intersections) are highlighted in red. These intersections are Hansen Way and Mathilda Avenue during the AM peak period and Calderon Avenue and San Tomas Expressway during the PM peak period. In addition, there are 10 other intersections that operate at the minimum acceptable LOS standard either during the AM or PM peak period. The Synchro model and reports for each of these intersections can be found on the enclosed CD. 19 August 6, 2014

25 For the 164 study intersections off El Camino Real, existing LOS results are shown in Appendix B. Of these, 13 intersections during the AM peak period and 20 during the PM peak period are operating below the accepted LOS standard (as per each city). The Synchro reports for each of these intersections can also be found on the enclosed CD. Table 6: Existing (2013) ADT counts along El Camino Real East of Hedding St East of Jefferson St West of Bowers Ave West of Maria Ln East of Bernardo Ave East of Bush St West of Jordan Ave East of Matadero Ave Total 14,587 12,170 18,688 17,860 19,510 25,898 20,557 21,413 Westbound Automobiles 14,212 11,826 18,317 17,524 19,130 25,311 20,068 20,929 Medium Truck Heavy Truck Buses Total 14,985 11,511 18,948 18,602 19,453 26,653 20,836 21,200 Eastbound Automobiles 14,571 11,199 18,596 18,233 19,076 26,062 20,355 20,698 Medium Truck Heavy Truck Buses Total 29,572 23,680 37,636 36,462 38,962 52,551 41,392 42,613 Automobiles 28,783 23,024 36,913 35,757 38,206 51,372 40,423 41,626 Total Medium Truck Heavy Truck Buses Table 7: Existing (2013) Level of Service Results for Intersections along El Camino Real City ID Study Intersection Palo Alto Existing AM Delay (sec/veh) LOS Existing PM Delay (sec/veh) 1 Palm Dr CMP 28.2 C 27.7 C 2 University Ave CMP 17.2 B 25.9 C 3 Medical Foundation Dr 25.5 C 27.1 C 4 Embarcadero Rd/Galvez St CMP 50.1 D 63.5 E 5 Churchill Ave 18.2 B 21.2 C 6 Park Bl./Serra St 15.9 B 19.7 B 7 Stanford Ave 31.2 C 31.3 C 8 Cambridge Ave 7 A 13.5 B 9 California Ave 15.7 B 24.8 C 10 Page Mill Rd/Oregon Expy CMP 73.4 E 58.5 E 11 Portage Ave 30.2 C 43.2 D 75 Hansen Way 80.2 F 45.7 D 12 Matadero Ave/Margarita Ave 19.6 B 15.1 B 13 Curtner Ave 4.1 A 3.2 A 14 Ventura Ave 13 B 11.3 B 15 Los Robles Ave 17.9 B 14.3 B 16 Maybell Ave/El Camino Way 19.8 B 10.6 B 17 Charleston Rd/Arastadero Rd CMP 37.5 D 38.3 D LOS 20 August 6, 2014

26 City ID Study Intersection Existing AM Delay (sec/veh) LOS Existing PM Delay (sec/veh) 18 Dinahs Ct 4.9 A 7.1 A 19 Los Altos Ave/Cesano Ct 21.5 C 12.3 B 20 Del Medio Ave 15.5 B 10.3 B Los Altos 21 San Antonio Rd CMP 46.9 D 59 E Mountain View Sunnyvale Santa Clara San Jose 22 Showers Dr/Los Altos Sq 16.1 B 31.2 C 23 Jordan Ave 7.6 A 7.8 A 24 Ortega Ave 7.3 A 6.4 A 25 Distel Dr 7.2 A 4.4 A 26 Rengstorff Ave CMP 13.7 B 17.6 B 27 Escuela Ave 19.5 B 15.7 B 28 El Monte Ave CMP 22.1 C 24.1 C 29 Shoreline Blvd /Miramonte Ave CMP 60.1 E 45.8 D 30 Castro St CMP 27.8 C 49.3 D 31 Calderon Ave/Phyllis Ave 35.4 D 62.8 E 32 Hwy 237/Grant Rd CMP 59.4 E 57.5 E 33 The Americana / Sylvan Ave 28.8 C 30.4 C 34 Bernardo Ave 35.4 D 40.2 D 35 Grape Ave 7.6 A 12.2 B 36 Mary Ave CMP 41.9 D 45.8 D 37 Hollenbeck Ave 28.2 C 30.8 C 38 Mathilda Ave CMP 80.2 F 50.4 D 39 Murphy Ave 1.7 A 1.6 A 40 Sunnyvale Ave/Sunnyvale Saratoga Rd 19.6 B 37.9 D 41 Cezanne Dr 9.7 A 13.6 B 42 Fair Oaks Ave/Remington Dr CMP 35.1 D 48.9 D 43 Maria Ln 9.4 A 13.8 B 44 Wolfe Rd CMP 39.7 D 52 D 45 Poplar Ave 17 B 14.7 B 46 Henderson Ave 12.8 B 16.5 B 47 Halford Ave 16.7 B 20.7 C 48 Lawrence Exp. SB Ramp CMP 10.4 B 17.9 B 49 Lawrence Exp. NB Ramp CMP 23.5 C 14.8 B 50 Lawrence Sq 1.5 A 2.5 A 51 Flora Vista Ave 15.5 B 14.8 B 52 Nobili Ave 3.8 A 4 A 53 Pomeroy Ave 12.5 B 16 B 54 Calabazas Blvd 14.7 B 17.6 B 55 Kiely Blvd/Bowers Ave CMP 33.1 C 38.6 D 56 Bowe Ave 5.3 A 7.4 A 57 San Tomas Expy CMP 73.7 E 84.1 F 58 Los Padres Blvd 27.3 C 31.1 C 59 Scott Blvd CMP 39.9 D 48.8 D 60 Lincoln St CMP 21 C 20 C 61 Monroe St CMP 27.4 C 36.4 D 62 Lafayette St CMP 44.4 D 44.1 D 63 Benton St 10.8 B 26.1 C 64 Palm Dr 13.1 B 17.3 B 65 Campbell Ave (Accolti Way) 12 B 19.1 B 66 The Alameda (Rte 82) CMP 13.6 B 17.8 B 67 Newhall St 16.2 B 15.5 B 68 Hwy 880 (S) CMP 21.7 C 12.4 B 69 Hwy 880 (N) CMP 18.7 B 20.2 C LOS 21 August 6, 2014

27 City ID Study Intersection Existing AM Delay (sec/veh) LOS Existing PM Delay (sec/veh) 70 Hedding St CMP 44.3 D 42.1 D 71 Naglee Ave CMP 47.6 D 55.2 E 72 Lenzen Ave 12.2 B 9 A 73 Julian St 14.5 B 16.2 B 74 Martin and Race St CMP 34.3 C 30.1 C 3.4 Transit Services and Performance Two bus lines operate along the length of the study corridor (Line 22 and Rapid 522) providing a total of 286 revenue hours each weekday. Both of these lines run from Eastridge Shopping Center in East San Jose to the Palo Alto Transit Center. In addition, a small number other lines operate along small segments of the study corridor. These include Line 40 (San Antonio to Showers), Line 60 (Monroe to Homestead) and Line 63 (Race to Cahill). In general, however, these lines serve areas off of El Camino Real. There are several other bus lines that cross El Camino Real within the study area. While not located specifically on El Camino Real, Caltrain does provide service within the same general corridor. Line 22 operates on a schedule with timepoints indicating a frequency of every 12 minutes. Line 22 serves 147 stops in both directions (32 of which are also served by the Rapid 522), averaging 0.25 miles between stops (one-way). Rapid 522, which would be replaced by the BRT, is a limited stop service operating on 15-minute headways. Rapid 522 serves 32 stops in both directions along the corridor, averaging a stop every 1.2 miles (one-way). Table 8 shows the scheduled transit travel times from VTA s website for the peak hours. Table 9 shows the observed ridership counts for both lines. More detailed ridership information for the BRT, by direction and by station, is included in Appendix B. Table 8: Transit Travel Times from VTA schedule, between University Avenue and Cahill Street LOS Travel Time (mins) AM Peak Period PM Peak Period Line 22 Rapid 522 Line 22 Rapid 522 Eastbound Westbound Source: VTA Bus Schedules, 2013 Table 9: Observed Daily Transit Ridership Line 22 Rapid 522 Westbound 1 3,695 1,044 Eastbound 1 5,539 2,243 Total 9,234 3,287 1 Eastbound and westbound ridership do not balance because of a high number of trip destinations east of the study segment. Source: VTA Passenger Counting System, November August 6, 2014

28 3.5 Parking Existing parking information was collected in the vicinity of the Project corridor. The existing number of spots was determined by studying aerial surveys of the area. The following three types of parking information were collected: On-street parking along El Camino Real On-street parking on cross streets Off-street public parking spaces The on-street parking survey extended along El Camino Real between the Arena in downtown San Jose and the Palo Alto Transit Center. The study corridor has a combination of time-limited parking as well as unrestricted parking. Although the parking occupancy varies depending on location and time of day, parking is generally available along the entire corridor. On-street parking on cross streets was surveyed within 500-feet on either side of The Alameda/El Camino Real. The off-street public parking facilities that are facing The Alameda/El Camino Real were also surveyed for this study. The survey included parking in shopping centers and other lots where the general public can find unrestricted parking. Off-street parking is readily available during the weekday AM, midday and PM periods. Table 10 shows the existing inventory of parking spots for these three categories. Table 11 shows the occupancy during the midday, which is the highest occupancy time throughout the day. Table 10: Existing Number of Parking Spots On-Street along El Camino Real On-Street on Cross Streets Off-Street Public Spaces Total San Jose ,272 3,390 Santa Clara ,213 6,179 Sunnyvale ,407 6,911 Mountain View ,512 4,221 Los Altos ,531 2,782 Palo Alto ,355 4,583 Total 1,978 2,798 23,290 28,066 and Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., 2014 Table 11: Observed Midday Occupancy of Available Parking Spots On-Street along El Camino Real On-Street on Cross Streets Off-Street Public Spaces Total San Jose 17% 32% 61% 50% Santa Clara 24% 44% 52% 49% Sunnyvale 29% 37% 51% 50% Mountain View 8% 51% 46% 43% Los Altos 34% 57% 51% 50% Palo Alto 68% 43% 45% 47% Total 33% 41% 51% 49% and Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., August 6, 2014

29 4 ALTERNATIVES VTA s PSR-PDS study has concluded that the only practical technology for the El Camino Real corridor is Bus Rapid Transit since other Build Alternatives such as heavy rail and light rail transit (LRT) are out-of-scale for the existing street environment and for the forecasted transit ridership demand. Transit demand along El Camino Real is better suited for a more frequent, lower capacity service than that offered by rail alternatives. Additionally, if a BRT system on the El Camino Real corridor were to run in dedicated lanes through the most congested areas of the corridor, the running times would not be significantly different from a LRT system. Table 12 provides summary descriptions of the seven alternatives examined as part of this study. These alternatives include No Build plus six build alternatives that range from one with station improvements but no dedicated BRT lanes, to those with varying lengths of dedicated lanes. These seven alternatives were tested in the AM and PM peak periods for years 2018 and Additionally, Alternatives 1, 2 and 4C were analyzed for the current year (2013). This assessment was conducted to address possible issues arising from recent court cases that required analysis of existing plus project conditions. The analysis, however, was limited to examination of the boundary alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 4C). These results may be used to interpolate the potential impacts of the remaining build alternatives. The analysis also included testing a secondary set of scenarios with two optional additional stations: at Escuela Avenue and at either Embarcadero Road or Churchill Avenue. Consideration of these optional stations was requested during the environmental scoping process. While these stations could potentially be added to any of the project alternatives, only the boundary conditions were tested: Alt 2 and Alt 4C. Furthermore, the analysis was limited to examination of the potential impact to transit ridership. As the addition of these stations was found to produce a modest increase in transit ridership and corresponding decrease in auto travel demand, it is expected that other measures would show a benefit compared to the corresponding alternative without the optional stations. It is worth noting that in addition to the El Camino Real-specific improvements described in Table 12, all alternatives also assume a number of other transportation improvements in the study area that can impact mode split and traffic demands on El Camino Real in the short- and long-term horizon years. Projects that will likely have a high impact in the auto and transit forecasts along El Camino Real and within the area surrounding study corridor include: - US 101 Auxiliary Lanes project (includes auxiliary lanes and dual HOV lanes on US 101 north of the SR 85 junction in Mountain View) by 2015; - BART line extension to San Jose (Berryessa) by 2018; - Caltrain infrastructure and service improvements by 2018/2025; - Express lanes construction on SR 85 and US 101 by 2015 and 2017 respectively; - Express lanes extension on US 101 in three phases by 2022, 2026 and 2030 respectively; - Express lanes construction on SR 87 and SR 17 by 2018 and 2028 respectively; - Express lanes construction on SR 237 in three phases by 2015, 2020 and 2040 respectively; and - Express lanes construction on I-280 in two phases by 2022 and 2025 respectively. A full list of the planned improvements that have been included in the travel model networks for all alternatives can be found in Appendix K. It should also be noted that signal timings were updated/re-optimized as part of all alternatives to reflect changes in traffic demands and any geometric changes. Figure 12 through Figure 17 illustrate the layouts of the build alternatives. 24 August 6, 2014

30 Table 12: Description of Alternatives for the El Camino Real Corridor Alternative 1 No Build 2 All Mixed Flow 3 4 3A 3B Short Dedicated Lanes Lafayette to Halford Lafayette to Halford + Mixed Flow Long Dedicated Lanes Description This alternative assumes no physical BRT-related improvements within the Project segment. However, it does incorporate the following background improvements along El Camino Real: Existing Rapid 522 (16 station, limited stop service) will run on 10-minute headways and local Line 22 on 15-minute headways in mixed flow lanes. Implementation of the Santa Clara-Alum Rock (SCAR) BRT by BRT 522 will operate east of the ECR BRT Project, from the Arena in San Jose to the Eastridge Transit Center. This project includes modification of the Line 22 and 522 headways as described above. Addition of a landscaped median on The Alameda from White St/Stockton Ave to Fremont St/Schiele Ave in San Jose, blocking left turn access for several existing intersections (signalized and unsignalized) along The Alameda. Modification of the El Camino Real and San Tomas Expy intersection to include dual left turn lanes for all approaches by Installation of a traffic signal at the Clark Ave and El Camino Real intersection in Mountain View by 2014 (#82). Installation of a traffic signal at the McCormick Dr and El Camino Real intersection in Santa Clara by October of 2014 (#84). Updating/re-optimization of signal timing (phase splits only; cycle lengths remain constant) at all signalized intersections along El Camino Real in response to changes in travel demands. Note that these background improvements are assumed as part of all alternatives. Under this alternative the BRT service would operate within the mixed-flow lanes along the entire 17.6-mile Project corridor, although all BRT stations/stops would be upgraded. Specific features of this alternative include: Maintaining six mixed flow lanes, three in each direction. Developing 14 curbside bulbout stations along the Project corridor. These stations would be BRT branded stations. Implementing bus signal priority (BSP) at all signalized intersections that don t currently have it (10 locations): Lafayette, Monroe, Lincoln, Scott, Los Padres, San Tomas, Wolfe, Mathilda, Palm, and University. Constructing a bus queue jump lane at Embarcadero. Under this scenario, there are two alternatives. Under each of these alternatives, there would be mixed-flow lanes with bulbout BRT stations from the Arena in San Jose to Lafayette Street in Santa Clara; from Lafayette Street to Halford Street in Santa Clara there would be 2.97 miles of dedicated BRT lanes with median BRT stations. The two scenarios differ in their configuration west of Halford Street in Santa Clara to the Palo Alto Transit Center. Both of these alternatives include: Modifying all signals (with BSP) within dedicated lane segment to reflect reduction in number of through lanes, while maintaining all turn lanes (16 locations) Does not include any further BRT infrastructure west of Halford Avenue Includes a mixed-flow configuration with bulbout BRT branded stations (similar to Alternative 2) west of Halford Avenue. This alternative also includes: Implementing BSP at all signalized intersections west of Halford that don t currently have it (4 locations): Wolfe, Mathilda, Palm, and University. Constructing a bus queue jump lane at Embarcadero. There are three alternatives considered under this scenario which differ based on the extent of the dedicated BRT lane. Under each of the alternatives, there would be mixed-flow lanes from the Arena in San Jose to Lafayette Street in Santa Clara and west of the dedicated lane terminus to the Palo Alto Transit Center. All scenarios include 14 BRT branded stations, either bulbout or median stations as appropriate. 25 August 6, 2014

31 4A 4B 4C Lafayette to SR- 85 Lafayette to Showers Lafayette to Embarcadero Dedicated lane segment from Lafayette Street in Santa Clara to SR-85 in Mountain View. Other features of this alternative include: Implementing BSP at all signalized intersections outside the dedicated lane segment that don t currently have it (2 locations): Palm and University. Modifying all signals (with BSP) within the dedicated lane segment to reflect reduction in number of through lanes, while maintaining all turn lanes (29 locations). Adding new signalized intersections within dedicated lane segment (3 locations within Sunnyvale). between Sunnyvale Avenue and Cezanne Drive, between Remington Drive/Fair Oaks Avenue and Maria Lane, and at Helen Avenue. Converting a currently signalized intersection within dedicated lane segment to right-in/right-out only and removing the traffic signal (1 location): Murphy Avenue (#39). Adding new pedestrian crossing signals within dedicated lane segment with right-in/right-out access for vehicles (1 location): Crestview Drive Constructing a bus queue jump lane at Embarcadero. Dedicated lane segment from Lafayette Street in Santa Clara to Showers Drive in Los Altos. Other features of this alternative include: Implementing BSP at all signalized intersections outside the dedicated lane segment that don t currently have it (2 locations): Palm and University. Modifying all signals (with BSP) within dedicated lane segment to reflect reduction in number of through lanes, while maintaining all turn lanes (39 locations). Adding new signalized intersections within dedicated lane segment (5 locations). Distel Circle (#81) Bonita Avenue (#83) between Sunnyvale Avenue and Cezanne Drive, between Remington Drive/Fair Oaks Avenue and Maria Lane, and at Helen Avenue. Converting a currently signalized intersection within dedicated lane segment to right-in/right-out only and removing the traffic signal (3 locations): Ortega Avenue (#24) Distel Drive (#25) Murphy Avenue (#39). Adding new pedestrian crossing signals within dedicated lane segment with right-in/right-out access for vehicles (2 locations): Crestview Drive Pettis Avenue Constructing a bus queue jump lane at Embarcadero. Dedicated lane segment from Lafayette Street in Santa Clara to Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto. Other features of this alternative include: Implementing BSP at all signalized intersections outside the dedicated lane segment that don t currently have it (2 locations): Palm and University. Modifying all signals (with BSP) within dedicated lane segment to reflect reduction in number of through lanes, while maintaining all turn lanes (54 locations). Adding new signalized intersections within dedicated lane segment (9 locations). College Avenue (#76) Wilton Avenue (#77)/Barron Avenue (#78) Vista Avenue (#79) 26 August 6, 2014

32 Deodar Street (#80) Distel Circle (#81) Bonita Avenue (#83) between Sunnyvale Avenue and Cezanne Drive, between Remington Drive/Fair Oaks Avenue and Maria Lane, and at Helen Avenue. Converting a currently signalized intersection within dedicated lane segment to right-in/right-out only and removing the traffic signal (5 locations): Cambridge Avenue (#8) Curtner Avenue (#13) Ortega Avenue (#24) Distel Drive (#25) Murphy Avenue (#39). Adding new pedestrian crossing signals within dedicated lane segment with right-in/right-out access for vehicles (2 locations): Crestview Drive Pettis Avenue Constructing a bus queue jump lane at Embarcadero. Source: Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., 2014 and DKS Associates, 2014 Figure 12: Alternative 2 Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, August 6, 2014

33 Figure 13: Alternative 3A Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, 2014 Figure 14: Alternative 3B Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, August 6, 2014

34 Figure 15: Alternative 4A Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, 2014 Figure 16: Alternative 4B Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, August 6, 2014

35 Figure 17: Alternative 4C Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, August 6, 2014

36 5 NO BUILD TRAVEL FORECASTS According to the VTA travel model forecasts, the housing and employment growth in Santa Clara County will lead to increased travel demand along the El Camino Real corridor. This growth in demand is expected to be served primarily by transit and auto. As the implementation of the SCAR project takes place and transit frequency increases, transit ridership is also expected to increase. This section describes the expected growth in transit ridership, ADT, and peak hour traffic volumes between the existing conditions and the No Build alternatives (Alternative 1) in 2018 and Table 13 shows the increase in transit ridership from existing conditions into the forecast years. The table only reports ridership within the Project segment, between Cahill Street in San Jose and University Avenue in Palo Alto. Total weekday daily ridership along the corridor is forecast to increase by almost 2,000 riders by 2018 and by an additional 7,000 riders by Ridership of Rapid 522 increases significantly in 2018, mostly because of the increase in frequency. That change leads to a lot of passengers being attracted from the local bus between 2013 and In 2040, the increase in total ridership is divided between both lines with the local bus carrying a slightly larger number of riders than the BRT line. Detailed ridership information for the BRT, by direction and station, is included in Appendix C. Table 13: Total Daily Ridership 1 (Westbound + Eastbound) for No Build Alternatives 2013 Existing 2018 No 2040 No Location (Observed) 2 Build (Alt 1) Build (Alt 1) 3,287 8,159 10,576 Rapid 522/BRT (+148%) (+222%) 9,234 6,429 11,102 Line 22 (Local Bus) (-30%) (+20%) 12,521 14,588 21,678 Total (+16.5%) (+73%) 1 Ridership is defined as observed counts + model growth 2 Counts were conducted in November 2013 for the average weekday and VTA Passenger Counting System Traffic volumes on El Camino Real are also expected to grow significantly in the future. Table 14 and Table 15 show the traffic volumes on selected portions of El Camino Real for current conditions and forecast years. In 2018 volumes generally increase along the corridor. Only in Palo Alto is there a drop in traffic volumes along the corridor due to improvements on US 101 that cause a diversion from El Camino Real to US 101, most noticeably in the peak direction (westbound AM, eastbound PM). In 2040, volumes are expected to increase along El Camino Real during both the AM and PM peak periods. Certain segments of El Camino Real will experience high growth. About 28% growth is expected on daily traffic volumes in Palo Alto and in parts of Santa Clara and Mountain View. AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes in Santa Clara and Sunnyvale are also expected to increase by 38-50%. Detailed information on Average Daily Traffic by vehicle class is included in Appendix D. 31 August 6, 2014

37 Table 14: Total ADT (Westbound + Eastbound) for No Build Alternative by Year City Location along 2013 Existing 2018 No Build El Camino Real (Observed) (Alt 1) San Jose East of Hedding St 29,572 30,884 (+4.4%) Santa Clara East of Jefferson St 23,680 24,536 (+3.6%) West of Bowers Ave 37,636 39,056 (+3.8%) Sunnyvale West of Maria Ln 36,462 37,704 (+3.4%) East of Bernardo Ave 38,962 39,359 (+1.0%) Mountain View East of Bush St 52,551 53,974 (+2.7%) West of Jordan Ave 41,392 41,849 (+1.1%) Palo Alto East of Matadero Ave 42,613 42,345 (-0.6%) and VTA countywide travel demand model, No Build (Alt 1) 34,954 (+18.2%) 28,393 (+19.9%) 48,349 (+28.5%) 43,911 (+20.4%) 46,505 (+19.4%) 58,692 (+11.7%) 52,994 (+28.0%) 54,774 (+28.5%) Table 15: Total Peak Hour Auto Volumes (Westbound + Eastbound) for No Build Alternative by Year AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location along 2013 Existing 2018 No 2040 No 2013 Existing 2018 No 2040 No El Camino Real (Observed) Build (Alt 1) Build (Alt 1) (Observed) Build (Alt 1) Build (Alt 1) East of Hedding St 2,235 2,346 2,457 2,528 2,586 2,743 East of Jefferson St 1,505 1,618 2,266 1,953 2,149 2,836 West of Bowers Ave 2,129 2,344 2,992 2,965 3,224 4,470 West of Maria Ln 2,038 2,138 2,656 2,863 3,098 3,849 East of Bernardo Ave 2,410 2,545 3,347 2,830 2,969 3,907 East of Bush St 3,939 3,986 4,292 3,993 4,030 4,583 West of Jordan Ave 2,688 2,640 3,539 3,361 3,391 4,540 East of Matadero Ave 3,075 2,917 3,536 3,499 3,499 4,376 and VTA countywide travel demand model, August 6, 2014

38 6 NEAR-TERM (2018) ANALYSIS This chapter provides a summary of the transit and traffic analysis results for the near-term (2018) future Project alternatives. Consistent with the measures of effectiveness described in Section 2.1, this chapter discusses the following aspects of the Project: Transit ridership daily ridership for both the Local 22 and the Rapid 522/BRT lines; Traffic volumes daily, AM and PM peak hour volumes; Screenline diversion - AM and PM peak hour volumes diverting from El Camino Real to adjacent routes; Travel times auto and transit AM and PM peak hour travel times; Mobility measures Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT), Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD), and average speed; Intersection Level Of Service (LOS) intersection LOS and average delay along the El Camino Real corridor; Diversion Route Intersection Level Of Service (LOS) intersection LOS and average delay off the corridor. The last section of this chapter summarizes the analysis of a secondary set of scenarios involving two optional additional stations. 6.1 Transit Ridership Transit ridership is expected to increase along the corridor because the BRT is an improvement in quality of transit service. Transit ridership forecasts are calculated by adding the change in ridership predicted by the travel demand models to collected count data. Counts were collected by the VTA Passenger Counting System in November Figure 18 presents the bi-directional daily ridership on the proposed BRT and the local bus (Line 22) within the study corridor. As the length of the exclusive lanes increases between project alternatives the BRT line attracts higher ridership. Simultaneously, a number of riders shift from Line 22 to the BRT line causing the ridership of the former to reduce slightly. However, the total ridership for both lines combined increases as the length of the exclusive lane segment increases. Between Alternative 4C and the No Build, there is an increase of total transit ridership of 28%. Detailed ridership information for the BRT, broken down by direction and station, is included in Appendix C. 33 August 6, 2014

39 Figure 18: Daily Transit Ridership along El Camino Real in 2018 The increase in BRT ridership is due to both new transit riders and some riders that switch from the local bus to the BRT. Table 16 shows the number of riders shifting from Line 22 to BRT (assumed to equal the reduction in Line 22 ridership from the No Build) and the number of new transit riders. Table 16: Daily Ridership Comparison between Local Bus and BRT in 2018 EB Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt4B Alt 4C Line 522/BRT Ridership 4,512 5,045 5,071 5,412 5,630 5,886 6,065 Line 22 Ridership 4,368 4,250 4,286 4,189 4,190 4,147 4,133 Transit Ridership (522/BRT + 22) 8,879 9,294 9,357 9,601 9,819 10,032 10,197 Assumed Riders Shifting from 22 to BRT New Transit Riders ,153 1,318 WB Total Line 522/BRT Ridership 3,648 4,179 4,490 4,679 5,172 5,923 7,039 Line 22 Ridership 2,061 1,831 1,762 1,720 1,658 1,546 1,380 Transit Ridership (522/BRT + 22) 5,709 6,009 6,252 6,399 6,829 7,468 8,419 Assumed Riders Shifting from 22 to BRT New Transit Riders ,121 1,760 2,710 Line 522/BRT Ridership 8,159 9,223 9,561 10,090 10,801 11,808 13,104 Line 22 Ridership 6,429 6,080 6,047 5,909 5,847 5,692 5,512 Transit Ridership (522/BRT + 22) 14,588 15,303 15,608 15,999 16,648 17,500 18,616 Assumed Riders Shifting from 22 to BRT New Transit Riders ,021 1,412 2,061 2,913 4,028 1 The number of riders shifting from the 22 to the BRT is assumed to be the reduction in Line 22 ridership from the No Build 2 The number of new transit riders is computed by subtracting the number of shifting riders between Line 22 and BRT from the increase in total transit ridership between the Build and the No Build 34 August 6, 2014

40 6.2 Traffic Volumes The addition of BRT to the El Camino Real increases the transit ridership, but also affects auto traffic along El Camino Real. In particular, adding dedicated lanes reduces capacity causing some traffic to divert off El Camino Real. This section shows the change in auto traffic on selected segments along El Camino Real. See Section 6.3 for more information about traffic volumes off El Camino. Table 17 shows the average daily traffic (ADT). See Appendix D for detailed information about ADT. Table 18 and Table 19 show AM and PM peak hour volumes, respectively. In all cases, the volumes shown are the total for both directions. Table 17: 2018 Average Daily Bi-Directional Traffic (ADT) Volumes along El Camino Real City Location Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C San Jose East of Hedding St 30,884 30,915 30,885 30,876 30,898 30,861 30,876 Santa Clara Sunnyvale Mountain View East of Jefferson St 24,536 24,527 24,401 24,402 24,369 24,374 24,363 West of Bowers Ave 39,056 39,052 38,231 38,236 38,026 38,052 38,047 West of Maria Ln 37,704 37,691 37,527 37,523 36,300 36,087 36,083 East of Bernardo Ave 39,359 39,349 39,264 39,257 35,998 34,858 34,843 East of Bush St 53,974 53,991 53,964 53,962 53,865 48,561 48,364 West of Jordan Ave 41,849 41,890 41,846 41,838 41,774 39,439 38,876 Palo Alto East of Matadero Ave 42,345 42,334 42,343 42,350 42,297 41,555 38,788 Source: VTA countywide travel demand model, 2014 Table 18: 2018 AM Peak Hour Bi-Directional Volumes along El Camino Real City Location Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C San Jose East of Hedding St 2,346 2,346 2,332 2,331 2,335 2,334 2,338 Santa Clara Sunnyvale Mountain View East of Jefferson St 1,618 1,618 1,554 1,555 1,552 1,552 1,550 West of Bowers Ave 2,344 2,344 1,390 1,389 1,378 1,374 1,374 West of Maria Ln 2,138 2,140 2,009 2,012 1,452 1,443 1,445 East of Bernardo Ave 2,545 2,547 2,522 2,522 1,997 1,944 1,929 East of Bush St 3,986 3,986 3,982 3,980 3,978 2,819 2,804 West of Jordan Ave 2,640 2,640 2,637 2,637 2,625 2,073 1,897 Palo Alto East of Matadero Ave 2,917 2,917 2,913 2,913 2,904 2,832 1,939 Table 19: 2018 PM Peak Hour Bi-Directional Volumes along El Camino Real City Location Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C San Jose East of Hedding St 2,586 2,587 2,575 2,575 2,570 2,573 2,572 Santa Clara Sunnyvale Mountain View East of Jefferson St 2,149 2,148 2,051 2,050 2,049 2,039 2,039 West of Bowers Ave 3,224 3,226 2,538 2,537 2,549 2,537 2,536 West of Maria Ln 3,098 3,100 2,910 2,909 2,372 2,354 2,351 East of Bernardo Ave 2,969 2,968 2,919 2,918 2,395 2,224 2,212 East of Bush St 4,030 4,030 4,030 4,028 4,008 2,743 2,726 West of Jordan Ave 3,391 3,392 3,386 3,385 3,381 2,723 2,497 Palo Alto East of Matadero Ave 3,499 3,494 3,494 3,493 3,495 3,423 2, August 6, 2014

41 6.3 Screenline Diversion As mentioned in the previous section, the implementation of BRT on El Camino Real increases transit ridership and decreases auto trips, but taking a lane away from automobiles to create the dedicated lane for the BRT causes some traffic diversion off El Camino Real onto surrounding roads. This potential diversion was determined by reducing the capacity of El Camino Real within the countywide travel model, and re-assigning vehicle trips. The evaluation of this diversion involved two elements. The first of these was a screenline assessment that looked at changes in traffic demands on other roadways within a broader subarea from US 101 to I-280. This involved defining a number of screenlines (imaginary north-south lines) that cut across the subarea, and then examining the change in demand on roadways that cross the screenline. The intent of this screenline assessment is to provide a big picture view of diversion patterns, both in terms of how many trips are diverted and where do they go. The roadways included in the screenlines are generally major roadways, but also include minor roadways that were observed to have notable increases in traffic due to diversion. The results of this screenline assessment are the focus of this section. The second element of the diversion analysis was a detailed examination of operational impacts at intersections along potential diversion routes. This element is discussed in Section 6.7. Figure 19 through Figure 22 show the following screenline locations: west of San Tomas Expressway in Santa Clara, west of Mathilda Avenue/Sunnyvale Saratoga Road in Sunnyvale, west of Shoreline Boulevard/Miramonte Avenue in Mountain View, and west of Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road in Palo Alto. The blue line is the location of the screenline; green text represents westbound and eastbound volume differences on El Camino Real, and red text represents the westbound and eastbound volume differences off of El Camino Real. For representative purposes, the maps show the change in traffic volumes in only the PM peak period of Alternative 4C from the No Build (Alternative 1). See Appendix E for detailed information about capacities and diversion volumes for all alternatives during the AM and PM peak periods. Information about the LOS at intersections along potential diversion routes can be found in Section August 6, 2014

42 As Figure 19 shows, the major diversion routes in Santa Clara for the PM peak period are Homestead Road and Central Expressway. There is a similar but opposite pattern during the AM peak period but with less diversion to Central Expressway and more diversion to Pruneridge Avenue and Saratoga Avenue. Similar diversion patterns exist in Alternatives 3A, 3B, 4A, and 4B as these alternatives also include dedicated lanes in Santa Clara. Figure 19: 2018 PM Diversion in Santa Clara 37 August 6, 2014

43 As Figure 20 shows, the major diversion routes in Sunnyvale for the PM peak period are US 101, Central Expressway, and Fremont Avenue. There is a similar but opposite pattern during the AM peak period but with less diversion to Central Expressway and more diversion to I-280. Similar diversion patterns exist in Alternatives 4A and 4B as these alternatives also include dedicated lanes in Sunnyvale. Figure 20: 2018 PM Diversion in Sunnyvale 38 August 6, 2014

44 As Figure 21 shows, the major diversion routes in Mountain View for the PM peak period are Middlefield Road, Central Expressway, I-280, Foothill Expressway, and California Street. There is a similar but opposite pattern during the AM peak period but with less diversion to Middlefield Road and California Street and more diversion to Central Expressway. Similar diversion patterns exist in Alternative 4B as these alternatives also include dedicated lanes in Mountain View. Figure 21: 2018 PM Diversion in Mountain View 39 August 6, 2014

45 As Figure 22 shows, the major diversion routes in Palo Alto for the PM peak period are Middlefield Road and Alma Street. There is a similar but opposite pattern during the AM peak period but with less diversion to Middlefield Road. Figure 22: 2018 PM Diversion in Palo Alto 40 August 6, 2014

46 6.4 Travel Times This section presents the auto and transit travel time results on El Camino Real for all alternatives. The auto travel times for each segment were derived from the countywide travel demand model. The transit travel time within mixed-flow segments was defined as a function or factor of auto travel time for the same segment. This factor reflects the longer travel times expected due to stops and different operating characteristics (i.e. acceleration) between buses and autos. BRT travel times for segments with exclusive lanes were computed based on an assumed operating speed within the exclusive lanes. Figure 23 through Figure 26 show the travel time for BRT, autos, and the local bus along the study corridor during the AM and PM peak hour, traveling westbound and eastbound. Detailed information about travel time, broken down into segments, can be found in Appendix F. BRT travel time drops significantly as the length of the dedicated lanes increases. When the BRT is in mixed flow for the entire corridor, its travel time is close to the local bus; but, when the BRT can use dedicated lanes for the entire corridor, travel time is close to auto. BRT travel time decreases up to 45% in the eastbound direction during the PM peak hour, between Alternative 4C and the No Build (Alternative 1). The auto travel time does not vary much amongst alternatives because vehicles divert off El Camino Real and the volume to capacity ratio stays approximately the same along El Camino Real. The local bus has a travel time that is significantly more than auto traffic. These patterns for each mode of travel are the same for all graphs that are shown below (AM and PM, westbound and eastbound). Figure 23: 2018 AM Westbound Travel Times, Cahill Street to University Avenue 100 BRT Local Bus Auto Total Travel Time (mins) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C 41 August 6, 2014

47 Figure 24: 2018 AM Eastbound Travel Times, University Avenue to Cahill Street 90 BRT Local Bus Auto Total Travel Time (mins) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C Figure 25: 2018 PM Westbound Travel Times, Cahill Street to University Avenue 100 BRT Local Bus Auto Total Travel Time (mins) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C 42 August 6, 2014

48 Figure 26: 2018 PM Eastbound Travel Times, University Avenue to Cahill Street 120 BRT Local Bus Auto Total Travel Time (mins) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C 6.5 Corridor Mobility Measures The Project causes an increase in transit ridership as well as causing autos to divert off El Camino Real to surrounding roads. However, corridor-wide, there is not much change in broad mobility measures. The vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle hours traveled (VHT), and average speed were evaluated as indicators of mobility within the study area. For that purpose, a subarea including the study corridor was selected within the countywide travel demand model. The subarea is loosely defined as all roadways from US 101 to I-280, and from Palo Alto to downtown San Jose. The subarea mobility measures for the AM and PM peak period of 2018 are presented in Table 20. VMT in the subarea is slightly lower after the implementation of BRT due to the shifts from auto to transit. Introducing the BRT causes the VHT to increase slightly because the reduced number of lanes leads to some diversion from El Camino Real and increased congestion, although there are fewer vehicles on El Camino Real. For the aforementioned corridor mobility measures, the percentage change between each alternative and the No Build is very small on a subarea basis and within the level of accuracy of the model. The percent change of the mobility measures from the No Build is shown in Table 21. In the alternatives where there are physical enhancements, pedestrians and bicycles are also affected. For more information about impacts on pedestrians and bicycles, see Sections 9.2 and August 6, 2014

49 Table 20: 2018 AM and PM Peak Hour Corridor Mobility Measures Vehicle Miles Traveled AM Peak Hour Vehicle Hours Traveled Average Auto Speed (mph) Vehicle Miles Traveled PM Peak Hour Vehicle Hours Traveled Average Auto Speed (mph) 2018 Alt 1 1,234,921 38, ,325,424 43, Alt 2 1,234,927 38, ,325,431 43, Alt 3A 1,234,221 38, ,324,442 43, Alt 3B 1,234,146 38, ,324,384 43, Alt 4A 1,233,223 38, ,323,554 43, Alt 4B 1,233,107 38, ,323,627 44, Alt 4C 1,232,935 38, ,323,167 44, Source: VTA countywide travel demand model, 2014 Table 21: 2018 Percent Change of Corridor Mobility Measures from No Build (Alt 1) Vehicle Miles Traveled AM Peak Hour Vehicle Hours Traveled Average Auto Speed (mph) Vehicle Miles Traveled PM Peak Hour Vehicle Hours Traveled Average Auto Speed (mph) 2018 Alt 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2018 Alt 3A -0.1% 0.0% -0.1% -0.1% 0.0% -0.1% 2018 Alt 3B -0.1% 0.0% -0.1% -0.1% 0.0% -0.1% 2018 Alt 4A -0.1% 0.2% -0.3% -0.1% 0.1% -0.3% 2018 Alt 4B -0.1% 0.5% -0.6% -0.1% 0.6% -0.7% 2018 Alt 4C -0.2% 0.6% -0.8% -0.2% 0.8% -0.9% Daily VMT was also determined for environmental analysis. In general, the total VMT decrease as the length of the dedicated BRT lane increases because people switch modes from auto to the BRT. For information about daily VMT, see Appendix G. 6.6 El Camino Real Intersection Level of Service The previous sections have discussed the mode shift and diverting traffic caused by the BRT. The implementation of BRT also causes some operational changes along El Camino Real, especially within the dedicated lane segments. These changes, coupled with the removal of a general lane of travel, result in altered intersection performance. Analysis of intersection LOS was performed using Synchro analysis software and by applying the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual LOS methodology. For the near-term analysis it was assumed that intersections along El Camino Real will have optimized signal timings (phase splits) by 2018 as part of the Project (to serve the BRT service and the new travel demand in each direction) or through other improvement projects. A total of 77 intersections were analyzed along El Camino Real for Alternatives 1 (No Build), 2, 3A and 3B. This total includes all existing signals plus two new signals (at Clark Avenue and McCormick Drive) that are being installed by others separate from the BRT project. There are 79 intersections for Alternatives 4A and 4B, and 82 intersections for Alternative 4C. The number of intersections differs for these alternatives because new signals are introduced in the dedicated lane segments to provide the protected left turn movements at some intersections. At the same time some existing signalized intersections are converted to right-in/right-out only and the signal would be removed. It should be noted that in some cases operating conditions improve in the 2018 No Build compared to Existing. This could occur for several reasons including off-corridor improvements that draw traffic away from EL Camino Real (e.g. 44 August 6, 2014

50 US 101 auxiliary lanes), on-corridor improvements (e.g. dual left turn lanes at the San Tomas Expressway intersection) and optimization of signal timing splits AM Peak During the AM peak hour there is very little change in delay or LOS from the No Build to build alternatives at intersections outside of the dedicated lane segments. Within the dedicated lane segments, many intersections maintain the same level of service as the No Build; but some degrade, and some improve due to updated signal timing and diversion of vehicles to other routes. None of the intersections fall below the LOS standard of D (non-cmp intersections) or E (CMP intersections) in this time period. There are no intersections that are already performing below standard in the No Build that experience an increase in delay greater than or equal to 4 seconds. See Appendix H for a complete table of LOS results for all intersections and alternatives PM Peak During the PM peak hour there is very little change in delay or LOS from the No Build to build alternatives at intersections outside of the dedicated lane segments. Within the segments including a dedicated lane, many intersections maintain the same level of service as the No Build; but some degrade, and some improve due to updated signal timing and diversion of vehicles to other routes. Table 22 shows the delay and LOS for all intersections that experience a significant impact compared to No Build. A significant impact is defined as: 1) a decrease in LOS dropping below the standard (E for CMP intersections, D for non-cmp intersections), or 2) an increase in delay of 4 seconds or more for intersections already operating below the standard in the No Build. This table also identifies those locations where a benefit to operations is expected. This is defined as a decrease in delay which results in LOS improvement moving from below the standard to meeting the standard. The LOS for the build alternatives is highlighted blue if it remains the same, yellow if it degrades, and green if it improves. As shown, the intersection at Page Mill Rd experiences a significant impact under one build scenario, and the intersection at Calderon Ave experiences a significant reduction in delay and improvement in LOS under two build scenarios. The impacted intersections are also shown on a map in Figure 27. See Appendix H for a complete table of LOS results for all intersections and alternatives. 6.7 Diversion Route Intersection Level of Service As traffic diverts away from El Camino Real because of the lane conversion to a dedicated BRT lane, some intersections in the surrounding area may be affected because of the traffic diversion. The screenline diversion assessment described in Section 6.3 provides a broad, regional picture of potential diversion impacts. To supplement this, the potential impacts at intersections off of but in close proximity to El Camino Real were also examined. As described in Section 2.3, 165 signalized and unsignalized intersections off El Camino Real were selected for operational analysis in order to provide a more detailed examination of the potential impacts on the surrounding roads. These intersections were selected based on a relative proximity to El Camino Real (generally within ½ mile) and forecasted increase in traffic demand (generally greater than 50 vph). The analysis was completed in Synchro using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual LOS methodology. For this analysis, it was assumed that signal timings (phase splits) would be updated/re-optimized by 2018 as part of individual jurisdictions efforts to better serve future travel demand or through other improvement projects AM Peak Table 23 shows the delay and LOS for intersections that are significantly impacted in at least one alternative during the AM peak period. As shown, 4 intersections are significantly impacted by the Project. The full list of intersections showing the delay and LOS results is included in Appendix I PM Peak Table 24 shows the delay and LOS for intersections that are significantly impacted in at least one alternative during the PM peak period. As shown, 12 intersections are significantly impacted by the Project. The full list of intersections showing the delay and LOS results is included in Appendix I. 45 August 6, 2014

51 Table 22: El Camino Real Intersection LOS Benefits and Impacts, 2018 PM City ID Palo Alto 10 Mountain View 31 Study Intersection Page Mill Rd/ Oregon Expy Calderon Ave/ Phyllis Ave CMP? Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS X 63.2 E 63.1 E 63.3 E 63.3 E 62.8 E 60.7 E 82.7 F 67.2 E 67.1 E 66.8 E 67.0 E 64.7 E 41.0 D 39.7 D 1 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle Note: Blue highlighting indicates LOS remains the same, yellow (or single underline) indicates degrading (drops below LOS standard and/or delay increases by 4 or more seconds if below standard in No Build), and green (or double underline) indicates improving (rises above LOS standard and/or delay decreases by 4 or more seconds if below standard in No Build) as compared to the No Build. 46 August 6, 2014

52 Figure 27: 2018 PM Impacted 1 Intersections along El Camino Real 1 A negative significant impact from the No Build (Alt 1) is indicated by red text, and a benefit from the No Build (Alt 1) is indicated by green text. 47 August 6, 2014

53 Table 23: 2018 AM Diversion Route Intersection LOS Summary City Palo Alto Mountain View Santa Clara ID Study Intersection Alma St at Loma Verde Ave Alma St at Meadow Dr Cuesta Dr at Springer Rd Lawrence Expy at Cabrillo Ave 1 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle Signalized? CMP? Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS F F F F F F F X 44.9 D 44.8 D 44.8 D 44.7 D 44.0 D 42.6 D 61.5 E F F F F F F F X F F F F F F F Note: Blue highlighting indicates no significant project impact and yellow (or single underline) indicates significant project impact Source: CHS Consulting Group, August 6, 2014

54 Table 24: 2018 PM Diversion Route Intersection LOS Summary City ID Study Intersection Palo Alto Mountain View Signalized? CMP? Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS 4 Alma St at Addison Ave 47.7 E 47.6 E 47.5 E 47.6 E 47.2 E 47.2 E 58.1 F 6 Alma St at Kingsley Ave 65.7 F 65.3 F 65.7 F 65.7 F 62.1 F 35.2 E F 8 Alma St at Churchill Ave X 57.6 E 57.6 E 57.6 E 57.5 E 57.0 E 55.6 E 63.4 E 11 Alma St at Loma Verde Ave F F F F F F F 12 Alma St at Meadow Dr X 45.4 D 45.4 D 45.4 D 45.3 D 44.7 D 43.7 D 70.1 E Sunnyvale 113 Santa Clara Alma St at Charleston Rd Alma St at The Circle East Cuesta Dr at Springer Rd Fremont Ave at Sunnyvale Saratoga Rd Lawrence Expy at Cabrillo Ave Bowers Ave at Monroe St San Tomas Expy at Benton St 1 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle X 90.7 F 90.2 F 90.3 F 90.1 F 88.9 F F 94.3 F 19.4 C 19.3 C 19.4 C 19.3 C 19.4 C 21.9 C 28.0 D 71.8 F 71.5 F 71.3 F 71.5 F 67.0 F 81.3 F 81.0 F X X 75.3 E 75.3 E 96.3 F 95.9 F F F F X 50.4 D 50.4 D 56.4 E 56.4 E 62.2 E 61.6 E 61.8 E X 54.5 D 55.0 D 55.2 E 55.3 E 55.7 E 55.8 E 55.4 E X 86.4 F 86.5 F 94.9 F 94.1 F 94.2 F 94.1 F 94.2 F Note: Blue highlighting indicates no significant project impact and yellow (or single underline) indicates significant project impact Source: CHS Consulting Group, August 6, 2014

55 6.8 Optional BRT Stations During the environmental scoping process, it was requested that consideration be given to adding BRT stations along El Camino Real at Escuela Avenue and at either Embarcadero Road or Churchill Avenue. While these stations could potentially be added to any of the project alternatives, the evaluation of the optional stations focused on Project alternatives 2 and 4C that represent the boundary conditions for BRT implementation. As noted in the transit ridership section above, both BRT and total transit ridership increase with the length of the dedicated bus lanes and thus Alternatives 2 and 4C represent the lowest and highest effectiveness of the BRT Project. In both scenarios, the improved accessibility to BRT provided by the two stations led to a slight increase in BRT ridership. As shown in Figure 28, the addition of the two optional stations increased the BRT ridership by less than 10% and the total transit ridership by less than 3%. The lower increase in total ridership compared to the BRT ridership is due to a number of riders shifting from Line 22 to the BRT line which causes the ridership of the former to reduce slightly. Figure 28: Daily Transit Ridership - Alternatives 2 and 4C with Optional Stations in 2018 The increase in BRT ridership is due to new transit riders that are attracted by the two new stations as well as some riders that switch from the local bus to the BRT. Table 25 shows the number of riders shifting from Line 22 to BRT (assumed to equal the reduction in Line 22 ridership from the No Build) and the number of new transit riders. 50 August 6, 2014

56 Table 25: Daily Ridership Comparison between Local Bus and BRT in 2018 EB WB Total Alt 2 + Alt 4C + Alt 2 Alt4C Optional Stations Optional Stations Line 522/BRT Ridership 5,045 5,467 6,065 6,446 Line 22 Ridership 4,250 4,096 4,133 3,964 Transit Ridership (522/BRT + 22) 9,294 9,563 10,197 10,409 Assumed Riders Shifting from 22 to BRT New Transit Riders ,318 1,530 Line 522/BRT Ridership 4,179 4,606 7,039 7,594 Line 22 Ridership 1,831 1,558 1,380 1,084 Transit Ridership (522/BRT + 22) 6,009 6,164 8,419 8,678 Assumed Riders Shifting from 22 to BRT New Transit Riders ,710 2,969 Line 522/BRT Ridership 9,223 10,073 13,104 14,039 Line 22 Ridership 6,080 5,654 5,512 5,048 Transit Ridership (522/BRT + 22) 15,303 15,727 18,616 19,087 Assumed Riders Shifting from 22 to BRT ,381 New Transit Riders ,139 4,028 4,499 1 The number of riders shifting from the 22 to the BRT is assumed to be the reduction in Line 22 ridership from the No Build 2 The number of new transit riders is computed by subtracting the number of shifting riders between Line 22 and BRT from the increase in total transit ridership between the Build and the No Build The traffic impacts for the optional station scenarios were not analyzed. As the addition of these stations was found to produce a modest increase in transit ridership and corresponding decrease in auto travel demand, it is expected that traffic conditions under the optional station scenario would slightly improve compared to those for the corresponding alternative without the optional stations. 51 August 6, 2014

57 7 LONG-TERM (2040) ANALYSIS This chapter provides a summary of the transit and traffic analysis results for the long-term (2040) future Project alternatives. Consistent with the measures of effectiveness described in Section 2.1, this chapter discusses the following aspects of the Project: Transit ridership daily ridership for both the Local 22 and the Rapid 522/BRT lines; Traffic volumes daily, AM and PM peak hour volumes; Screenline diversion - AM and PM peak hour volumes diverting from El Camino Real to adjacent routes; Travel times auto and transit peak AM and PM peak hour travel times; Mobility measures Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT), Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD), and average speed; Intersection Level Of Service (LOS) intersection LOS and average delay along the El Camino Real corridor; Diversion Route Intersection Level Of Service (LOS) intersection LOS and average delay off the corridor. The last section of this chapter summarizes the analysis of a secondary set of scenarios involving two optional additional stations. 7.1 Transit Ridership Transit ridership is expected to increase along the corridor because the BRT is an improvement in quality of transit service. Transit ridership forecasts are calculated by adding the change in ridership predicted by the travel demand models to collected count data. Counts were collected by the VTA Passenger Counting System in November Figure 29 presents the bi-directional daily ridership on the proposed BRT and the local bus (Line 22) within the study corridor. As the length of the exclusive lanes increases between project alternatives the BRT line attracts higher ridership. Simultaneously, a number of riders shift from Line 22 to the BRT line causing the ridership of the former to reduce slightly. However, the total ridership for both lines combined increases as the length of the exclusive lane segment increases. Between Alternative 4C and the No Build, there is an increase of total transit ridership of 40%. For detailed ridership information for the BRT, broken down by direction and station, see Appendix C. 52 August 6, 2014

58 Figure 29: Daily Transit Ridership along El Camino Real in 2040 The increase in BRT ridership is due to both new transit riders and some riders that switch from the local bus to the BRT. Table 26 shows the number of riders shifting from Line 22 to BRT (assumed to equal the reduction in Line 22 ridership from the No Build) and the number of new transit riders. Table 26: Daily Ridership Comparison between Local Bus and BRT in 2040 EB WB Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt4B Alt 4C Line 522/BRT Ridership 5,161 5,487 6,182 6,395 6,702 6,947 7,048 Line 22 Ridership 6,132 5,935 5,729 5,690 5,755 5,685 5,647 Transit Ridership (522/BRT + 22) 11,293 11,422 11,911 12,085 12,457 12,631 12,695 Assumed Riders Shifting from 22 to BRT New Transit Riders ,164 1,338 1,402 Line 522/BRT Ridership 5,415 6,249 7,794 8,095 9,176 11,376 14,023 Line 22 Ridership 4,970 4,557 4,371 4,326 4,124 3,983 3,619 Transit Ridership (522/BRT + 22) 10,385 10,806 12,165 12,421 13,300 15,359 17,641 Assumed Riders Shifting from 22 to BRT ,352 New Transit Riders ,780 2,036 2,915 4,974 7,256 Line 522/BRT Ridership 10,576 11,736 13,976 14,490 15,878 18,323 21,071 Line 22 Ridership 11,102 10,492 10,099 10,016 9,879 9,668 9,266 Total Transit Ridership (522/BRT + 22) 21,678 22,228 24,075 24,505 25,756 27,990 30,336 Assumed Riders Shifting from 22 to BRT ,003 1,087 1,224 1,435 1,837 New Transit Riders ,397 2,827 4,078 6,312 8,658 1 The number of riders shifting from the 22 to the BRT is assumed to be the reduction in Line 22 ridership from the No Build 2 The number of new transit riders is assumed to be the increase in total transit ridership from the No Build 53 August 6, 2014

59 7.2 Traffic Volumes Adding the BRT along the El Camino Real corridor increases the transit ridership, but also affects the auto traffic along El Camino Real. In particular, adding dedicated lanes causes some traffic to divert off El Camino Real. This section shows the change in auto traffic on selected segments along El Camino Real. See Section 7.3 for more information about traffic volumes off El Camino. Table 27 shows the average daily traffic (ADT). See Appendix D for detailed information about ADT. Table 28 and Table 29 show AM and PM peak hour volumes, respectively. In all cases, the volumes shown are the total for both directions. Table 27: 2040 Average Daily Bi-Directional Traffic (ADT) Volumes along El Camino Real City Location Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C San Jose East of Hedding St 34,954 34,993 34,907 34,860 34,864 34,886 34,838 Santa Clara East of Jefferson St 28,393 28,379 27,950 27,957 27,886 27,838 27,849 West of Bowers Ave 48,349 48,314 45,262 45,241 45,008 44,957 44,954 Sunnyvale West of Maria Ln 43,911 43,894 43,139 43,115 40,509 40,195 40,193 East of Bernardo Ave 46,505 46,492 46,300 46,279 40,922 39,571 39,556 Mountain View East of Bush St 58,692 58,657 58,529 58,533 58,304 50,875 50,730 West of Jordan Ave 52,994 52,911 52,838 52,827 52,765 48,086 46,901 Palo Alto East of Matadero Ave 54,774 54,718 54,648 54,680 54,642 53,818 48,073 Source: VTA countywide travel demand model, 2014 Table 28: 2040 AM Peak Hour Bi-Directional Volumes along El Camino Real City Location Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C San Jose East of Hedding St 2,457 2,454 2,443 2,439 2,440 2,444 2,446 Santa Clara Sunnyvale Mountain View East of Jefferson St 2,266 2,262 2,040 2,041 2,003 2,007 2,008 West of Bowers Ave 2,992 2,994 1,728 1,730 1,721 1,722 1,717 West of Maria Ln 2,656 2,654 2,561 2,562 1,702 1,683 1,683 East of Bernardo Ave 3,347 3,341 3,315 3,316 2,461 2,408 2,403 East of Bush St 4,292 4,295 4,289 4,287 4,294 2,998 2,989 West of Jordan Ave 3,539 3,543 3,545 3,549 3,529 2,780 2,536 Palo Alto East of Matadero Ave 3,536 3,534 3,535 3,533 3,533 3,469 2,437 Table 29: 2040 PM Peak Hour Bi-Directional Volumes along El Camino Real City Location Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C San Jose East of Hedding St 2,743 2,746 2,733 2,733 2,735 2,735 2,736 Santa Clara East of Jefferson St 2,836 2,832 2,496 2,505 2,489 2,472 2,475 West of Bowers Ave 4,470 4,466 3,030 3,031 3,038 3,040 3,041 Sunnyvale West of Maria Ln 3,849 3,844 3,645 3,646 2,683 2,670 2,667 East of Bernardo Ave 3,907 3,900 3,848 3,852 2,862 2,814 2,811 Mountain View East of Bush St 4,583 4,578 4,573 4,579 4,561 2,938 2,921 West of Jordan Ave 4,540 4,529 4,531 4,520 4,517 3,461 3,120 Palo Alto East of Matadero Ave 4,376 4,369 4,372 4,372 4,364 4,206 2, August 6, 2014

60 7.3 Screenline Diversion As mentioned in the previous section, the implementation of BRT on El Camino Real increases transit ridership and decreases auto trips, but taking a lane away from automobiles to create the dedicated lane for the BRT causes some traffic diversion off El Camino Real onto surrounding roads. To analyze the diversion behavior, a subarea from US- 101 to I-280 was cut in several locations by screenlines (an imaginary north-south line) to determine how many vehicles pass through that location in the subarea. Figure 30 through Figure 33 show the following screenlines locations: west of San Tomas Expressway in Santa Clara, west of Mathilda Avenue/Sunnyvale Saratoga Road in Sunnyvale, west of Shoreline Boulevard/Miramonte Avenue in Mountain View, and west of Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road in Palo Alto. The blue line is the location of the screenline; green text represents westbound and eastbound volume differences on El Camino Real, and red text represents the westbound and eastbound volume differences off of El Camino Real. For representative purposes, the maps show the change in traffic volumes in only the PM peak period of Alternative 4C from the No Build. See Appendix E for detailed information about capacities and diversion volumes for all alternatives during the AM and PM peak periods. Detailed information about the LOS at diversion intersections can be found in Section August 6, 2014

61 As Figure 30 shows, the major diversion routes in Santa Clara for the PM peak period are Central Expressway, Walsh Avenue, Monroe Street, Benton Street, Homestead Road, and Pruneridge Avenue. There is a similar but opposite pattern during the AM peak period but with lower volumes on most routes. Homestead Road and Saratoga Avenue receive higher volumes in the morning peak period, especially eastbound. Similar diversion patterns exist in Alternatives 3A, 3B, 4A, and 4B as these alternatives also include dedicated lanes in Santa Clara in each case. Figure 30: 2040 PM Diversion in Santa Clara 56 August 6, 2014

62 As Figure 31 shows, the major diversion routes in Sunnyvale for the PM peak period are US 101, Evelyn Avenue, Remington Drive, and Fremont Avenue. There is a similar but opposite pattern during the AM peak period but with generally lower volumes. Also in the AM peak period Central Expressway, Homestead Road, and Maude Avenue constitute major diversion routes. Similar diversion patterns exist in Alternatives 4A, and 4B as these alternatives also include dedicated lanes in Sunnyvale in each case. Figure 31: 2040 PM Diversion in Sunnyvale 57 August 6, 2014

63 As Figure 32 shows, the major diversion routes in Mountain View for the PM peak period are US 101, Central Expressway, California Street, Foothill Expressway, and I-280. There is a similar but opposite pattern during the AM peak period but with no diversion on Foothill Expressway, lower diversion on Central Expressway and I-280, and more diversion on US-101 (Alt 4C), Middlefield Road, and California Street. The dedicated lanes are present in Mountain View in Alternative 4B as well, causing a similar diversion pattern in this case. Similar diversion patterns exist in Alternative 4B as these alternatives also include dedicated lanes in Mountain View in each case. Figure 32: 2040 PM Diversion in Mountain View 58 August 6, 2014

64 As Figure 33 shows, the major diversion routes in Palo Alto for the PM peak period are Middlefield Road and Alma Street. During the AM peak period there is little diversion eastbound but some diversion on US-101 and Middlefield Road, and high diversion on Alma Street. The dedicated lanes in Palo Alto apply only to Alternative 4C, so there is little to no diversion in this city for the other alternatives. Figure 33: 2040 PM Diversion in Palo Alto 59 August 6, 2014

65 7.4 Travel Times This section presents the auto and transit travel time results on El Camino Real for all alternatives. The auto travel times for each segment were derived from the countywide travel demand model. The transit travel time within mixed-flow segments was defined as a function or factor of auto travel time for the same segment. This factor reflects the longer travel times expected due to stops and the different operating characteristics (i.e. acceleration) between buses and autos. The BRT travel times for segments with exclusive lanes were computed based on an assumed operating speed within the exclusive lanes. Figure 34 through Figure 37 show the travel time for the BRT, autos, and the local bus along the study corridor for AM and PM, westbound and eastbound. Detailed information about travel time, broken down into segments, can be found in Appendix F. The BRT travel time drops significantly as the length of the dedicated lanes increases. When the BRT is in mixed flow for the entire corridor, its travel time is close to the local bus; but, when the BRT can use dedicated lanes for the entire corridor, its travel time is close to the auto. The BRT travel time decreases up to 52% which occurs in the eastbound direction during the PM peak hour, between Alternative 4C and the No Build (Alternative 1). The auto travel time does not vary much amongst alternatives because vehicles divert off El Camino Real and the volume to capacity ratio stays approximately the same along El Camino Real. The local bus has a travel time that is significantly more than the auto traffic. These patterns for each mode of travel are the same for all graphs that are shown below (AM and PM, westbound and eastbound). Figure 34: 2040 AM Westbound Travel Times, Cahill Street to University Avenue 120 BRT Local Bus Auto Total Travel Time (mins) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C 60 August 6, 2014

66 Figure 35: 2040 AM Eastbound Travel Times, University Avenue to Cahill Street 90 BRT Local Bus Auto Total Travel Time (mins) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C Figure 36: 2040 PM Westbound Travel Times, Cahill Street to University Avenue 120 BRT Local Bus Auto 100 Total Travel Time (mins) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C 61 August 6, 2014

67 Figure 37: 2040 PM Eastbound Travel Times, University Avenue to Cahill Street 160 BRT Local Bus Auto 140 Total Travel Time (mins) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C 7.5 Corridor Mobility Measures The BRT Project causes an increase in ridership and vehicles to divert off El Camino Real to surrounding roads. However, corridor-wide, there is not much change in broad mobility measures. The vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle hours traveled (VHT), and average speed were evaluated as indicators of mobility within the study area. For that purpose, a subarea including the study corridor was selected within the countywide travel demand model. The subarea is loosely defined as all roadways from US 101 to I-280, and from Palo Alto to downtown San Jose. The subarea mobility measures for the AM and PM peak period of 2040 are presented in Table 30. VMT in the subarea is slightly lower after the implementation of BRT due to the shifts from auto to transit. Introducing the BRT causes the VHT to increase a little because the reduced number of lanes leads to some diversion from El Camino Real and increased congestion, although there are fewer vehicles on El Camino Real. For the aforementioned corridor mobility measures, the percentage change between each alternative and the No Build is very small on a subarea basis and within the level of accuracy of the model. The percent change of the mobility measures from the No Build is shown in Table 31. In the alternatives where there are physical enhancements, pedestrians and bicycles are also affected. For more information about impacts on pedestrians and bicycles, see Sections 9.2 and August 6, 2014

68 Table 30: 2040 AM and PM Peak Hour Corridor Mobility Measures Vehicle Miles Traveled AM Peak Hour Vehicle Hours Traveled Average Auto Speed (mph) Vehicle Miles Traveled PM Peak Hour Vehicle Hours Traveled Average Auto Speed (mph) 2040 Alt 1 1,465,964 56, ,590,926 66, Alt 2 1,465,549 56, ,590,515 65, Alt 3A 1,463,461 56, ,588,000 65, Alt 3B 1,463,536 56, ,587,907 66, Alt 4A 1,462,221 56, ,587,506 66, Alt 4B 1,462,646 56, ,587,097 66, Alt 4C 1,462,220 56, ,586,979 66, Source: VTA countywide travel demand model, 2014 Table 31: 2040 Percent Increase of Corridor Mobility Measures from No Build (Alt 1) Vehicle Miles Traveled AM Peak Hour Vehicle Hours Traveled Average Auto Speed (mph) Vehicle Miles Traveled PM Peak Hour Vehicle Hours Traveled Average Auto Speed (mph) 2040 Alt 2 0.0% -0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2040 Alt 3A -0.2% -0.3% 0.1% -0.2% -0.2% 0.0% 2040 Alt 3B -0.2% -0.2% 0.0% -0.2% 0.1% -0.2% 2040 Alt 4A -0.3% 0.0% -0.3% -0.2% 0.1% -0.3% 2040 Alt 4B -0.2% 0.5% -0.7% -0.2% 0.9% -1.1% 2040 Alt 4C -0.3% 0.9% -1.1% -0.2% 1.3% -1.5% Daily VMT was also determined for environmental analysis. In general, the total VMT decreases as the length of the dedicated BRT lanes increases because people switch modes from auto to the BRT. For information about daily VMT, see Appendix G. 7.6 El Camino Real Intersection Level of Service The previous sections have discussed the mode shift and diverting traffic caused by the BRT. The implementation of the BRT also causes some operational changes along El Camino Real, especially within the dedicated lane segments. These changes, coupled with the removal of a general lane of travel, result in altered intersection performance. Analysis of intersection LOS was performed using Synchro analysis software and by applying the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual LOS methodology. For the long-term analysis it was assumed that intersections along El Camino Real will have optimized signal timings (phase splits) by 2040 as part of the Project (to serve the BRT service and the new travel demand in each direction) or through other improvement projects. A total of 77 intersections were analyzed along El Camino Real for Alternatives 1 (No Build), 2, 3A and 3B. This total includes all existing signals plus two new signals (at Clark Avenue and McCormick Drive) that are being installed by others separate from the BRT project. There are, 79 intersections for Alternatives 4A and 4B, and 82 intersections for Alternative 4C. The number of intersections differs for these alternatives because new signals are introduced in the dedicated lane segments to protect some left turns. At the same time some existing signalized intersections are converted to right-in/right-out only and the signal would be removed. It should be noted that in some cases operating conditions improve in the 2040 No Build compared to Existing. This could occur for several reasons including off-corridor improvements that draw traffic away from EL Camino Real (e.g. 63 August 6, 2014

69 US 101 auxiliary lanes), on-corridor improvements (e.g. dual left turn lanes at the San Tomas Expressway intersection) and optimization of signal timing splits AM Peak During the AM peak hour, there is very little change in delay or LOS from the No Build to build alternatives at intersections outside of the dedicated lane segments. Within the dedicated lane segments, many intersections maintain the same level of service as the No Build; but some degrade, and some improve due to updated signal timing and diversion of vehicles to other routes. Table 32 shows the delay and LOS for all intersections that experience a significant impact or benefit compared to the No Build. A significant impact is defined as: 1) a decrease in LOS dropping below the standard (E for CMP intersections, D for non-cmp intersections), or 2) an increase in delay of 4 seconds or more for intersections already operating below standard in the No Build. A benefit to operations is defined as a decrease in delay which results in LOS improvement moving from below standard to meeting the standard. The LOS for the build alternatives is highlighted blue if it remains the same, yellow if it degrades, and green if it improves. As shown, two intersections experience a significant increase in delay, and three intersections experience a significant reduction in delay and improvement in LOS under various build scenarios. The intersections are also shown on a map in Figure 38. See Appendix H for a complete table of LOS results for all intersections and alternatives PM Peak During the PM peak hour, there is very little change in delay or LOS from the No Build to build alternatives at intersections outside of the dedicated lane segments. Within the dedicated lane segments, many intersections maintain the same level of service as the No Build; but some degrade, and some improve due to updated signal timing and diversion of vehicles to other routes. Table 33 shows the delay and LOS for all intersections that experience a significant impact or benefit compared to the No Build. A significant impact is defined as 1) a decrease in LOS dropping below the standard (E for CMP intersections, D for non-cmp intersections) or 2) an increase in delay of 4 seconds or more for intersections already operating below the standard in the No Build. A benefit is defined as a decrease in delay which results in LOS improvement moving from below the standard to meeting the standard. The LOS for the build alternatives is highlighted blue if it remains the same, yellow if it degrades, and green if it improves. As shown, six intersections experience a significant impact in one more of the alternatives. Meanwhile, seven intersections experience some benefit in the form of a significant reduction in delay or improvement in LOS under various build scenarios. This includes one location (#10 - Page Mill Rd/ Oregon Expy) that is expected to experience a benefit under Alternative 4B, but a significant impact under Alternative 4C. The intersections are also shown on a map in Figure 39. See Appendix H for a complete table of LOS results for all intersections and alternatives. 64 August 6, 2014

70 Table 32: El Camino Real Intersection LOS Benefits and Impacts, 2040 AM City ID Palo Alto 10 Mountain View 33 Study Intersection Page Mill Rd/ Oregon Expy The Americana / Sylvan Ave CMP? Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS X 94.1 F 94.2 F 93.6 F 94.4 F 94.0 F 93.1 F F 69.5 E 70.1 E 68.5 E 67.7 E 53.8 D 59.0 E 58.1 E Sunnyvale 38 Mathilda Ave X 80.5 F 80.5 F 77.3 E 77.6 E 67.4 E 67.3 E 67.1 E Santa Clara 57 San Tomas Expy X 98.5 F 98.2 F F F F F F 62 Lafayette St X F F 66.9 E 63.7 E 65.5 E 66.1 E 63.4 E 1 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle Note: Blue highlighting indicates LOS remains the same, yellow (or single underline) indicates degrading (drops below LOS standard and/or delay increases by 4 or more seconds if below standard in No Build), and green (or double underline) indicates improving (rises above LOS standard and/or delay decreases by 4 or more seconds if below standard in No Build)as compared to the No Build. 65 August 6, 2014

71 Figure 38: 2040 AM Impacted 1 Intersections along El Camino Real 1 A negative significant impact from the No Build (Alt 1) is indicated by red text, and a benefit from the No Build (Alt 1) is indicated by green text. 66 August 6, 2014

72 Table 33: El Camino Real Intersection LOS Benefits and Impacts, 2040 PM City ID Study Intersection CMP? Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Palo Alto 4 Embarcadero Rd/ Galvez St X F F F F F F F 7 Stanford Ave 60.9 E 60.6 E 60.9 E 60.8 E 60.6 E 60.8 E 49.8 D 10 Page Mill Rd/ Oregon Expy X F F F F F F F Los Altos 21 San Antonio Rd X 86.2 F 87.4 F 87.1 F 87.2 F 85.4 F 70.2 E 77.6 E Mountain View Sunnyvale Santa Clara 22 Showers Dr/ Los Altos Sq 29.1 C 29.0 C 29.0 C 29.1 C 29.0 C 71.1 E 46.6 D 36 Mary Ave X 86.6 F 88.9 F 85.4 F 87.9 F 79.6 E 76.8 E 76.8 E 38 Mathilda Ave X F 99.9 F 96.7 F 96.8 F 78.1 E 76.9 E 76.5 E 40 Sunnyvale Ave/ Sunnyvale 59.8 E 59.7 E 59.4 E 59.6 E 50.3 D 50.2 D 50.4 D Saratoga Rd 42 Fair Oaks Ave/ Remington Dr X 82.6 F 84.3 F 83.0 F 84.3 F 78.6 E 80.0 E 79.7 E 55 Kiely Blvd/ Bowers Ave X F F F F F F F 57 San Tomas Expy X F 99.3 F F F F F Scott Blvd X 87.6 F 89.2 F F F F F F 1 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle Note: Blue highlighting indicates LOS remains the same, yellow (or single underline) indicates degrading (drops below LOS standard and/or delay increases by 4 or more seconds if below standard in No Build), and green (or double underline) indicates improving (rises above LOS standard and/or delay decreases by 4 or more seconds if below standard in No Build)as compared to the No Build. 67 August 6, 2014

73 Figure 39: 2040 PM Impacted 1 Intersections along El Camino Real 1 A negative significant impact from the No Build (Alt 1) is indicated by red text, and a benefit from the No Build (Alt 1) is indicated by green text. 68 August 6, 2014

74 7.7 Diversion Route Intersection Level of Service As traffic diverts away from El Camino Real because of the addition of the dedicated BRT lanes, some intersections in the surrounding area may be affected because of the changes in traffic. The screenline diversion assessment described in Section 6.3 provides a broad, regional picture of potential diversion impacts. To supplement this, the potential impacts at intersections off of but in close proximity to El Camino Real were also examined. As described in Section 2.3, 165 signalized and unsignalized intersections off El Camino Real were selected for operational analysis in order to provide a more detailed examination of the potential impacts on the surrounding roads. The analysis was completed in Synchro using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual LOS methodology. For the long-term analysis it was assumed that the analysis intersections will have optimized signal timings (phase splits) by 2040 as part of the cities efforts to better serve future travel demand or through other improvement projects AM Peak Table 34 shows the delay and LOS for intersections that are significantly impacted in at least one alternative in the AM peak period. As shown, 26 intersections are significantly impacted by the Project. The full list of intersections showing the delay and LOS results is included in Appendix I PM Peak Table 35 shows the delay and LOS for intersections that are significantly impacted in at least one alternative in the PM peak period. As shown, 25 intersections are significantly impacted by the Project. The full list of intersections showing the delay and LOS results is included in Appendix I. 69 August 6, 2014

75 Table 34: 2040 AM Diversion Route Intersection LOS Summary City ID Study Intersection Signalized? CMP? Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Palo Alto Mountain View 5 Alma St at Lincoln Ave F F F F F F F 7 Alma St at Melville Ave F F F F F F n/a F 8 11 Alma St at Churchill Ave Alma St at Loma Verde Ave X 44.6 D 44.8 D 44.6 D 44.5 D 44.1 D 43.0 D 63.7 E F F F F F F F 12 Alma St at Meadow Dr X F F F F F F F Alma St at Charleston Rd Hanover St at Oregon/Page Mill Rd San Antonio Rd at California St Rengstorff Ave at Central Expy Rengstorff Ave at California St Miramonte Ave at Cuesta Dr X F F F F F F F X X 78.0 E 77.6 E 76.8 E 77.2 E 79.0 E 79.7 E 86.9 F X 89.9 F 89.2 F 88.9 F 90.6 F 88.5 F 87.2 F F X X 93.8 F 93.2 F 93.9 F 91.6 F 88.5 F F F X 58.6 E 58.2 E 58.2 E 58.2 E 56.4 E 91.8 F 69.7 E X 53.7 D 54.9 D 53.2 D 53.1 D 45.5 D 84.6 F 75.7 E 70 Grant Rd at Cuesta Dr X 47.1 D 47.4 D 47.1 D 47.1 D 45.2 D 57.7 E 53.9 D 71 Grant Rd at Phyllis Ave X 54.7 D 54.4 D 54.2 D 54.6 D 53.2 D 56.7 E 55.2 E ramps and S Whisman Rd/ Ferry Morse Way Cuesta Dr at Springer Rd 1 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle X 75.2 E 76.2 E 74.0 E 74.0 E 79.2 E F 87.3 F Note: Blue highlighting indicates no significant project impact and yellow (or single underline) indicates significant project impact Source: CHS Consulting Group, F F F F F F F 70 August 6, 2014

76 Table 34 (cont.):2040 AM Diversion Route Intersection LOS Summary City Sunnyvale Santa Clara ID Study Intersection Evelyn Ave at Bernardo Ave Evelyn Ave at Mary Ave Evelyn Ave at Sunnyvale Ave Evelyn Ave at Wolfe Rd Fremont Ave at Manet Dr Fremont Ave at Wolfe Rd Pastoria Ave at Evelyn Ave Bowers Ave at Monroe St Scott Blvd at Monroe St Kiely Blvd at Benton St Scott Blvd at Cabrillo Ave 1 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle Signalized? CMP? Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS X 74.3 E 74.4 E 73.8 E 73.8 E 83.5 F 83.3 F 81.9 F X 67.4 E 67.7 E 68.2 E 68.1 E 73.9 E 76.8 E 75.9 E X 98.7 F 97.6 F F F F F F X 61.1 E 61.1 E 61.3 E 61.2 E 65.5 E 65.1 E 64.9 E X 50.9 D 50.4 D 42.5 D 42.5 D 63.2 E 60.6 E 59.5 E X 48.3 D 47.7 D 34.4 C 34.5 C 79.1 E 76.5 E 75.3 E F F F F F F F X 43.1 D 42.7 D 53.8 D 54.3 D 59.5 E 61.1 E 60.6 E X 88.3 F 88.6 F 98.9 F 98.8 F F F F X 53.7 D 52.7 D 70.4 E 70.7 E 67.8 E 68.4 E 67.0 E 47.0 E 47.4 E 66.5 F 67.3 F 66.1 F 64.0 F 64.6 F Note: Blue highlighting indicates no significant project impact and yellow (or single underline) indicates significant project impact Source: CHS Consulting Group, August 6, 2014

77 Table 35: 2040 PM Diversion Route Intersection LOS Summary City ID Study Intersection Palo Alto Mountain View Alma St at Addison Ave Alma St at Kingsley Ave Alma St at Churchill Ave Alma St at Loma Verde Ave Alma St at Charleston Rd Alma St at the Circle East Rengstorff Ave at Central Expy Rengstorff Ave at California St Shoreline Blvd at California St Miramonte Ave at Cuesta Dr Castro St at Central Expy Signalized? CMP? Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS F F F F F F F F F F F n/a F n/a F n/a F X 82.4 F 84.5 F 83.8 F 83.5 F 83.0 F 84.4 F F F F F F F F F X F F F F F F F 40.3 E 40.2 E 39.4 E 41.3 E 39.9 E 33.4 D F X X F F F F F F F X 63.0 E 63.3 E 63.1 E 63.4 E 62.7 E 72.5 E 66.5 E X F F F F F F F X 39.4 D 41.8 D 37.6 D 39.1 D 33.4 C 56.2 E 54.9 D X X F F F F F F F 61 Castro St at Villa St X F F F F F F F 70 Grant Rd at Cuesta Dr X 49.1 D 49.3 D 49.0 D 49.0 D 48.4 D 61.8 E 58.6 E ramps and S Whisman Rd/ Ferry Morse Way Cuesta Dr at Springer Rd 1 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle X 55.5 E 55.2 E 54.7 D 55.3 E 55.8 E 62.8 E 62.0 E Note: Blue highlighting indicates no significant project impact and yellow (or single underline) indicates significant project impact Source: CHS Consulting Group, F F F F F F F 72 August 6, 2014

78 Table 35 (cont.): 2040 PM Diversion Route Intersection LOS Summary City ID Los Altos 84 Sunnyvale Santa Clara Study Intersection San Antonio at Cuesta Evelyn Ave at Mary Ave Evelyn Ave at Sunnyvale Ave Evelyn Ave at Fair Oaks Ave Fremont Ave at Wolfe Rd Dartshire Way at Wolfe Rd Lawrence Expy at Cabrillo Ave Lawrence Expy at Benton St San Tomas Expy at Benton St Flora Vista Ave at Benton St 1 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle Signalized? CMP? Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS X 47.8 D 47.7 D 46.7 D 47.0 D 45.5 D 50.1 D 56.2 E X 56.3 E 56.4 E 55.9 E 56.2 E 61.8 E 61.0 E 60.5 E X 89.7 F 89.6 F 93.1 F 93.1 F F F F X 57.3 E 57.4 E 67.6 E 67.6 E 80.7 F 81.3 F 79.4 E X 46.3 D 46.2 D 46.8 D 47.1 D 91.1 F 77.8 E 78.5 E F F n/a F n/a F F F F X F F F F F F F X 84.0 F 83.9 F 96.8 F 96.8 F 95.5 F 96.5 F 94.1 F X F F F F F F F 41.6 E 41.8 E 56.5 F 57.0 F 52.4 F 51.7 F 51.2 F Note: Blue highlighting indicates no significant project impact and yellow (or single underline) indicates significant project impact Source: CHS Consulting Group, August 6, 2014

79 7.8 Optional BRT Stations During the environmental scoping process, it was requested that consideration be given to adding BRT stations along El Camino Real at Escuela Avenue and at either Embarcadero Road or Churchill Avenue. While these stations could potentially be added to any of the project alternatives, the evaluation of the optional stations focused on Project alternatives 2 and 4C that represent the boundary conditions for BRT implementation. As noted in the transit ridership section above, both BRT and total transit ridership increase with the length of the dedicated bus lanes and thus Alternatives 2 and 4C represent the lowest and highest effectiveness of the BRT Project. In both scenarios, the improved accessibility to BRT provided by the two stations led to a slight increase in BRT ridership. As shown in Figure 40, the addition of the two optional stations increased the BRT ridership by less than 11% and the total transit ridership by less than 2%. The lower increase in total ridership compared to the BRT ridership is due to a number of riders shifting from Line 22 to the BRT line which causes the ridership of the former to reduce slightly. Figure 40: Daily Transit Ridership - Alternatives 2 and 4C with Optional Stations in August 6, 2014

80 The increase in BRT ridership is due to new transit riders that are attracted by the two new stations as well as some riders that switch from the local bus to the BRT. Table 36 shows the number of riders shifting from Line 22 to BRT (assumed to equal the reduction in Line 22 ridership from the No Build) and the number of new transit riders. Table 36: Daily Ridership Comparison between Local Bus and BRT in 2040 EB WB Total Alt 2 + Alt 4C + Alt 2 Alt4C Optional Stations Optional Stations Line 522/BRT Ridership 5,487 5,789 7,048 7,346 Line 22 Ridership 5,935 5,767 5,647 5,435 Transit Ridership (522/BRT + 22) 11,422 11,556 12,695 12,781 Assumed Riders Shifting from 22 to BRT New Transit Riders ,402 1,488 Line 522/BRT Ridership 6,249 6,950 14,023 15,000 Line 22 Ridership 4,557 4,093 3,619 3,137 Transit Ridership (522/BRT + 22) 10,806 11,042 17,641 18,136 Assumed Riders Shifting from 22 to BRT ,352 1,834 New Transit Riders ,256 7,751 Line 522/BRT Ridership 11,736 12,739 21,071 22,345 Line 22 Ridership 10,492 9,860 9,266 8,572 Transit Ridership (522/BRT + 22) 22,228 22,598 30,336 30,917 Assumed Riders Shifting from 22 to BRT ,243 1,837 2,531 New Transit Riders ,658 9,239 1 The number of riders shifting from the 22 to the BRT is assumed to be the reduction in Line 22 ridership from the No Build 2 The number of new transit riders is computed by subtracting the number of shifting riders between Line 22 and BRT from the increase in total transit ridership between the Build and the No Build The traffic impacts for the optional station scenarios were not analyzed. As the addition of these stations was found to produce a modest increase in transit ridership and corresponding decrease in auto travel demand, it is expected that traffic conditions under the optional station scenario would slightly improve compared to those for the corresponding alternative without the optional stations.. 75 August 6, 2014

81 8 EXISTING (2013) PLUS PROJECT ANALYSIS To address possible issues arising from the recent Mary Avenue Extension court case that required analysis of existing plus project conditions, analysis was also conducted for the existing year. The analysis, however, was limited to examination of the boundary alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 4C to provide a best case and worst case perspective of the effects of the BRT if it was currently operating. These results may be used interpolate the potential impacts of the remaining build alternatives. This chapter provides a summary of the transit and traffic analysis results for these two Existing Plus Project alternatives. Consistent with the measures of effectiveness described in Section 2.1, this chapter discusses the following aspects of the Project: Transit ridership daily ridership for both the Local 22 and the Rapid 522/BRT lines; Traffic volumes daily, AM and PM peak hour volumes; Screenline diversion - AM and PM peak hour volumes diverting from El Camino Real; Travel times auto and transit AM and PM peak hour travel times; Mobility measures Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT), Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD), and average speed; Intersection Level Of Service (LOS) intersection LOS and average delay along the El Camino Real corridor; Diversion Route Intersection Level Of Service (LOS) intersection LOS and average delay off the corridor. The last section of this chapter summarizes the analysis of a secondary set of scenarios involving two optional additional stations. 8.1 Transit Ridership Transit ridership is expected to increase along the corridor because the BRT is an improvement in quality of transit service. Transit ridership forecasts are calculated by adding collected count data and the change in ridership predicted by the travel demand models. Counts were collected by the VTA Passenger Counting System in November Figure 41 presents the daily boardings on the proposed BRT and the local bus (Line 22) within the study corridor. Between Alternative 4C and the No Build (Alternative 1), there is an increase of total transit ridership of 28%. For detailed ridership information for the BRT, broken down by direction and station, see Appendix C. Figure 41: Daily Transit Ridership along El Camino Real in August 6, 2014

82 The increase in ridership is due to both new transit riders and some riders that switch from the local bus to the BRT. Table 37 shows the number of riders shifting from Line 22 to BRT (assumed to equal the reduction in Line 22 ridership from the No Build) and the number of new transit riders. Table 37: Comparison between Local Bus and BRT in 2013 EB WB Total Existing Alt 2 Alt 4C Line 522/BRT Ridership 2,243 4,737 5,699 Line 22 Ridership 5,539 3,667 3,604 Transit Ridership (522/BRT + 22) 7,782 8,404 9,303 Assumed Riders Shifting from 22 to BRT 1 1,872 1,935 New Transit Riders ,521 Line 522/BRT Ridership 1,044 3,770 5,832 Line 22 Ridership 3,695 1, Transit Ridership (522/BRT + 22) 4,739 4,914 6,680 Assumed Riders Shifting from 22 to BRT 1 2,551 2,848 New Transit Riders ,941 Line 522/BRT Ridership 3,287 8,507 11,531 Line 22 Ridership 9,234 4,811 4,452 Transit Ridership (522/BRT + 22) 12,521 13,318 15,983 Assumed Riders Shifting from 22 to BRT 1 4,423 4,783 New Transit Riders ,462 1 The number of riders shifting from Line 22 to the BRT is assumed to be the reduction in Line 22 ridership from the No Build 2 The number of new transit riders is assumed to be the increase in total transit ridership from the No Build 8.2 Traffic Volumes Adding the BRT along the El Camino Real corridor increases the transit ridership, but also affects the auto traffic along El Camino Real. In particular, adding dedicated lanes causes some traffic to divert off El Camino Real. This section shows the change in auto traffic on selected segments along El Camino Real. See Section 8.3 for more information about traffic volumes off El Camino. Table 38 shows the average daily traffic (ADT). See Appendix D for detailed information about ADT. Table 39 and Table 40 show AM and PM peak hour volumes, respectively. In all cases, the volumes shown are the total for both directions. Table 38: 2013 Average Daily Bi-Directional Traffic (ADT) Volumes along El Camino Real City Location Existing (Observed) Alt 2 Alt 4C San Jose East of Hedding St 29,572 29,681 29,656 Santa Clara East of Jefferson St 23,680 23,759 23,626 West of Bowers Ave 37,636 37,697 36,691 Sunnyvale West of Maria Ln 36,462 36,570 35,278 East of Bernardo Ave 38,962 37,984 33,937 Mountain View East of Bush St 52,551 52,499 46,989 West of Jordan Ave 41,392 41,450 38,546 Palo Alto East of Matadero Ave 42,613 42,738 39,238 and VTA countywide travel demand model, August 6, 2014

83 Table 39: 2013 AM Peak Hour Bi-Directional Volumes along El Camino Real City Location Existing (Observed) Alt 2 Alt 4C San Jose East of Hedding St 2,235 2,234 2,218 Santa Clara Sunnyvale Mountain View East of Jefferson St 1,505 1,499 1,438 West of Bowers Ave 2,129 2,124 1,284 West of Maria Ln 2,038 2,026 1,407 East of Bernardo Ave 2,410 2,376 1,827 East of Bush St 3,939 3,938 2,789 West of Jordan Ave 2,688 2,682 1,991 Palo Alto East of Matadero Ave 3,075 3,077 2,156 Table 40: 2013 PM Peak Hour Bi-Directional Volumes along El Camino Real City Location Existing (Observed) Alt 2 Alt 4C San Jose East of Hedding St 2,528 2,528 2,519 Santa Clara Sunnyvale Mountain View East of Jefferson St 1,953 1,948 1,861 West of Bowers Ave 2,965 2,962 2,418 West of Maria Ln 2,863 2,853 2,243 East of Bernardo Ave 2,830 2,796 2,112 East of Bush St 3,993 3,980 2,735 West of Jordan Ave 3,361 3,357 2,478 Palo Alto East of Matadero Ave 3,499 3,501 2, Screenline Diversion As the previous section mentioned, taking a lane away from automobiles to create the dedicated lane for the BRT causes some traffic diversion off El Camino Real onto surrounding roads. Additionally, the BRT implementation creates a mode shift from auto to transit that contributes to volume reduction along El Camino Real. To analyze the diversion behavior, a subarea from US-101 to I-280 was cut in several locations by screenlines (an imaginary northsouth line) to determine how many vehicles pass through that location in the subarea. Figure 42 through Figure 45 show the following screenlines locations: west of San Tomas Expressway in Santa Clara, west of Mathilda Avenue/Sunnyvale Saratoga Road in Sunnyvale, west of Shoreline Boulevard/Miramonte Avenue in Mountain View, and west of Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road in Palo Alto. The blue line is the location of the screenline; green text represents westbound and eastbound volume differences on El Camino Real, and red text represents the westbound and eastbound volume differences off of El Camino Real. For representative purposes, the maps show the change in traffic volumes in only the PM peak period of Alternative 4C from the No Build (Alternative 1). See Appendix E for detailed information about capacities and diversion volumes for all alternatives during the AM and PM peak periods. Detailed information about the Level of Service at diversion intersections can be found in Section August 6, 2014

84 As Figure 42 shows, the major diversion route in Santa Clara for the PM peak period is Homestead Road. This route is also a major diversion route in the AM peak period with more vehicles diverting westbound and fewer eastbound. Pruneridge Road is also a major diversion route during the AM peak period. Figure 42: 2013 PM Diversion in Santa Clara 79 August 6, 2014

85 As Figure 43 shows, the major diversion routes in Sunnyvale for the PM peak period are US-101, Central Expressway, and Fremont Avenue. There is a similar but opposite pattern during the AM peak period on Fremont Avenue. There is higher diversion on I-280 westbound. Figure 43: 2013 PM Diversion in Sunnyvale 80 August 6, 2014

86 As Figure 44 shows, the major diversion routes in Mountain View for the PM peak period are Middlefield Road, Central Expressway, I-280, and Foothill Expressway. There is a similar but opposite pattern during the AM peak period on Central Expressway, Foothill Expressway, and I-280, but with little diversion on Middlefield Road. In the AM peak period there is also diversion on westbound US-101. Figure 44: 2013 PM Diversion in Mountain View 81 August 6, 2014

87 As Figure 45 shows, the major diversion routes in Palo Alto for the PM peak period are Middlefield Road and Alma Street. There is a similar but opposite pattern during the AM peak period on Alma Street, but with little diversion on Middlefield Road. Figure 45: 2013 PM Diversion in Palo Alto 82 August 6, 2014

88 8.4 Travel Times This section presents the auto and transit travel time results on El Camino Real for all alternatives. The auto travel times for each segment were derived from the countywide travel demand model. The transit travel time within mixed-flow segments was defined as a function or factor of auto travel time for the same segment. This factor reflects the longer travel times expected due to stops and the different operating characteristics (i.e. acceleration) between buses and autos. The BRT travel times for segments with exclusive lanes were computed based on an assumed operating speed within the exclusive lanes. Figure 46 through Figure 49 show the travel time for the BRT, autos, and the local bus along the study corridor for AM and PM, westbound and eastbound. Detailed information about travel time, broken down into segments, can be found in Appendix F. The BRT travel time drops significantly as the length of the dedicated lanes increases. When the BRT is in mixed flow for the entire corridor, its travel time is close to the local bus; but, when the BRT can use dedicated lanes for the entire corridor, its travel time is close to the auto. The BRT travel time decreases up to 44% which occurs in the eastbound direction during the PM peak hour, between Alternative 4C and the No Build (Alternative 1). The auto travel time does not vary much amongst alternatives because vehicles divert off El Camino Real and the volume to capacity ratio stays approximately the same along El Camino Real. The local bus has a travel time that is significantly more than the auto traffic. These patterns for each mode of travel are the same for all graphs that are shown below (AM and PM, westbound and eastbound). Figure 46: 2013 AM Westbound Travel Times, Cahill St to University Ave 100 BRT Local Bus Auto Total Travel Time (mins) Existing Alt 2 Alt 4C 83 August 6, 2014

89 Figure 47: 2013 AM Eastbound Travel Times, University Ave to Cahill St 90 BRT Local Bus Auto Total Travel Time (mins) Existing Alt 2 Alt 4C Figure 48: 2013 PM Westbound Travel Times, Cahill St to University Ave 100 BRT Local Bus Auto Total Travel Time (mins) Existing Alt 2 Alt 4C 84 August 6, 2014

90 Figure 49: 2013 PM Eastbound Travel Times, University Ave to Cahill St 120 BRT Local Bus Auto Total Travel Time (mins) Existing Alt 2 Alt 4C 8.5 Corridor Mobility Measures The BRT Project causes an increase in ridership and vehicles to divert off El Camino Real to surrounding roads. However, corridor-wide, there is not much change in broad mobility measures. The vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle hours traveled (VHT), and average speed were evaluated as indicators of mobility within the study area. For that purpose, a subarea including the study corridor was selected within the countywide travel demand model. The subarea is loosely defined as all roadways from US 101 to I-280, and from Palo Alto to downtown San Jose. The subarea mobility measures for the AM and PM peak period of 2013 are presented in Table 41. VMT in the subarea is slightly lower after the implementation of BRT due to the shifts from auto to transit. Introducing the BRT causes the VHT to increase a little because the reduced number of lanes leads to some diversion from El Camino Real and increased congestion, although there are fewer vehicles on El Camino Real. While these patterns and behaviors are important to note, even more important to notice is the percent change of the mobility measures from the No Build, as shown in Table 42. For these three mobility measures, the percentage change between the alternative and the No Build is very small on a subarea basis and within the level of accuracy of the model. In the alternatives where there are physical enhancements, pedestrians and bicycles are also affected. For more information about impacts on pedestrians and bicycles, see Sections 9.2 and August 6, 2014

91 Table 41: 2013 AM and PM Peak Hour Mobility Measures Vehicle Miles Traveled AM Peak Period Vehicle Hours Traveled Average Auto Speed (mph) Vehicle Miles Traveled PM Peak Period Vehicle Hours Traveled Average Auto Speed (mph) 2013 Alt 1 1,196,720 37, ,277,804 41, Alt 2 1,195,722 37, ,276,703 41, Alt 4C 1,194,089 37, ,274,966 41, Source: VTA countywide travel demand model, 2014 Table 42: 2013 Percent Increase of Mobility Measures from No Build (Alt 1) Vehicle Miles Traveled AM Peak Period Vehicle Hours Traveled Average Auto Speed (mph) Vehicle Miles Traveled PM Peak Period Vehicle Hours Traveled Average Auto Speed (mph) 2013 Alt 2-0.1% -0.1% 0.1% -0.1% -0.1% 0.1% 2013 Alt 4C -0.2% 0.4% -0.7% -0.2% 0.6% -0.8% Daily VMT was also determined for environmental analysis. In general, the total VMT decreases as the length of the dedicated BRT lanes increases because people switch modes from auto to the BRT. For information about daily VMT, see Appendix G. 8.6 El Camino Real Intersection Level of Service The previous sections have discussed the mode shift and diverting traffic caused by the BRT. The implementation of the BRT also causes some operational changes along El Camino Real, especially within the dedicated lane segments. These changes, coupled with the removal of a general lane of travel, result in altered intersection performance. Analysis of intersection level of service (LOS) was performed using the Synchro analysis software and by applying the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual LOS methodology. A total of 75 intersections were analyzed along El Camino Real for the 2013 Alternative 2 condition and 82 intersections were analyzed for the 2013 Alternative 4C condition. The number of intersections that were analyzed varies across alternatives because new signals were introduced in the dedicated lane segments to protect some left turns. At the same time some existing signalized intersections are converted to right-in/right-out only and the signal would be removed AM Peak In the AM peak hour, there are no intersections that fall below the standard of LOS E (CMP intersections) or LOS D (non-cmp intersections) for the build alternatives. However, two intersections, Hansen Way and Mathilda Avenue, experience a crucial improvement in LOS from below the LOS standard in the existing conditions to above the LOS standard in Alternative 4C. Mathilda Ave has an improved LOS in Alternative 2 as well. Signal timing revisions and changes in travel patterns, particularly decreased volumes, account for this decrease in delay. See Appendix H for a complete table of LOS results for all intersections and alternatives PM Peak In the PM peak hour, there are no intersections that fall below the standard of LOS E (CMP intersections) or LOS D (non-cmp intersections) for the build alternatives. However, two intersections, Calderon Avenue/Phyllis Avenue and San Tomas Expressway, experience a crucial improvement in LOS from below the LOS standard in the existing conditions to above the LOS standard in Alternative 4C. Signal timing revisions and changes in travel patterns, particularly decreased volumes, account for this decrease in delay. See Appendix H for a complete table of LOS results for all intersections and alternatives. 86 August 6, 2014

92 8.7 Diversion Route Intersection Level of Service As traffic diverts away from El Camino Real because of the addition of the dedicated BRT lanes, some intersections in the surrounding area may be affected because of the changes in traffic. To understand the effects on the surrounding roads, an operational analysis of 165 signalized and unsignalized intersections off El Camino Real was completed. The analysis was completed in Synchro using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual LOS methodology AM Peak Table 43 shows the delay and LOS for intersections that are significantly impacted in at least one alternative in the AM peak period. As shown, 5 intersections are significantly impacted by the Project. The full list of intersections showing the delay and LOS results is included in Appendix I. Table 43: 2013 AM Diversion Route Intersection LOS Summary City Palo Alto Mountain View Santa Clara ID Study Intersection Alma St at Loma Verde Ave Alma St at Meadow Dr Alma St at Charleston Rd Cuesta Dr at Springer Rd Lawrence Expy at Cabrillo Ave Signalized? CMP? Existing Alt 2 Alt 4C Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS F F F X 44.5 D 44.4 D 61.7 E X 67.4 E 67.2 E 84.5 F F F F X F F F 1 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle Note: Blue highlighting indicates no significant project impact and yellow (or single underline) indicates significant project impact Source: CHS Consulting Group, August 6, 2014

93 8.7.2 PM Peak Table 44 shows the delay and LOS for intersections that are significantly impacted in at least one alternative in the PM peak period. As shown, 9 intersections are significantly impacted by the Project. In two cases (#6 Alma at Kingsley and #11 Alma at Loma Verde) average delay increases significantly. At Kingsley, this may be attributed to a significant increase in northbound left turn traffic. This is traffic that was diverted onto Alma and is turning back toward El Camino Real. At Loma Verde, the delay increase is due to increased volumes on Alma that, in turn, result in fewer gaps for vehicles entering from Loma Verde. The full list of intersections showing the delay and LOS results is included in Appendix I. Table 44: 2013 Diversion Route Intersection LOS Summary City ID Study Intersection Signalized? CMP? Existing Alt 2 Alt 4C Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Palo Alto Mountain View Sunnyvale 4 Alma St at Addison Ave 40.9 E 40.7 E 46.2 E 6 Alma St at Kingsley Ave 36.0 E 36.6 E F 8 Alma St at Churchill Ave X 56.2 E 56.2 E 62.5 E 11 Alma St at Loma Verde Ave F F F 12 Alma St at Meadow Dr X 44.8 D 44.9 D 70.2 E 13 Alma St at Charleston Rd X F F F 77 Cuesta Dr at Springer Rd 68.2 F 67.8 F 77.7 F 113 Fremont Ave at Sunnyvale Saratoga Rd X X 73.5 E 73.7 E 97.9 F 165 Central Expy at Mary Ave X X 91.2 F 89.2 F F 1 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle Note: Blue highlighting indicates no significant project impact and yellow (or single underline) indicates significant project impact Source: CHS Consulting Group, August 6, 2014

94 8.8 Optional BRT Stations During the environmental scoping process, it was requested that consideration be given to adding BRT stations along El Camino Real at Escuela Avenue and at either Embarcadero Road or Churchill Avenue. While these stations could potentially be added to any of the project alternatives, the evaluation of the optional stations focused on Project alternatives 2 and 4C that represent the boundary conditions for BRT implementation. As noted in the transit ridership section above, both BRT and total transit ridership increase with the length of the dedicated bus lanes and thus Alternatives 2 and 4C represent the lowest and highest effectiveness of the BRT Project. In both scenarios, the improved accessibility to BRT provided by the two stations led to a slight increase in BRT ridership. As shown in Figure 50, the addition of the two optional stations increased the BRT ridership by less than 8% and the total transit ridership by less than 3%. The lower increase in total ridership compared to the BRT ridership is due to a number of riders shifting from Line 22 to the BRT line which causes the ridership of the former to reduce slightly. Figure 50: Daily Transit Ridership - Alternatives 2 and 4C with Optional Stations in 2013 The increase in BRT ridership is due to new transit riders that are attracted by the two new stations as well as some riders that switch from the local bus to the BRT. Table 45 shows the number of riders shifting from Line 22 to BRT (assumed to equal the reduction in Line 22 ridership from the No Build) and the number of new transit riders. 89 August 6, 2014

95 Table 45: Daily Ridership Comparison between Local Bus and BRT in 2013 EB WB Total Alt 2 + Alt 4C + Alt 2 Alt4C Optional Stations Optional Stations Line 522/BRT Ridership 4,737 5,056 5,699 5,936 Line 22 Ridership 3,667 3,541 3,604 3,451 Transit Ridership (522/BRT + 22) 8,404 8,597 9,303 9,387 Assumed Riders Shifting from 22 to BRT 1 1,872 1,998 1,935 2,088 New Transit Riders ,521 1,605 Line 522/BRT Ridership 3,770 4,127 5,832 6,248 Line 22 Ridership 1, Transit Ridership (522/BRT + 22) 4,914 5,065 6,680 6,864 Assumed Riders Shifting from 22 to BRT 1 2,551 2,757 2,848 3,079 New Transit Riders ,941 2,125 Line 522/BRT Ridership 8,507 9,183 11,531 12,183 Line 22 Ridership 4,811 4,479 4,452 4,068 Transit Ridership (522/BRT + 22) 13,318 13,662 15,983 16,251 Assumed Riders Shifting from 22 to BRT 1 4,423 4,755 4,783 5,167 New Transit Riders ,141 3,462 3,730 1 The number of riders shifting from the 22 to the BRT is assumed to be the reduction in Line 22 ridership from the No Build 2 The number of new transit riders is computed by subtracting the number of shifting riders between Line 22 and BRT from the increase in total transit ridership between the Build and the No Build The traffic impacts for the optional station scenarios were not analyzed. As the addition of these stations was found to produce a modest increase in transit ridership and corresponding decrease in auto travel demand, it is expected that traffic conditions under the optional station scenario would slightly improve compared to those for the corresponding alternative without the optional stations.. 90 August 6, 2014

96 9 OTHER IMPACTS The increase in transit ridership along El Camino Real and the diversion of auto traffic off El Camino Real are significant behaviors that result after the addition of BRT and have been discussed in detail up to this point in the report. Equally important to understanding the project impacts to the area are the effects BRT has on other modes and travel behaviors. This section discusses the impacts on parking, the pedestrian environment, and the bicycle environment. 9.1 Parking Assessment Some of the physical improvements constructed as part of the build alternatives, including bulbout stations or dedicated bus lanes, will result in removal of parking spaces along El Camino Real. Table 46 shows the number of parking spaces that would be displaced in each city, for each alternative. Where bulbout stations are constructed, typically a small number of spaces would be removed. Because some of these locations are the site of existing bus stops where parking is already prohibited, not every curbside station platform results in lost parking spaces. For segments where dedicated bus lanes are constructed, along with bicycle lanes, all on-street parking along El Camino Real would be displaced, except in Santa Clara and certain segments in Palo Alto. In Santa Clara, narrowing the median would allow for retaining parking and providing bike lanes, so parking displacements occur primarily at intersection curb bulbs. In Palo Alto, three segments (Stanford Avenue Serra Street, Serra Street Churchill Avenue, and Churchill Avenue Embarcadero Road) were identified to have high occupancy rates (greater than 90 percent) for on-street parking on the Project corridor and are limited with off-corridor parking. In this area, the Stanford Perimeter Trail would provide an off-street bikeway. The Project would not construct a bike lane and would not displace parking for these three segments in Palo Alto. As shown in Table 46 below, the maximum displacement of 1,329 spaces represents less than five percent (5%) of the total parking inventory along the corridor. Accounting for the current peak total occupancy, that is less than 50%, the maximum displacement would still result to sufficient parking spaces available at each city along the corridor. The maximum parking displacement expected under Alternative 4c would represent one to 8 percent of the total parking inventory in cities along the corridor, which would still leave about 45 to 49 percent of available parking spaces. According to national research, parking usage achieves optimal efficiency when occupancy is between 85 and 95 percent (Urban Land Institute and National Parking Association 2000). At this level, drivers can normally find a space without excessively circling and waiting for a space to become vacant. Because resulting post-project occupancies would expected to be well below the 85 percent level, the secondary effects on traffic operation are not anticipated to be significant. Three segments in Palo Alto were identified to have high occupancy rates (greater than 90 percent) for on-street parking on the Project corridor; without alternative parking on side streets or in off-street lots; however, the Project would not displace parking for these three segments. Therefore, the Project would not cause secondary parking effects for these three segments. It should also be noted that a potential design option is to exclude the bicycle lanes and retain some on-street parking. Based on analysis of secondary parking effect on traffic operation, losses of parking would not result in excessively circling and waiting for a space to become vacant and thus would not substantially change congestion. 91 August 6, 2014

97 Table 46: Parking Displacement by Alternative City Inventory Total Peak Parking Spaces Removed 3 On-Street 1 Total 2 Occupancy Alt 2 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 4A Alt 4B Alt 4C 4 Palo Alto 496 4,583 47% Los Altos 137 2,782 50% Mountain View 336 4,221 43% Sunnyvale 337 6,911 50% Santa Clara 450 6,179 49% San Jose 222 3,390 50% TOTAL 1,978 28,066 49% ,016 1,329 1 Reflects on-street parking spaces on El Camino Real only. Does not include on-street parking on cross-streets nor off-street public parking spaces. 2 Includes on-street parking on cross streets within 500-feet on either side of The Alameda/El Camino Real, plus off-street public parking facilities that are facing The Alameda/El Camino Real. 3 Assumes new bicycle lanes in dedicated bus lane segments. 4 Parking spaces between Stanford Avenue and Embarcadero Road would be retained as the bicycle access is provided by the Stanford Perimeter Trail and not by the BRT project. and Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., Pedestrian Assessment Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, crosswalks at intersections and midblock crossings. Within the Project corridor, sidewalks are provided on both sides of El Camino Real/The Alameda with crosswalks at signalized intersections and most of the unsignalized intersections. Overall, there is adequate pedestrian accessibility to the Rapid 522 and Local 22 bus stops, which are in good condition and free from obstructions. Reconfiguration of the streetscape for the Project is expected to provide various enhancements to the pedestrian environment including shorter crossing distances, improved amenities, and additional signalized crossings. In the mixed flow segments, when a BRT station is at an intersection, the proposed station bulbouts decrease the length of the pedestrian crosswalk across El Camino Real by 8 feet on each side. Also, the new bulbout stations provide more sidewalk space in general for pedestrians at these locations. Both of these effects improve the experience of pedestrians. Figure 51 shows a sample cross-section of a mixed flow segment. In the dedicated lane segments, when a BRT station is at an intersection, there may be space for a pedestrian refuge in the median so pedestrians do not have to walk across the entire crosswalk. The tighter curb radii at many intersections would also shorten crossing distances both on El Camino Real and the cross street. Additionally, as described in Chapter 4, Alternatives 4a, 4b and 4c include a number of new signalized intersections and pedestrian crossings in the dedicated lane segments. These new signals will provide for additional or safer pedestrian crossings. Figure 52 shows a sample cross-section of a dedicated lane segment. In both the mixed flow and dedicated lane segments, the new BRT stations would include pedestrian amenities that include larger and more elaborate shelters with real-time passenger information displays and larger waiting and seating areas. 92 August 6, 2014

98 Figure 51: Sample Cross Section of Mixed Flow Segments Source: Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., 2014 Figure 52: Sample Cross Section of Dedicated Lane Segments Source: Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., Bicycle Assessment The Project corridor does not have bicycle lanes and is not a classified bikeway, except on El Camino Real from Sunnyvale Avenue to Fair Oaks Avenue where Sunnyvale proposes to stripe bike lanes. Although cyclists are allowed to ride on the corridor, the bicycle traffic is low in the corridor. Reconfiguration of the streetscape for the Project is expected to positively affect the bicycle environment. For Alternatives 3a through 4c, the segments of El Camino Real with dedicated bus lanes would also include marked bike lanes in each direction. Table 47 shows how many miles of bike lanes are added in one direction for each of the build alternatives. Bike lanes will improve the safety and the experience for cyclists using El Camino Real, which currently does not have bike lanes. Furthermore, the new BRT buses would accommodate bicycles in the interior as well as on the exterior, which would increase the on-board bicycle space for cyclists. For mixed flow or unimproved segments (e.g. the western segment under Alternative 3b), there would be no improvement to bicycle facilities. 93 August 6, 2014