Agenda - Monday, September 25, 2017

STATE ROUTE 85 CORRIDOR POLICY ADVISORY BOARD Monday, September 25, 2017 10:00 AM Cupertino Community Hall 10350 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014

AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 1.

ROLL CALL

2.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS: This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons desiring to address the Committee on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to 2 minutes. The law does not permit Committee action or extended discussion on any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Committee action is requested, the matter can be placed on a subsequent agenda. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing.

3.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

4.

Receive Committee Staff Report (Verbal Report) (Augenstein) 

2016 Measure B Update



PAB Staffing Changes



Introduce Consultants

CONSENT AGENDA 5.

ACTION ITEM - Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of May 22, 2017.

REGULAR AGENDA 6.

INFORMATION ITEM - Review State Route (SR) 85 Transit Guideway Study Work Plan.

7.

INFORMATION ITEM - Review and discuss the Community Engagement Plan for the SR 85 Transit Guideway Study.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board

8.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

9.

ADJOURN

Monday, September 25, 2017

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, VTA will make reasonable arrangements to ensure meaningful access to its meetings for persons who have disabilities and for persons with limited English proficiency who need translation and interpretation services. Individuals requiring ADA accommodations should notify the Board Secretary’s Office at least 48-hours prior to the meeting. Individuals requiring language assistance should notify the Board Secretary’s Office at least 72-hours prior to the meeting. The Board Secretary may be contacted at (408) 321-5680 or e-mail: [email protected] or  (408) 321-2330 (TTY only). VTA’s home page is on the web at: www.vta.org or visit us on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/scvta. (408) 321-2300: 中文 / Español / 日本語 / 한국어 / tiếng Việt / Tagalog. All reports for items on the open meeting agenda are available for review in the Board Secretary’s Office, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California, (408) 321-5680, the Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday prior to the meeting. This information is available on VTA’s website at http://www.vta.org and also at the meeting.

Page 2 of 2

5

State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board Monday, May 22, 2017 MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board (SR 85) was called to order at 10:04 a.m. by Chairperson Sinks in Mountain View City Hall, Council Chambers, 500 Castro Street, 2nd Floor, Mountain View, CA 94041. 1. ROLL CALL Attendee Name Mary-Lynne Bernald Jeannie Bruins Barry Chang Burton Craig Sergio Jimenez Larry Klein Lynette Lee Eng John McAlister Russ Melton Howard Miller Rob Rennie Paul Resnikoff Marico Sayoc Leonard Siegel Rod Sinks Rowena Turner Rich Waterman Vacant Vacant Vacant Bijan Sartipi Dan McElhinney

Title Alternate Member Member Alternate Member Alternate Member Member Member Alternate Member Chairperson Alternate Member Vice Chairperson Member Alternate Member Alternate Member Alternate Member Member Member Member Alternate Member Member Alternate Member Ex-Officio Member Alt. Ex-Officio Member

Representing City of Saratoga City of Los Altos City of Cupertino City of Monte Sereno City of San José City of Sunnyvale City of Los Altos City of Mountain View City of Sunnyvale City of Saratoga City of Los Gatos City of Campbell City of Los Gatos City of Mountain View City of Cupertino City of Monte Sereno City of Campbell City of San José County of Santa Clara County of Santa Clara Caltrans Caltrans

Status n/a Present n/a n/a Present Present n/a Present n/a Present Absent Absent Absent n/a Present Present Absent n/a n/a n/a Absent Present

A quorum was present. 2.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS: Roland Lebrun, Interested Citizen, commented on repaving and regrinding of State Route (SR) 85.

5

3.

ORDERS OF THE DAY There were no Orders of the Day.

4.

Committee Staff Report There was no Committee Staff Report.

CONSENT AGENDA 5.

Regular Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2017 M/S/C (Bruins/McAlister) to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2017. RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: ABSENT:

APPROVED – Consent Agenda #5 Jeannie Bruins, Member John McAlister, Vice Chairperson Bruins, Klein, McAlister, Miller, Sinks, Turner Jimenez, Rennie, Waterman

REGULAR AGENDA 6.

Conduct Elections to Determine Committee Leadership for 2017 Chairperson Sinks opened the nominations from the floor for the position of Chairperson. M/S/C (Bruins/Miller) to close nominations and elect John McAlister as Chairperson for 2017. RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: ABSENT:

ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] Jeannie Bruins, Member Howard Miller, Member Bruins, Klein, McAlister, Miller, Sinks, Turner Jimenez, Rennie, Waterman Member Sinks relinquished his seat as Chairperson to newly elected Chairperson McAlister.

Chairperson McAlister opened the nominations from the floor for the position of Vice Chairperson. M/S/C (McAlister/Turner) to close nominations and elect Howard Miller as Vice Chairperson for 2017.

State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board

Page 2 of 5

Monday, May 22, 2017

5

RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: ABSENT:

ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] John McAlister, Chairperson Rowena Turner, Member Bruins, Klein, McAlister, Miller, Sinks, Turner Jimenez, Rennie, Waterman Member Jimenez took his seat at 10:10 a.m.

Chairperson McAlister thanked Member Sinks for his leadership as Chairperson. 7.

2016 Measure B SR85 Corridor Program Area & Highway Interchanges Program Area Guidelines Scott Haywood, Policy and Community Relations Manager, provided a presentation entitled, “2016 Measure B Program Area Guidelines”, highlighting the following: 1) 2016 Measure B Program Areas; 2) Highway Interchanges - Program Description; 3) Highway Interchanges - Proposed Guidelines; 4) Highway Interchanges - Proposed FY18 & FY19 Allocation; 5) SR 85 Corridor - Proposed Modifications & Allocations; and 6) Next Steps. Public Comment Cheriel Jensen, Interested Citizen, commented on noise reduction options. Ruth Callahan, Interested Citizen, commented on notifying neighbors of meetings, discussing noise studies and inviting the public to make comments. Alternate Ex-Officio Member McElhinney arrived at 10:20 a.m. Members of the Committee discussed the following: 1) VTA’s 2011 noise study; 2) technology based improvements on SR 87; 3) noise abatement solutions, such as sound walls and paving; 4) using other funding aside from 2016 Measure B; and 5) options for alleviating traffic without using the median. Member Sinks would like to have the 2016 Measure B SR 85 program, including proposed changes from the City of Cupertino, brought back to the Committee for discussion. On order of Chairperson McAlister and there being no objection, the Committee received information on 2016 Measure B State Route (SR) 85 Corridor and Highway Interchanges Program Areas.

8.

Report on the SR 85 Transit Guideway Study Consultant Scope of Work Bill Hurrell, CDM Smith, provided a presentation entitled, “SR 85 Transit Guideway Study: Consultant Scope of Work”, highlighting the following: 1) Consultant Team; 2) 18 Month Schedule; 3) Travel Market Analysis; 4) Street Light Travel Origin-Destination Data; 5) INRIX Speed & Travel Time Data; 6) Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Data (U.S. Census) - Journey to Work Distribution; 7) Corridor Engineering Investigation; 8) Public & Stakeholder Outreach; 9) Transit Alternatives; and 10) Next Steps.


Page 3 of 5


5

Public Comment Bruce Euzent, Interested Citizen, commented on the following: 1) the amount of traffic; and 2) encouraged the Committee to look at routes through the neighborhoods used to avoid taking SR 85. Ms. Callahan commented on the assumptions listed on page 8 of Attachment 8.b, Scope of Work: SR-85 Transit Guideway Project – Task 2 – Transit Planning and Concept Development, with regards to noticing. Ms. Jensen made the following comments: 1) expressed disappointment about the amount of work going into bus analysis and not creative options; 2) a viable transit solution is needed; and 3) advocated for a system that works and connects people and places. Mr. Lebrun made the following comments: 1) conducting a data driven study; 2) encouraged the Committee to look into utilizing a Smart Freeway design; and 3) ridership data for corporate buses and private shuttles. Steven Levin, Interested Citizen, commented on the following: 1) need to study all alternatives; 2) PAB representation is unbalanced; 3) suggested meetings be held in the middle of corridor or in San José in the evening so members can get a feel for the problem on SR 85; and 4) expressed concern that transit will not work. Members of the Committee discussed the following: 1) the size of the database for who will be notified via mail; 2) study time line; 3) bus on shoulder option; 4) using a combination of meaningful solutions on SR 85 that people will want to use; 5) VTA’s public outreach plan, noting plan needs to be purpose-focused; and 6) outreach materials provided to the public should be in various languages. Member Turner left the meeting at 12:00 p.m. Upon inquiry from Member Sinks, Chris Augenstein, Deputy Director of Planning, noted that staff will bring data from the study back to the Committee. On order of Chairperson McAlister and there being no objection, the Committee received a report on the State Route (SR) 85 Transit Guideway Study consultant scope of work. 9.

ANNOUNCEMENTS Alternate Ex-Officio Member McElhinney announced the following: 1) Caltrans will hold a bus on shoulder workshop on May 25, 2017 at their Oakland office; 2) will provide the following items to the VTA Office of the Board Secretary to send to the PAB Members via e-mail: a) project status spreadsheet and b) the Mile Maker report. Chairperson McAlister requested that staff provide a work plan containing future topics for discussion at the next meeting.


Page 4 of 5


5

10.

ADJOURNMENT On order of Chairperson McAlister and there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Thalia Young, Board Assistant VTA Office of the Board Secretary


Page 5 of 5


6

Date: Current Meeting: Board Meeting:

September 18, 2017 September 25, 2017 N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM TO:


THROUGH:

General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez

FROM:

Director - Planning & Programming, Chris Augenstein

SUBJECT:

SR 85 Transit Guideway Study Work Plan FOR INFORMATION ONLY

BACKGROUND: The 2016 Measure B provides funding for transit, congestion reduction and noise abatement improvements on State Route 85 (SR 85). Measure B requires VTA to undertake an alternatives analysis to evaluate transit options for the corridor. The SR 85 Transit Guideway Study will provide this alternatives analysis, and will include, but not be limited to, bus rapid transit with stations and access ramps, light rail transit, and other emerging transportation technologies. The SR 85 Policy Advisory Board (PAB) will guide the SR 85 Transit Guideway Study and will be instrumental in identifying additional alternatives to be studied and crafting the community engagement process. Upon the completion of the study, the PAB will have the opportunity to make a recommendation to VTA’s Board of Directors endorsing a preferred course of action. Subsequently, the Board of Directors may choose to endorse the PAB’s recommendation and approve the allocation of Measure B funds to a transit improvement on SR 85. DISCUSSION: The SR 85 Transit Guideway Study is expected to take about 12 to 18 months to complete. The variance in duration will depend on the number of alternatives studied and how deeply the PAB wishes to evaluate certain topics. The study is organized in five phases, as shown in Attachment A and below. Phase 1: Existing Conditions and Transit Market Analysis In this phase, staff will gather information on how people are traveling along the SR 85 corridor, what constraints (such as available right-of-way) may exist and assess the strength of the travel market. This information will inform the development of project alternatives.

6

The project team will collect data from several sources including: •

Transit Ridership Data from VTA

•

Caltrans PeMS Data (collected from magnetic loops located underneath freeway pavement)

•

INRIX Speed Data (collected from cellular data)

•

StreetLight Origin-Destination Data (collected from cellular data)

•

Private Employer Shuttle Data (to the extent possible)

•

LeHD Journey to Work Data (from the US Census)

•

VTA Model Data

•

Interviews with Cities and Major Employers

Phase 2: Develop Project Vision and Identify Alternatives In this phase, the PAB will set a vision for the project corridor and objectives for the potential transit improvement such as decreased vehicle miles traveled or increased person-throughput. This phase will include a review of the first round of community engagement that will focus on community vision and values. This phase closes with a collaborative effort between the PAB and VTA to identify which project alternatives should be analyzed. Phase 3: Alternatives Analysis In this phase, VTA staff will evaluate the project alternatives for feasibility, estimate costs, and conduct modeling analysis to project the impacts that each alternative will have on transit ridership, congestion, and mode share. Upon completion of this analysis, the PAB will receive a Draft Alternatives Analysis report. Phase 4: Review Alternatives and Develop Board Recommendation In this phase, the PAB will review the Draft Alternatives Analysis report, and debate which alternatives, if any, that the PAB would like to endorse in a recommendation to VTA’s Board of Directors. Based on PAB direction, staff will agendize an action item, per the PAB’s instruction, for the following PAB meeting. Phase 5: PAB Recommendation to VTA Board This phase will effectively conclude the SR 85 Transit Guideway Study. The PAB will receive the Final Alternatives Analysis and will have the option of recommending a preferred project alternative for consideration by VTA’s Board of Directors. The Board of Directors would consider the PAB’s recommendation at their subsequent meeting. Prepared By: Adam Burger Memo No. 6203

Page 2 of 2

SR 85 Transit Guideway Study Work Plan and Schedule

Attachment A August

Work To Be Conducted By Staff

7

14

21

September 28

4

11

18

October 25

2

9

16

23

December

November 30

6

13

20

27

4



Policy Advisory Board Meetings

18

25

1

8

15

22

February 29

5

12

19

March 26

5

12

19

Outreach Round 1: Vision & Values

May

April 26



Expand Webpage

Community Engagement

11

January

2

9

16

23

30

7

14

21

June 28

4

11



Continual Communication

18

July 25

2

9

16

August 23

30

6

13

20

September 27

3

10



Outreach Round 2: Review Alternatives

17

24 


Phase 1: Existing Conditions and Transit Market Analysis Data Collection

Data Collection (see note below)

Data Analysis

Data Analysis and Transit Market Definition

Constraints Analysis

Corridor Constraints Analysis Phase 2: Develop Project Vision and Identify Alternatives Expand Webpage

Conduct Round 1 Community Outreach

Outreach Round 1: Vision & Values

Phase 3: Alternatives Analysis Continual Communication

Outreach: Continual Communication

Feasibility Analysis

Feasibility Analysis

Cost Estimates

Cost Estimates

Modeling Analysis

Modeling Analysis

Draft Alt. Analysis

Develop Draft Alternatives Analysis Phase 4: Review Alternatives and Develop Board Recommendation

Outreach Round 2: Review Alternatives

Conduct Round 2 Community Outreach Phase 5: PAB Recommendation to VTA Board


Outreach: Continual Communication

Finalize Alternatives Analysis

Develop Final Alternatives Analysis

Data to be analyzed includes:

September 25 PAB Meeting

December 11 PAB Meeting

March 2018 PAB Meeting

June 2018 PAB Meeting

September 2018 PAB Meeting

‐ Transit Ridership Data

Presentation: SR 85 Guideway Study Work Plan

Action: Set 2018 Meeting Schedule

Presentation: Draft Alternatives Analysis

Presentation: Round 2 Community Outreach Input

Receive Final Alternatives Analysis Document

‐ Caltrans PeMS Data (freeway loops)

Presentation: Early Look at StreetLight Data

Presentation: Data Analysis, Market Definition

PAB Direction: Round 2 Outreach Strategy

Discussion: Alternative Recommendation

PAB Action: Board Recommendation

‐ INRIX Speed Data (cellular)

Presentation: Constraints ‐ Light Rail

Presentation: Potential Alternatives

‐ StreetLight Origin‐Destination Data (cellular)

PAB Direction: Community Outreach Plan

‐ Private Employer Shuttle Data (if possible)

Presentation: Round 1 Community Outreach Input PAB Direction: Identify Alternatives to be Studied

‐ LeHD Journey to Work Data (US Census) ‐ VTA Model Data ‐ Interviews With Cities and Major Employers

6.a

Item 6

SR 85 Transit Guideway Study Work Plan September 25, 2017

2016 Measure B Context “To fund new transit and congestion relief projects on SR 85, including a new transit lane from SR 87 in San Jose to US 101 in Mountain View. Additionally this category will fund noise abatement along SR 85 and will provide funding to study transportation alternatives that include but are not limited to Bus Rapid Transit with infrastructure such as stations and access ramps, Light Rail Transit, and future transportation technologies that may be applicable.” 2

Policy Advisory Board Role Provide guidance throughout the study process: • Take a collective, regional approach to study • Identify alternatives to be analyzed Make recommendation to VTA’s Board of Directors Support outreach and awareness

3

Study Work Plan 1) Existing conditions and travel market analysis 2) Develop project vision and identify alternatives 3) Alternatives analysis 4) Review alternatives, develop Board recommendation 5) Make Board recommendation

4

Data: VTA Ridership Data

5

Data: Caltrans PeMS Data

Provides vehicle speeds and volumes by time of day at limited locations.

6

Data: INRIX Speed Data Uses mobile phone location data to collect speeds by location by time of day. 6:30

6:45

7:00

7:15

7:30

7:45

8:00

8:15

8:30

8:45

9:00

Segment 1

50

40

40

30

20

10

20

20

30

40

50

Segment 2

50

40

40

30

20

10

10

20

20

40

50

Segment 3

50

50

40

30

30

10

10

20

20

40

50

Segment 4

50

50

40

30

30

10

10

20

30

40

50

Segment 5

50

50

40

30

30

10

20

20

30

40

50

Segment 6

50

50

40

40

30

10

10

20

30

40

50

7

Data: StreetLight Origin-Destination Data Uses mobile phone location data to determine vehicle volumes between origin‐destination pairs as well as distances traveled on selected corridors.

8

Data: 2014 LeHD Journey to Work Data Uses employer data to analyze commutes

7,707

81,165

31,475

Live in Mtn View Work in Mtn View

9

Other Data Sources Private Employer Shuttle Data (to the extent possible) Interviews with city staff and major employers VTA Travel Model Data

10

Light Rail Constraints Analysis Right of way limits, what exists in and along the corridor Cross‐sections of typical and critical locations More detailed engineering where right if way is inadequate Cost estimates

11

Light Rail Constraints Analysis SR 85 Median Widths Segment

Median Width

US‐101 to Stevens Creek Blvd

20’ to 22’

Stevens Creek Blvd to McClellan Rd

22’ to 24’

McClellan Rd to Stelling Rd

30’

Stelling Rd to De Anza Blvd

30’ to 44’

De Anza Blvd to Saratoga Ave

44’

Saratoga Ave to SR 17

44’

SR 17 to SR 87

46’ or more Standard Light Rail Cross‐section 12

Light Rail Constraints Analysis Middlefield Road Cross-section

13

2) Project Vision, Identify Alternatives Which strategies should VTA pursue in this corridor? How to measure success? Review strengths of each transit mode Consider alternatives in addition to light rail and bus rapid transit

14

3) Alternatives Analysis

Alternatives

Capital Cost

Operating Cost

Projected Ridership

$##

$##/year

###

$##

$##/year

###

$##

$##/year

###

15

4) Review Outreach, Develop Recommendation PAB discussion leads to recommendation

5) Make Recommendation to VTA’s Board of Directors VTA Board considers PAB recommendation at subsequent meeting

16

7

Date: Current Meeting: Board Meeting:

September 18, 2017 September 25, 2017 N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM TO:


THROUGH:

General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez

FROM:

Director - Planning & Programming, Chris Augenstein

SUBJECT:

State Route 85 Transit Guideway Study Community Engagement Plan FOR INFORMATION ONLY

BACKGROUND: VTA envisions that a robust public engagement effort will complement the State Route 85 Transit Guideway Study. Staff is seeking input from the SR 85 Policy Advisory Board (PAB) to help craft the community engagement plan through a constructive discussion. DISCUSSION: Community Engagement Plan Structure The SR 85 Transit Guideway Study features two phases where the PAB will be asked to provide guidance. These are natural points in time to consider community input. As such, staff is proposing to conduct two rounds of community engagement coinciding with these phases: 1. Visioning. During the visioning phase, and prior to the selection of alternatives to be analyzed, this round of community engagement will public input about their vision for the corridor, and the types of solutions and strategies they would like VTA to pursue. 2. After Alternatives Analysis. Following the completion of the alternatives analysis, and prior to the development of the PAB’s recommendation to VTA’s Board of Directors, this round of community engagement will seek public input on the alternatives analyzed. During other project phases, VTA staff will be in continual communication with the public and stakeholders, providing project updates via the VTA website, answering questions, attending meetings as a guest presenter, and attending community events to promote awareness of the study. Community Engagement Plan Elements Considering the size of the study area, the 24-mile length of corridor, and the regional significance of the highway, the number of individuals who may be affected by a change to the

7

roadway numbers in the hundreds of thousands. Informing and collecting input from so many travelers will require outreach strategies that are wide-reaching and cost-effective such as online surveys, webinars, nextdoor.com postings and media releases. These strategies tend to elicit a high volume of input as they allow people to engage with VTA at their own convenience and share content electronically with others. However, these strategies do not lend themselves to the detailed and in-depth feedback that can be gained from personal conversations at community meetings. On the other hand, community meetings require a high level of staff resources, can be sparsely attended, and can give an outsized voice to those who attend. To address these issues, VTA is proposing a suite of outreach strategies for this project (listed below) and welcome direction from the PAB about any additional opportunities for community engagement or ways that PAB members can help extend the reach of this effort through their own initiative or communication channels. Community engagement strategies proposed by staff: Personal interaction strategies 1. Community meetings (one or two meetings - fewer meetings encourages a regional dialogue rather than a my city versus other cities dialogue) 2. City Council presentations (as requested) 3. Guest presentations at other regular meetings (as applicable) 4. Information sharing at community events (like community festivals) Wide-reaching, low-cost strategies 5. News releases and blog posts on vta.org and city websites 6. Social media (Twitter, Facebook, Nextdoor) 7. Webinars and videos 8. Online survey 9. Emails to stakeholders, webpage subscribers Other possible options 10. Elected official newsletters/city newsletters 11. Postcards to property owners along the corridor (VTA can process up to 10,000 in-house at a low cost. Cities may extend the reach with their own resources.) 12. Newspaper ads 13. Radio ads Policy Advisory Board Discussion Items 1. Is the two-phased community engagement plan the appropriate structure? 2. Are the proposed community engagement strategies adequate? Do they strike an appropriate balance between personal interaction and overall inclusion? Should other strategies be added? Should strategies be refined?

Page 2 of 3

7

Prepared By: Adam Burger Memo No. 6202

Page 3 of 3

Item 7

SR 85 Transit Guideway Study Community Outreach Plan September 25, 2017

Proposed Community Outreach Plan Phase 1:

Vision and values What strategies would you like to see VTA pursue? What would a successful project achieve?

Phase 2:

Alternative preference Which of the alternatives do you prefer?

18

Proposed Community Outreach Strategies Personal interaction

Wide range, low cost

• Community meetings

• News releases

• City Council presentations

• Social media

• Guest presentations

• Online videos

• Community events

• Online surveys • Emails

19

Objectives for today’s discussion Is the two‐phase outreach plan appropriate?

Are the proposed outreach strategies appropriate?

What would you like to learn from the public in Phase 1?

20

SR 85 Transit Guideway Study Data Sources Transit Ridership Data

Boardings and alightings at stops

LeHD Journey to Work Data

Uses employer data to analyze commute origins and destinations

Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS)

Provides vehicle volume and speed data at limited locations by time of day.

VTA Model Data

Provides population, employment and growth projections for various years. Can inform future investment decisions.

Big Data: INRIX Speed Data

Big Data: StreetLight OriginDestination Data

Provides vehicle speeds by location and time of day using mobile phone data

Uses mobile phone location data to determine origin‐destination pairs as well as distances traveled along selected corridors.

Private Employer Shuttle Data

Interviews With City Staff

Can tell us how many private buses and employees currently use SR‐85. Video at select locations can provide private shuttle volumes.

Provides insights into anticipated growth, local perspective on transportation issues, needs and solutions.