Wednesday, March 9, 2016

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE and 2000 MEASURE A CITIZENS WATCHDOG COMMITTEE

2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee (CWC) meeting begins at 4:00 PM Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting begins at the conclusion of the CWC Meeting.

VTA Conference Room B-104 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA

AGENDA

COMMITTEE MISSION STATEMENT:

The VTA CAC provides a communication channel for transportation stakeholders and residents of the county by providing input, analysis, perspective and timely recommendations prior to VTA Board of Director action on transportation policy issues and initiatives.

CALL TO ORDER

1. ROLL CALL

2. ORDERS OF THE DAY

3. 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.

4. Receive Committee Staff Report. (Verbal Report) (Quigley)

5. Receive update on Envision Silicon Valley. (Verbal Report) (Haywood)

3331 North First Street ∙ San Jose, CA 95134-1927 ∙ Administration 408.321.5555 ∙ Customer Service 408.321.2300 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Citizens Advisory Committee Wednesday, March 09, 2016

6. Receive Chairperson's Report. (Verbal Report) (Wadler)

7. Receive Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA) Report. (Verbal Report) (Morrow)

8. Receive Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Report. (Verbal Report) (Wadler) COMBINED CAC AND 2000 MEASURE A CITIZENS WATCHDOG COMMITTEE CONSENT AGENDAS

9. Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of February 10, 2016.

10. INFORMATION ITEM - Receive the FY2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report.

11. INFORMATION ITEM - Review the Legislative Update Matrix. 2000 MEASURE A CITIZENS WATCHDOG COMMITTEE REGULAR AGENDA

12. INFORMATION ITEM - Receive the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report Ending December 31, 2015.

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGULAR AGENDA

13. INFORMATION ITEM - Receive the Development Review Annual Report for 2015.

14. INFORMATION ITEM - Receive the Transit Ridership Improvement Program's draft Transit Choices Report. COMBINED CAC AND CITIZENS WATCHDOG COMMITTEE ITEMS

15. Review the Citizens Advisory Committee and Citizens Watchdog Committee Work Plans. OTHER

16. ANNOUNCEMENTS

17. ADJOURN

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, VTA will make reasonable arrangements to ensure meaningful access to its meetings for persons who have disabilities and for persons with limited English proficiency who need translation and interpretation services. Individuals requiring ADA accommodations should notify the Board Secretary’s Office at least 48-hours prior to the meeting. Individuals requiring language assistance should notify the Board Secretary’s Office at least 72-hours prior to the meeting. The Board Secretary may be contacted at

Page 2 of 3 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Citizens Advisory Committee Wednesday, March 09, 2016

(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 Friday, Monday, and Tuesday prior to the meeting. This information is available on VTA’s website at http://www.vta.org and also at the meeting.

Page 3 of 3

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE and 2000 MEASURE A CITIZENS WATCHDOG COMMITTEE

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)/2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee (CWC) was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Wadler in Conference Room B-104, VTA River Oaks Campus, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

1. ROLL CALL

Attendee Name Title Stephen Blaylock Member Present Clinton Brownley Member Absent Bena Chang Member Present Chris Elias Member Absent Sharon Fredlund Vice Chairperson Present William Hadaya Member Present Ray Hashimoto Member Present Roberta Hughan Member Present Aaron Morrow Member Absent Charlotte Powers Member Absent Lucas Ramirez Member Present Connie Rogers Member Present Stephen Schmoll Member Absent Martin Schulter Member Present Noel Tebo Member Present Herman Wadler Chairperson Present

A quorum was present.

2. ORDERS OF THE DAY Chairperson Wadler requested Agenda Item #10, Review of 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee Duties, Responsibilities and Limitations, be moved towards the end of the Agenda. M/S/C (Rogers/Ramirez) to accept the Orders of the Day, and approve the Consent Agenda.

NOTE: M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

3331 North First Street ∙ San Jose, CA 95134-1927 ∙ Administration 408.321.5555 ∙ Customer Service 408.321.2300

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] (Orders of the Day and Consent Agenda Items # 8-9) MOVER: Rogers, Member SECONDER: Ramirez, Member AYES: Blaylock, Chang, Fredlund, Hadaya, Hashimoto, Hughan, Ramirez, Rogers, Schulter, Tebo, Wadler NOES: None ABSENT: Brownley, Elias, Morrow, Powers, Schmoll

3. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS There were no Public Presentations.

4. Committee Staff Report Aaron Quigley, Senior Policy Analyst and Staff Liaison, introduced Inez Evans, Chief Operating Officer. Ms. Evans provided a report highlighting: 1) Super Bowl 50 was a great success, with no major issues on Sunday, February 7, 2016; 2) VTA transported approximately 9,500 to the event and 10,500 post-event; 4) following the game, the light rail and bus queue lines were cleared within an hour; 5) approximately 60 percent of the Super Bowl passengers on light rail travelled to and from Mountain View Station; many of whom used Caltrain to and from San Francisco; and 6) VTA’s mobile app, EventTIK was a success. The Committee congratulated VTA on a job well done. Mr. Quigley reported the VTA Board of Directors (Board) took the following actions at their February 4, 2016, meeting: 1) approved the reallocation of Local Program Reserve (LPR) savings of $1,844,000 to the State Route (SR) 237 Express Lanes Phase II, US101 Auxiliary Lanes, and SR87 Corridor Study; and 2) authorized the General Manager to: a. enter into inter-agency funding agreements with Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department, Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills, and Caltrans for design and construction of Interim Improvements for Bicyclists on Page Mill Road at I-280; b. augment the 1996 Measure B Transportation Improvement Program Fund Capital Budget by $250,000;d c. irected staff to release up to $75,000 of 1996 Measure B funding to the County of Santa Clara for project design, with the remainder to be released for project construction once the County has received funding commitments for the remaining project construction costs; and d. directed staff to work with the County to ensure that the concerns of VTA Advisory Committees are considered during project design. On order of Chairperson Wadler and there being no objection, the Committee received the Committee Staff Report.

5. Chairperson’s Report Chairperson Wadler indicated he attended the February 4, 2016, Board meeting and provided the Committee report. He stated VTA Board Chairperson Chavez expressed appreciation to the Committee for their analysis on the issues noting their feedback brings fresh perspective to the Board.

Citizens Advisory Committee Page 2 of 5 February 10, 2016 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee

Stephen Flynn, Senior Management Analyst and Advisory Committee Coordinator, reported Member Charlotte Powers was honored at the 2016 San Jose-Dublin Sister Cities Program, and awarded the “Spirit of Ireland Award.”

6. Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA) Report There was no Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA) Report.

7. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Report Chairperson Wadler provided a report on the January 13, 2016, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) meeting, highlighting: 1) the Committee discussed striping improvements on Page Mill Road at I-280 Interchange; and 2) BPAC has not yet elected a Committee Vice Chairperson. On order of Chairperson Wadler and there being no objection, the Committee received the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Report. COMBINED CAC AND 2000 MEASURE A CITIZENS WATCHDOG COMMITTEE CONSENT AGENDAS

8. Regular Meeting Minutes of January 13, 2016 M/S/C (Rogers/Ramirez) to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of January 13, 2016.

9. Legislative Update Matrix M/S/C (Rogers/Ramirez) to review the Legislative Update Matrix.

The Agenda was taken out of order.

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGULAR AGENDA

11. Envision Silicon Valley – Initial Sample Evaluation Results Scott Haywood, Transportation Planning Manager, announced staff is working towards presenting the evaluation results to the Board at the April 22, 2016, Board Workshop meeting. Mr. Haywood introduced Chris Augenstein, Deputy Director of Planning, who provided a brief report and a presentation entitled “Envision Silicon Valley – Initial Sample Evaluation Results,” highlighting: 1) Goals and Criteria; 2) Draft Envision Evaluation Card; 3) Process of Project List Refinement; 4) Evaluation Methodology; 5) Sample Product; 6) Draft Envision Evaluation Card; 7) Project Matrix; and 8) Screening & Evaluation Process. Members of the Committee discussed the following: 1) suggested the final project list be marketed to the public well in advance, and expressed concern that August 2016 would be too late to get public buy-in; 2) queried if other potential ballot measures would negatively affect the Envision Silicon Valley (ESV) ballot measure; 3) Silicon Valley Leadership Group is polling to determine which projects have public support; and 4) queried about access to polling questions prior to the survey.

Citizens Advisory Committee Page 3 of 5 February 10, 2016 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee

Member Ramirez requested the ESV Project Matrix be distributed to the Committee. On order of Chairperson Wadler and there being no objection, the Committee received an update on the Envision Silicon Valley project evaluation process.

12. Light Rail Enhancement Update Ying Smith, Transportation Planning Manager, provided the staff report, and a presentation entitled “Light Rail Enhancement Project,” highlighting: 1) Light Rail Program; 2) Santa Clara Pocket Track; 3) Mountain View Double Track; 4) Light Rail Enhancement Program; 5) North First Street Speed Improvements; 6) Fencing and Signal Priority; 7) Intersection Gates; 8) Track Proximity to Travel Lanes; 9) Limited Space at Intersections; 10) North First Street Speed Improvements; 11) Existing Conditions in Downtown Transit Mall; 12) Long Term Projects; 13) Downtown Speed Improvement – Near Term; and 14) Slow Speed Zone Analysis. Members of the Committee queried about the following: 1) room needed for double tracking on First Street; and 2) the depth requirement for subway construction under San Jose. On order of Chairperson Wadler and there being no objection, the Committee received an update on the Light Rail Enhancement Program.

13. Next Network Light Rail Service Plan Jason Kim, Transportation Planning, provided a brief overview of the staff report, and a presentation entitled “Next Network Light Rail Service Plan,” highlighting: 1) Existing System; 2) Ridership by Station; 3) 2010 Operating Plan Recommendation; 4) Milpitas BART Station; 5) Existing Ridership; 6) Future Ridership; 7) Future High Ridership Potential; 8) Future Medium Ridership Potential; 9) New Modeling Analysis; 10) Tasman Express; 11) Commuter Express; 12) Vasona Line; 13) Final three scenarios; 14) Ridership and Operating Costs; and 15) Upcoming Schedule. Members of the Committee discussed the following: 1) expressed support for bringing light rail to Los Gatos to comply with 2000 Measure A; 2) expressed support for a turnaround in downtown San Jose; 3) suggested VTA consider station closures on the Tasman West line; and 4) encouraged VTA to complete 2000 Measure A projects before planning new projects. On order of Chairperson Wadler and there being no objection, the Committee received an update on the Next Network Light Rail Service Plan. 2000 MEASURE A CITIZENS WATCHDOG COMMITTEE REGULAR AGENDA

10. Review of 2000 Measure A Citizen Watchdog Committee Duties, Responsibilities and Limitations Mr. Flynn provided a brief overview of the staff report. He indicated the Auditor Request for Proposal (RFP) is currently being reviewed. He stated the process is moving forward and an award will be forthcoming in the next few months.

Citizens Advisory Committee Page 4 of 5 February 10, 2016 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee

On order of Chairperson Wadler and there being no objection, the Committee received the annual review of the Citizens Watchdog Committee’s ballot-specified duties, responsibilities and limitations. COMBINED CAC AND CITIZENS WATCHDOG COMMITTEE ITEMS

14. Citizens Advisory Committee and Citizens Watchdog Committee Work Plan Member Tebo referred to VTA’s cost share portion for striping improvements on Page Mill Road at I-280 Interchange and opined the cost seems excessive. Staff indicated the cost also covers other expenses such as design and integration of other potential short term solutions. Member Tebo requested a future briefing on the status of the El Camino Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Pilot Project. On order of Chairperson Wadler and there being no objection, the Committee reviewed the Citizens Advisory Committee and Citizens Watchdog Committee Work Plans. OTHER

15. ANNOUNCEMENTS Member Blaylock announced El Camino Hospital, Mountain View, employees and patients are very happy about VTA Line 81 extension to San Jose. He stated the line is very beneficial to patients and hospital employees, and expressed appreciation to the Planning Staff for a job well done.

16. ADJOURNMENT On order of Chairperson Wadler and there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Anita McGraw, Board Assistant VTA Office of the Board Secretary

Citizens Advisory Committee Page 5 of 5 February 10, 2016 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee

Date: February 29, 2016 Current Meeting: March 9, 2016 Board Meeting: N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM

TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Citizens Advisory Committee

THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez

FROM: Chief Operating Officer, Inez Evans

SUBJECT: Transit Operations Performance Report - FY2016 Second Quarter

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

BACKGROUND:

The FY2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report presents the second fiscal quarter's year-to-date (July 2015-December 2015) key performance information for VTA Operations. This report is routinely produced after each quarter and at the end of the fiscal year. A summary of the FY2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report follows.

DISCUSSION:

Ridership (page 9 of the report)

Bus ridership through the second quarter of FY2016 totaled 16.71 million, an increase of 4% compared to the second quarter of FY 2015. Average weekday ridership was 107,061, up 3.1 % compared to FY2015’s second quarter.

Light rail recorded 5.61 million boardings during the second quarter of FY2016, a decrease of 5.2% compared to the prior fiscal year. Average weekday ridership was 34,316, down 3.9% compared to the same period in FY2015.

Overall, system ridership (bus and rail) was up 1.5% at 22.32 million. Average weekday ridership increased 1.3%, from 139,529 last year to 141,377 this year.

3331 North First Street ∙ San Jose, CA 95134-1927 ∙ Administration 408.321.5555 ∙ Customer Service 408.321.2300 10

Special Event Service: A total of 34 stadium events occurred by the end of the second quarter - fifteen at Avaya and nineteen at Levi’s. Events at Levi’s Stadium included nine ‘49ers football games and two college championship/bowl games. Of the 248,622 total riders to Levi’s Stadium events, 75,678 riders were on weekdays, 74,900 riders were on Saturday and 98,044 riders were on Sunday. Bus service ridership to Avaya Stadium averaged 1,295, with a total of 19,425 riders from the fifteen events.

Levi’s Stadium events Year Month Riders Events Average per event 2015 July 30,300 3 10,100 2015 August 54,100 6 9,017 2015 September 37,118 2 18,559 2015 October 57,600 3 19,200 2015 November 31,482 2 15,741 2015 December 38,022 3 12,674 Totals 248,622 19 13,085 Avaya Stadium events Year Month Riders Events Average per event 2015 July 6,510 6 1,085 2015 August 3,465 3 1,155 2015 September 6,300 4 1,575 2015 October 3,150 2 1,575 Totals 19,425 15 1,295

Key Performance Indicators (page 8 of the report) Service reliability performance for the system (both bus and light rail) in the second quarter of FY2016 was 99.63%. Bus on-time performance was 84.3%, down slightly from 84.5% last year. Light rail on-time performance was 73.9%, down from last year’s 76.7%.

Bus recorded 9,520 miles between major mechanical schedule losses, a 5.3% improvement from 9,042 miles in the second quarter of FY2016, and exceeding the goal of 8,000 miles. Light rail recorded 23,685 miles between major mechanical schedule losses, a 17.6% improvement from 20,142 miles in the second quarter of FY2016. It did not, however, meet the goal of 40,000 miles.

Absenteeism goals were met for all personnel.

Paratransit (page 24 of the report)

Page 2 of 3 10

Through the first six months of FY 2016, ADA paratransit ridership decreased 4.3% from 362,965 in FY 2015 to 347,337 this year.

The net ADA paratransit operating cost during the first six months of FY 2016 was $9.81 million, up 13.7% compared to the same period last fiscal year. The net operating cost per paratransit passenger trip through the second quarter of FY 2016 was $28.25, 18.8% more than the $23.78 net cost per trip recorded in FY 2015. Through the first six months of FY 2016, the net cost per trip is 5.3% more than the established goal of $26.75.

The net operating cost increase is due to the vendor contractual rate increase that took effect July 1, 2015 and the impact of a living wage of $15.00/hour for the prime vendor’s drivers.

San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) under a separate contract with the prime paratransit vendor, MV Transportation stopped providing trips in February 2016. Demand for services from persons once transported on MV Transportation/ SARC vehicles is predicted to drive up future ADA paratransit trips and costs.

Inter-Agency Partners and Contracted Services (page 9 of the report)

Most of VTA’s Inter-agency partners and contracted services recorded ridership increases, with the exception of Dumbarton Express, Highway 17 Express, and Monterey-San Jose Express:

 Dumbarton Express ridership was 145,159, down 8.9%.  Highway 17 Express ridership was 175,043, down 7.0%.  Monterey-San Jose Express ridership was 13,730, down 10.7 %.  ACE ridership was 645,280, up 8.3%.  Caltrain ridership was 9,595,459, up 3.0%.  CE shuttle ridership was 213,089, up 2.8%.  Capitol Corridor ridership was 760,455, up 3.9%.

Prepared By: Lalitha Konanur Memo No. 5276

Page 3 of 3 10.a

Transit Operations Performance Report

2016 Second Quarter Report (July 1, 2015-December 31, 2015) 10.a

10.a

Transit Operations Performance Report

Second Quarter FY 2016 Report (July 1, 2015 – December 31, 2015) 10.a

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS page

Executive Summary Summary of Performance 1 Event Highlights 3

Key Performance Indicators 8

Ridership Summary 9

Route details 10

Route Performance Boardings Per Revenue Hour 11 Average Peak Load (Express) 15 Route Productivity 16

Paratransit Operating Statistics 24

Glossary

Prepared by: Operations Analysis, Reporting & Systems 10.a

Executive Summary 10.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

Ridership (page 9 of the report)

Overall, system ridership (bus and rail) was up 1.5% at 22.32 million. Average weekday ridership increased 1.3%, from 139,529 last year to 141,377 this year.

1 10.a

Key Performance Indicators (page 8 of the report)

Service reliability performance for the system (both bus and light rail) in the second quarter of FY2016 was 99.63%. Bus on-time performance was 84.3%, down slightly from 84.5% last year. Light rail on-time performance was 73.9%, down from last year’s 76.7%.

Absenteeism goals were met for all personnel.

Paratransit (page 24 of the report)

Through the first six months of FY 2016, ADA paratransit ridership decreased 4.3% from 362,965 in FY 2015 to 347,337 this year.

The prime contractor, MV Transportation, has reduced the number of trips it provides under contract to the San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) and will stop providing these trips in February 2016. Demand for services from persons once transported on MV Transportation/SARC vehicles is predicted to drive up future ADA paratransit costs.

Inter-Agency Partners and Contracted Services (page 9 of the report)

Most of VTA’s Inter-agency partners and contracted services recorded ridership increases, with the exception of Dumbarton Express, Highway 17 Express, and Monterey-San Jose Express:

 Dumbarton Express ridership was 145,159, down 8.9%.  Highway 17 Express ridership was 175,043, down 7.0%.  Monterey-San Jose Express ridership was 13,730, down 10.7 %.  ACE ridership was 645,280, up 8.3%.  Caltrain ridership was 9,595,459, up 3.0%.  CE shuttle ridership was 213,089, up 2.8%.  Capitol Corridor ridership was 760,455, up 3.9%.

2 10.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY EVENT HIGHLIGHTS FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report (July 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015)

This section shows events that can affect normal service operations and system ridership. Ridership historically follows employment trends in the Valley, for example. Weather, public events, strikes, traffic, construction, new service, area gasoline prices, and other changes to our operating environment also affect system ridership and service conditions.

July 1, 2015 – Severe heat warning issued by the National Weather Service.

July 1, 2015 – San Jose Earthquakes vs. Los Angeles soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

July 4, 2015 – VTA featured increased light rail service to the downtown Rotary Club fireworks show at Discovery Meadow. Bus service was rerouted to accommodate the downtown fireworks, the Morgan Hill 4th of July Car Show and parade, the Fremont 4th of July Parade, and the San Jose Rose, White, and Blue Parade and Festival.

July 5, 2015 – Atlas vs. Leon soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

July 7, 2015 – BART train fire closes down five East Bay BART stations and stops BART service during morning commute, causing severe delays.

July 10, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Houston soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

July 11, 2015 – One Direction concert held at Levi’s Stadium.

July 12, 2015 – Light rail service shut down through July 19, 2015 between Mountain View and Whisman Stations and July 18-19 between Mountain View and Lockheed Stations for double- tracking work. Bus Bridge replacement service provided.

July 14, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Club America soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

July 18, 2015 – VTA provided expanded bus service to Avaya Stadium for the Pacific Nations Cup rugby tournament.

July 21, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Manchester United soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

July 25, 2015 – Manchester United vs. Barcelona Soccer match held at Levi’s Stadium.

July 27, 2015 – Cisco Rocks! Corporate event held at Levi’s Stadium.

July 28-29, 2015 – Spare the Air days.

3 10.a

July 2015 – VTA experienced reroutes and service delays due to police activity, Thursday Night Live Summer Concert Series in Mountain View; construction in Mountain View, Sunnyvale, San Jose, and Milpitas; the Garlic City Fun Run and Car Show in Gilroy; a gas leak in San Jose; Sunnyvale Music in the Market; accidents; and mechanical issues.

July 2015 – There was no measurable rainfall during the month.

July 2015 – The Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 4.2%.

July 2015 – Unleaded gas averaged $3.46 per gallon during the month.

August 1, 2015 – Monterey-Salinas Transit debuts new service between King City and San Jose, including an airport connection to Mineta San Jose airport.

August 1, 2015 – Wedemeyer High School Football event held at Levi’s Stadium.

August 2, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Portland soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

August 5, 2015 – Training Camp Day event held at Levi’s Stadium.

August 14, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Colorado soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

August 14-15, 2015 – Two Taylor Swift concerts held at Levi’s Stadium.

August 15, 2015 – Line 254, serving Levi’s Stadium on game days from Eastridge Transit Center, is discontinued due to low ridership.

August 15-16, 2015 – Heat advisory issued by the National Weather Service.

August 16-17, 2015 – Spare the Air days.

August 23, 2015 – ‘49ers vs. Dallas Cowboys game at Levi’s Stadium.

August 26, 2015 – Intuit, in Mountain View, announces layoffs of 249 employees following June layoffs of 399 employees.

August 27, 2015 – Amazon lays off engineers at Silicon-Valley-based Lab126.

August 28, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Galaxy soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

August 29, 2015 – Luke Bryan concert held at Levi’s Stadium.

August 31, 2015 – McCandless Drive in Milpitas re-opens for Line 77 service and VTA’s Montague light rail station re-opens for service following 5-month BART construction closure.

August 2015 – VTA experienced reroutes and service delays due to the Silicon Valley Pride Parade and Festival; Levi’s Stadium events; the FroYo Run; South First Fridays in San Jose; the

4 10.a

San Jose Jazz Summer Fest; Thursday Night Live Summer Concert Series; National Night Out event in Morgan Hill; mechanical issues; and construction in Mountain View and San Jose.

August 2015 – The Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 4.0%.

August 2015 – Rainfall during the month was 100% of normal.

August 2015 – Unleaded gas averaged $3.33 per gallon during the month.

September 3, 2015 – ‘49ers vs. San Diego Chargers Thursday night game at Levi’s Stadium.

September 5, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Philadelphia soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

September 5-13, 2015 – Light rail service between Mountain View and Middlefield is replaced with bus bridge service for double-tracking project.

September 8-10, 205 – Spare the Air days.

September 9-10, 2015 – Whisman light rail station was closed, with substitute bus service provided, for the double-tracking project.

September 12, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Seattle soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

September 14, 2015 – ‘49ers vs. Minnesota Vikings Monday Night Football game at Levi’s Stadium.

September 16, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Impact soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

September 19-20, 2015 – Light rail service was replaced by a bus bridge between the Mountain View and Whisman stations due to the double-tracking project.

September 20-21, 2015 – Spare the Air days.

September 27, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Real Salt Lake soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

September 2015 – VTA experienced reroutes and service delays due to medical emergencies/ police action; accidents; track repair; South First Fridays Street Market; Morgan Hill Auto Show; SoFa Street Fair; Willow Glen Founders Day Parade; A Taste of Morgan Hill; and an SAP event in San Jose.

September 2015 – The Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 3.7%.

September 2015 – Rainfall during the month was 6% of normal.

September 2015 – Unleaded gas averaged $3.01 per gallon during the month.

October 3, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Vancouver soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

5 10.a

October 4, 2015 – ‘49ers vs. Green Bay Packers football game held at Levi’s Stadium.

October 16, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Kansas City soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

October 18, 2015 – ‘49ers vs. Baltimore Ravens football game held at Levi’s Stadium.

October 22, 2015 – ‘49ers vs. Seattle Seahawks Thursday night football game held at Levi’s Stadium.

October 28, 2015 – Cisco Systems lays off 899 employees in San Jose.

October 2015 – VTA experienced reroutes, bus bridges, and service delays due to special events on October 3rd and 8th in downtown Mountain View, double-track work near Whisman station in Mountain View, the Tournament of Bands parade in Cupertino, Viva Calle in San Jose, an accident near Fruitdale Station in San Jose, a water main break in Palo Alto, fires in Sunnyvale and San Jose, a weekday Levi’s Stadium event, the Zombie Run in San Jose, the Morgan Hill Marathon, the Chardonnay Run in San Jose, and the Morgan Hill Safe Trick-or-Treat event.

October 2015 – The Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 4%

October 2015 – Rainfall during the month was 6% of normal.

October 2015 – Unleaded gas averaged $2.84 per gallon.

November 8, 2015 – ‘49ers vs. Atlanta Falcons football game held at Levi’s Stadium.

November 14-22, 2015 – Substitute bus service replaced light rail service from Tasman Station to Mountain View to accommodate the double-track project.

November 17, 2015 – Citrix Systems in Santa Clara announced 1,000 job cuts.

November 25, 2015 – New second light rail track in Mountain View is opened for revenue service.

November 29, 2015 – ‘49ers vs. Arizona Cardinals football game at Levi’s Stadium.

November 2015 – VTA experienced reroutes due to the Firehouse Run, police activity, construction, and the Turkey Trot race, all in San Jose.

November 2015 – The Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 3.9%

November 2015 – Rainfall during the month was 144% of normal.

November 2015 – Unleaded gas averaged $2.73 per gallon.

December 5, 2015 – PAC-12 College Championship football game held at Levi’s Stadium.

6 10.a

December 20, 2015 – ‘49ers vs. Cincinnati Bengals football game held at Levi’s Stadium.

December 26, 2015 – Foster Farms Bowl college football game held at Levi’s Stadium.

December 2015 – VTA experienced reroutes and bus bridges due to police activity, construction, Christmas Tree Lighting in Sunnyvale, the Holiday Lights Parade in Morgan Hill, the Procession to Our Virgin Mary in San Jose, the Gilroy Holiday Parade, the Children’s Holiday Christmas Parade in Los Gatos,

December 2015 – The Santa Clara County unemployment rate was

December 2015 – Rainfall during the month was

December 2015 – Unleaded gas averaged $2.65 per gallon.

7 10.a

Key Performance Indicators SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 10.a KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

FYTD FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Met 2016 Q2 2016 Goals Annual Annual Annual Goal? Q2 SYSTEM (Bus & Light Rail) Total Boarding Riders (in millions) 43.15 43.43 43.94 22.32 No >= 22.50 Average Weekday Boarding Riders 140,402 140,965 141,149 141,377 No >= 144,600 Boardings per Revenue Hour 31.9 29.6 30.5 32.8 YES >= 29.5 Percent of Scheduled Service Operated 99.73% 99.67% 99.67% 99.63% YES >= 99.55% 1 Miles Between Major Mechanical Schedule Loss 13,110 10,839 9,890 10,172 YES >= 9,000 Miles Between Chargeable Accidents 88,300 80,812 78,449 179,063 YES >= 110,800 Passenger Concerns per 100,000 Boardings 13.7 16.2 18.4 20.8 No <= 10.6 BUS OPERATIONS Total Boarding Riders (in millions) 32.40 32.48 32.62 16.71 YES >= 16.70 Average Weekday Boarding Riders 106,161 105,969 106,214 107,061 No >= 108,500 Boardings per Revenue Hour 26.7 26.0 25.1 27.4 YES >= 25.0 Percent of Scheduled Service Operated 99.70% 99.64% 99.64% 99.59% YES >= 99.50% 1 Miles Between Major Mechanical Schedule Loss 12,080 9,964 9,890 9,520 YES >= 8,000 Miles Between Chargeable Accidents 80,608 73,702 78,449 162,675 YES >= 100,000 On-time Performance 87.4% 85.9% 85.6% 84.3% No >= 92.5% Operator Personal Time-off 8.5% 8.1% 7.2% 7.4% YES <= 10.0% Maintenance Personal Time-off 7.4% 8.2% 6.0% 5.3% YES <= 8.0% Passenger Concerns per 100,000 Boardings 17.1 20.2 21.3 22.1 No <= 11.8 LIGHT RAIL OPERATIONS Total Boarding Riders (in millions) 10.74 10.95 11.32 5.61 No >= 5.80 Average Weekday Boarding Riders 34,241 34,996 34,935 34,316 No >= 36,100 Boardings per Revenue Hour 78.3 78.8 80.4 80.6 No >= 82.3 Percent of Scheduled Service Operated 99.98% 99.97% 99.96% 99.96% YES >= 99.90% 1 Miles Between Major Mechanical Schedule Loss 40,723 37,381 20,292 23,685 No >= 40,000 2 Miles Between Chargeable Accidents 366,503 367,582 558,019 1,113,216 YES >= 1,113,216 On-time Performance 88.5% 84.5% 77.4% 73.9% No >= 95.0% Operator Personal Time-off 5.9% 7.2% 7.3% 7.5% YES <= 10.0% Maintenance Personal Time-off 7.3% 8.1% 5.2% 3.3% YES <= 8.0% Way, Power, & Signal Personal Time-off 6.3% 4.0% 8.6% 7.8% YES <= 8.0% Passenger Concerns per 100,000 Boardings 3.3 4.3 10.0 16.9 No <= 2.8 Fare Evasion Rate 3.9% 3.1% 3.0% 2.5% YES <= 5.0% PARATRANSIT Passengers per Revenue Hour³ 2.50 2.40 2.60 2.40 YES >= 2.40 Net Cost per Passenger $22.69 $23.16 $24.22 $28.25 No <= $26.75 Ontime Performance ³ 96.9% 96.5% 93.4% YES >= 92.0% Complaints per 1,000 passenger Trips³ 0.51 0.47 0.74 YES <= 1.0 Schedule Calls Response Time (minutes)³ 1.36 1.36 1.70 YES <= 2.0 Days of Service Calls Response Time (minutes)³ 1.09 1.14 1.30 YES <= 2.0 ADA Eligibility Certification within 21 Days³ 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% YES >= 100.0% Preventative Maintenance Inspections Ontime³ 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% YES >= 95.0% Major Accidents and Incidents per 85,000 Passenger Trips³ 000YES <= 1.0 Non-Major Accidents and Incidents per 85,000 Passenger Trips³ 0.1 0.47 0.00 YES <= 2.0 Note: Ridership goals were developed using budget projections. 1 Mechanical failure that prevents the vehicle from completing a scheduled service due to limited vehicle movement or safety concerns. 2 Goal is no more than one chargeable accident in a year. 3 New ADA Paratransit Performance Indicators for Paratransit effective FY 2014 10.a

Ridership Summary 10.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RIDERSHIP SUMMARY (Directly Operated, Inter-Agency Partners, and Contracted Services) FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

FYTD 2016 FYTD 2015 % Change Directly Operated Services Bus 16,710,220 16,067,147 4.0% Average Weekday Riders 107,061 103,833 3.1% Light Rail 5,612,161 5,923,019 -5.2% Average Weekday Riders 34,316 35,696 -3.9% Total Directly Operated Services 22,322,381 21,990,166 1.5% Average Weekday Riders 141,377 139,529 1.3% Inter-Agency Partners Dumbarton Express 145,159 159,365 -8.9% Average Weekday Riders 1,134 1,245 -8.9% Highway 17 Express 175,043 188,142 -7.0% Average Weekday Riders 1,081 1,172 -7.8% Monterey-San Jose Express 13,730 15,381 -10.7% Average Weekday Riders 68 82 -17.1% Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) 645,280 595,988 8.3% Average Weekday Riders 5,041 4,719 6.8% Caltrain 9,595,459 9,318,395 3.0% Average Weekday Riders 59,853 58,383 2.5% Caltrain Shuttles (in Santa Clara County) 816,638 800,395 2.0% Average Weekday Riders 6,331 6,110 3.6% Contracted Services Paratransit 347,337 362,965 -4.3% Average Weekday Riders 2,415 2,558 -5.6% ACE Shuttles 213,089 207,257 2.8% Average Weekday Riders 1,678 1,645 2.0% Total Contracted / Inter-Agency 5,860,714 5,699,744 2.8% Combined Total Ridership (in Santa Clara County) 1 28,183,095 27,689,910 1.8%

1 These figures are based on estimated ridership in the VTA service area for Caltrain, ACE, Highway 17 Express, Dumbarton Express, and Monterey-San Jose Express. Paratransit, Light Rail Shuttles, ACE Shuttles, and Caltrain Santa Clara County Shuttles are operated wholly within the service area, therefore, 100% of the ridership is included.

9 10.a

Route Listing

Route Destination Route Destination Santa Clara Transit Ctr.-San Jose International Airport-Metro Airport LRT 10 68 Gilroy Transit Ctr.-San Jose Diridon Transit Ctr. Station 12 San Jose Civic Ctr.-Eastridge Transit Ctr. via San Jose Flea Market 70 Capitol LRT Station-Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr. 13* Almaden Expwy. & McKean-Ohlone/Chynoweth LRT Station 71 Eastridge Transit Ctr.-Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr. via White Rd. 14* Gilroy Transit Ctr. to St. Louise Hospital 72 Senter & Monterey-Downtown San Jose 16* Morgan Hill Civic Ctr. to Burnett Ave. 73 Snell/Capitol-Downtown San Jose 17* Gilroy Transit Ctr. to St. Louise Hospital 77 Eastridge Tran Ctr-Great Mall/Main Trans Ctr via King Rd Weekday-Vallco-San Jose State University; Sat-Vallco-Santa Clara 18* Gilroy Transit Ctr. to Gavilan College 81 Tran.Ctr 19* Gilroy Transit Ctr. to Wren & Mantelli 82 Westgate-Downtown San Jose 22 Palo Alto Transit Ctr.-Eastridge Transit Ctr. via El Camino 88* Palo Alto Veteran's Hospital-Middlefield & Colorado 23 DeAnza College-Alum Rock Transit Ctr. via Stevens Creek 89 California Ave. Caltrain Station-Palo Alto Veteran's Hospital 25 DeAnza College-Alum Rock Transit Ctr. via Valley Medical Ctr. 101 Camden & Hwy 85-Palo Alto 26 Sunnyvale/Lockheed Martin Transit Ctr.-Eastridge Transit Ctr. 102 South San Jose-Palo Alto 27 Good Samaritan Hospital-Kaiser San Jose 103 Eastridge Transit Ctr.-Palo Alto 31 Evergreen Valley College-Eastridge Transit Ctr. 104 Penitencia Creek Transit Ctr.-Palo Alto 32* San Antonio Shopping Ctr.-Santa Clara Transit Ctr. 120 Fremont BART-Lockheed Martin/Moffett Park-Shoreline 34* San Antonio Shopping Ctr.-Downtown Mountain View 121 Gilroy Transit Ctr.-Lockheed Martin/Moffett Park 35 Downtown Mountain View-Stanford Shopping Ctr. 122 South San Jose-Lockheed Martin/Moffett Park 37* West Valley College-Capitol LRT Station 140 Fremont BART-Mission College & Montague Expwy. 39* The Villages-Eastridge Transit Ctr. 168 Gilroy Transit Ctr.-San Jose Diridon Transit Ctr. Weekday/Sat-Foothill College-La Avenida & Shoreline 40 180 Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr/Aborn&White-Fremont BART Sun-San Antonio & Lyell-La Avenida & Shoreline Weekday-Kaiser San Jose-Evergreen Valley College San Jose Diridon Transit Ctr.-Fremont BART via Great Mall/Main 42* 181 Sat-Santa Teresa LRT-Monterey & Senter Transit Ctr. late evenings & weekends 45* Alum Rock Transit Ctr.-Penitencia Creek Transit Ctr. 182 Palo Alto-IBM/Bailey Ave. 46 Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr.-Milpitas High School 201 DASH SJ Diridon Stn-Downtown SJ LRT Stations 47 Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr.-McCarthy Ranch 231 Avaya Stadium-Downtown San Jose (Event Service Only) 48* Los Gatos Civic Ctr.-Winchester Transit Ctr. via Winchester Blvd. 251 Fremont BART-Levi's Stadium (Event Service Only) 49* Los Gatos Civic Ctr.-Winchester Transit Ctr. via Los Gatos Blvd. 252 Vallco-Levi's Stadium (Event Service Only) 51 De Anza College-Moffett Field/Ames Ctr. 253 Gilroy/Morgan Hill-Levi's Stadium (Event Service Only) 52 Foothill College-Downtown Mountain View 255 Almaden-Levi's Stadium (Event Service Only) 53 West Valley College-Sunnyvale Transit Ctr. 256 Ohlone-Chynoweth-Levi's Stadium (Event Service Only) 54 De Anza College-Sunnyvale/Lockheed Martin Trans Ctr. 304 South San Jose-Sunnyvale Transit Ctr. via Arques 55 De Anza College-Great America 321 Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr.-Lockheed Martin/Moffett Park 55X Fremont High School-Lakewood Village (School Days Only) 323 De Anza College-Downtown San Jose 57 West Valley College-Great America via Quito Rd. 328 Almaden Expy/Via Valiente-Lockheed Martin/Moffett Pk 58 West Valley College-Alviso via Fruitvale 330 Almaden Expy. & Via Valiente-Tasman Drive 60 Winchester Transit Ctr.-Great America 522 Palo Alto Transit Ctr.-Eastridge Transit Ctr. 61 Good Samaritan Hospital-Sierra & Piedmont via Bascom LRT Line 902 - Mountain View-Winchester 62 Good Samaritan Hospital-Sierra & Piedmont via Union Line 901 - Alum Rock-Santa Teresa 63 Almaden Expy & Camden-San Jose State University Line 900 - Ohlone/Chynoweth-Almaden 64 Almaden LRT Station-McKee & White via Downtown San Jose 65* Kooser & Blossom Hill-13th & Hedding 66 Kaiser San Jose-Milpitas/Dixon Rd. via Downtown San Jose *Community Bus

10 10.a

Route Performance SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Weekday Boardings per revenue hour FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

22 33.2 23 31.9 25 26.2 26 28.8 55 24.2 60 24.3 61 22.8 62 21.2 Core 64 27.8 Standard: 26.7 boardings 66 30.0 per rvenue hour 68 23.0 70 25.7 71 25.2 72 26.9 73 32.0 77 32.2 323 19.6 522 26.2

10 23.6 27 16.8 31 19.4 35 16.1 40 21.5 Local 46 26.0 Standard: 20.5 boardings 47 26.0 per revene hour 51 21.6 52 17.2 53 26.5 54 24.9 57 21.7 58 15.2 63 17.6 81 14.9 82 22.3 89 17.9

13 13.8 14 14.4 16 13.5 17 9.5 Community Bus 18 20.4 Standard: 16.3 boardings 19 18.4 per revenue hour 32 19.8 34 10.3 37 13.6 39 21.8 42 13.8 45 15.9 48 18.2 49 13.6 65 16.5 88 12.9 200 11.5 201 34.6

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

ACE 24.3 Shuttles

Note: ACE shuttles are not considered in the calculation of the Community Bus standard, which is VTA‐based only. 10.a 11 Factor Limited Light Rail Express Revenue Hour per revenue trainhour Standard: 73.0 boardingsStandard: 73.0 Standard 15.0 Boarding Per Standard: is60% Maximum Load 91.8 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 PORTATION AUTHORITY PORTATION 12 75.2

line

Line –Almaden

51.9 Teresa

Line. Winchester ‐ Santa ‐ View

13.7 13.3 13.0 Rock

9.9 Ohlone/Chynoweth Mountain Alum is the

is the is the

900 902 901 Line Line Line

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 * * * 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Weekday Boardings per revenue hour SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANS SANTA CLARA Report Performance Operations Transit Quarter 2016 Second FY 10.a SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Saturday Boardings per revenue hour FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

22 32.8

23 28.4

25 24.8 26 23.8 Core Standard: 25.1 boardings 55 19.6 per revenue hour 60 20.1

61 18.0

62 19.4

64 20.9

66 30.3

68 25.7

70 25.9

71 25.1

72 26.2

73 27.4

77 46.2

323 13.8

522 23.5

10 29.3 12 22.6 27 16.6 Local 31 14.1 Standard: 17.6 boardings 35 15.4 per revenue hour 40 15.2 46 15.0 47 20.5 54 17.6 57 17.3 63 16.6 81 11.9 82 17.1

14 11.5 18 10.3 19 17.5 Community Bus 32 14.7 Standard: 15.0 boardings 39 20.0 per revenue hour 42 12.4 48 11.0 49 13.8 200 14.7 0 102030405060

900* 53.7 Light Rail 901* 66.2 Standard: 69.3 boardings per revenue train hour 902* 88.1

0 102030405060708090100110120130140150

* Line 900 is the Ohlone/Chynoweth –Almaden line * Line 901 is the Alum Rock ‐ Santa Teresa Line

* Line 902 is the Mountain View ‐ Winchester Line. 10.a 13 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Sunday Boardings per revenue hour FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

22 31.8 23 26.3 25 24.1 26 21.0 Core 55 19.6 Standard: 22.6 boardings per revenue hour 60 17.5 61 14.6 62 16.9 64 19.9 66 27.7 68 23.7 70 23.0 71 26.7 72 25.9 73 25.0 77 32.2 323 10.2 522 20.1

10 34.9

12 23.5 Local Standard: 18.7 boardings 27 14.4 per revenue hour 31 12.1

35 17.0

40 18.0

47 27.8

54 13.3

57 13.6

63 14.0

82 17.0

14 10.6

18 11.1 Community Bus 19 17.1 Standard: 15.0 boardings per revenue hour 39 25.3

48 10.7

49 9.8

200 8.4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Light Rail 900* 44.1 Standard 60.7 boardings per revenue train hour 901* 63.4

902* 74.7

0 102030405060708090 * Line 900 is the Ohlone/Chynoweth –Almaden line * Line 901 is the Alum Rock ‐ Santa Teresa Line

* Line 902 is the Mountain View ‐ Winchester Line 10.a 14 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report Express Routes Average Peak Load

Weekday

101 38.9%

102 52.4% Express 103 55.5% Standard: 60% Peak Load 104 44.2%

120 50.5%

121 46.3%

122 51.1%

140 62.4%

168 58.9%

180 47.6%

181 57.6%

182 37.6%

DB 30.9%

Hwy 17 42.2%

MST 55 14.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Saturday / Sunday

181 Saturday, 67.9%

181 Sunday, 72.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Note: HWY 17, MST and DB are not considered in the calculation of the standard which is VTA‐ based only. 10.a 15 10.a

Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time Period FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report Core Routes WEEKDAY ROUTE PEAK MIDDAY OFF PEAK TOTAL 22 25.6 50.2 27.6 33.2 23 28.2 39.4 22.8 31.9 Weekday Service Periods 25 23.0 32.2 17.0 26.2 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM & 26 23.6 41.0 20.7 28.8 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM 55 21.7 30.5 19.6 24.2 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM 60 19.2 37.0 17.8 24.3 Off Peak 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM 61 18.5 34.6 9.1 22.8 62 18.4 26.3 14.8 21.2 64 24.8 35.3 11.9 27.8 66 22.9 46.5 18.5 30.0 68 17.1 36.6 13.9 23.0 70 21.0 34.1 18.2 25.7 71 20.6 37.3 13.1 25.2 72 18.7 40.6 19.5 26.9 73 23.4 44.9 18.8 32.0 77 22.7 49.3 18.9 32.2 323 18.4 22.8 13.1 19.6 Legend: 522 20.7 35.7 24.0 26.2 Below standard Standard 21.6 37.5 17.7 26.7 No Service

16 10.a

Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time Period FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report Core Routes

SATURDAY ROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL 22 31.1 36.2 30.1 32.8 23 27.1 27.9 32.7 28.4 Saturday Service Periods 25 22.3 26.5 28.5 24.8 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 26 24.8 20.3 40.5 23.8 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 55 17.8 18.7 36.3 19.6 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM 60 13.7 13.1 77.5 20.1 61 16.6 21.0 10.1 18.0 62 17.6 22.0 13.3 19.4 64 16.9 23.5 24.3 20.9 66 24.3 40.2 22.1 30.3 68 23.4 29.0 23.9 25.7 70 19.7 34.6 10.3 25.9 71 25.2 25.7 21.7 25.1 72 23.7 28.1 29.4 26.2 73 28.5 26.1 31.7 27.4 77 41.1 49.6 63.6 46.2 323 13.2 15.1 10.3 13.8 522 21.8 24.7 24.2 23.5 Standard 22.7 26.8 29.5 25.1

SUNDAY ROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL 22 20.7 31.5 53.9 31.8 Sunday Service Periods 23 30.5 22.1 28.5 26.3 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 25 19.1 33.0 13.1 24.1 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 26 17.1 23.0 33.4 21.0 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM 55 16.6 22.8 17.3 19.6 60 16.1 18.3 20.7 17.5 61 11.2 20.2 8.6 14.6 62 15.2 18.7 15.1 16.9 64 17.4 23.5 14.9 19.9 66 18.0 43.8 13.9 27.7 68 20.1 29.6 21.0 23.7 70 16.8 31.9 9.3 23.0 71 27.3 24.7 32.5 26.7 72 20.0 33.0 21.2 25.9 Legend: 73 19.2 30.5 25.4 25.0 Below standard 77 20.9 42.5 17.8 32.2 No Service 323 9.8 10.5 0.0 10.2 522 19.9 20.2 0.0 20.1 Standard 18.7 26.7 21.7 22.6 17 10.a

Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time Period FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report Local Routes

WEEKDAY ROUTE PEAK MIDDAY OFF PEAK TOTAL 10 22.8 26.6 18.6 23.6 27 14.0 21.7 14.2 16.8 Weekday Service Periods 31 17.8 24.6 7.5 19.4 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM & 35 13.9 19.1 15.8 16.1 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM 40 21.1 22.4 19.3 21.5 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM 46 27.0 23.9 0.0 26.0 Off Peak 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM 47 22.7 31.6 19.1 26.0 51 22.3 20.5 0.0 21.6 52 18.9 16.8 11.7 17.2 53 23.3 31.6 0.0 26.5 54 25.4 22.7 33.7 24.9 57 18.9 27.8 12.3 21.7 58 14.7 16.9 16.1 15.2 63 15.5 20.8 20.2 17.6 81 13.5 17.7 6.0 14.9 Legend: 82 18.8 28.7 14.8 22.3 89 25.1 11.1 0.0 17.9 Below standard Standard 19.7 22.6 16.1 20.5 No Service

18 10.a

Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time Period FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report Local Routes SATURDAY ROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL 10 25.2 42.0 19.1 29.3 12 18.3 25.3 0.0 22.6 27 16.2 18.5 5.2 16.6 Saturday Service Periods 31 13.1 15.1 0.0 14.1 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 35 13.6 16.4 17.4 15.4 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 40 16.2 14.5 0.0 15.2 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM 46 9.3 17.9 0.0 15.0 47 18.6 21.3 35.9 20.5 54 14.1 18.4 36.7 17.6 57 14.4 19.2 19.4 17.3 63 15.2 17.8 0.0 16.6 81 10.4 12.3 0.0 11.9 82 17.0 17.6 13.0 17.1 Standard 15.5 19.7 21.0 17.6

SUNDAY ROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL 10 27.9 49.4 27.3 34.9 12 22.8 24.0 0.0 23.5 27 14.7 14.3 0.0 14.4 Sunday Service Periods 31 10.8 12.8 0.0 12.1 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 35 16.8 17.2 17.3 17.0 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 40 14.5 19.8 0.0 18.0 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM 47 26.0 28.7 36.0 27.8 54 10.9 15.2 0.0 13.3 57 11.7 15.1 0.0 13.6 63 17.1 12.7 0.0 14.0 Legend: 82 16.3 17.5 0.0 17.0 Below standard Standard 17.2 20.6 26.9 18.7 No Service

19 10.a

Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time Period FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report Community Bus WEEKDAY ROUTE PEAK MIDDAY OFF PEAK TOTAL 13 10.2 18.4 7.5 13.8 Weekday Service Periods 14 11.5 16.3 0.0 14.4 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM & 16 14.9 7.9 0.0 13.5 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM 17 9.3 9.6 0.0 9.5 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM 18 18.9 22.2 0.0 20.4 Off Peak 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM 19 18.2 19.5 7.0 18.4 32 16.1 30.5 13.2 19.8 34 0.0 10.3 0.0 10.3 37 13.5 15.4 5.6 13.6 39 18.7 29.4 11.6 21.8 42 12.0 16.4 5.9 13.8 45 16.2 15.6 0.0 15.9 48 17.4 19.3 0.0 18.2 49 13.3 15.3 4.7 13.6 65 14.6 18.6 0.0 16.5 88 15.0 9.8 0.0 12.9 200 0.0 0.0 11.5 11.5 201 37.8 30.7 32.6 34.6 Standard 16.1 18.0 15.0 16.3

20 10.a

Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time Period FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report Community Bus

SATURDAY ROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL Saturday Service Periods 14 11.5 16.3 0.0 14.4 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 18 18.9 22.2 0.0 20.4 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 19 18.2 19.5 7.0 18.4 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM 32 16.1 30.5 13.2 19.8 39 18.7 29.4 11.6 21.8 42 12.0 16.4 5.9 13.8 48 17.4 19.3 0.0 18.2 49 13.3 15.3 4.7 13.6 200 0.0 0.0 11.5 11.5 Standard 15.8 21.1 15.0 17.6

SUNDAY ROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL Sunday Service Periods 14 7.7 11.9 0.0 10.6 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 18 8.6 11.9 0.0 11.1 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM 19 12.0 21.0 0.0 17.1 39 19.6 28.1 0.0 25.3 48 10.7 10.7 0.0 10.7 49 8.6 10.2 0.0 9.8 Legend: 200 0.0 0.0 8.4 8.4 Below standard Standard 15.0 15.6 15.0 15.0 No Service

21 10.a

Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time Period FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

Limited Stop Routes

WEEKDAY Weekday Service Periods ROUTE PEAK Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM & 304 13.7 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM 321 13.3 328 9.9 Legend: 330 13.0 Below standard Standard 15.0 No Service

22 10.a

Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time Period FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

Light Rail

WEEKDAY ROUTE PEAK MIDDAY OFF PEAK TOTAL Weekday Service Periods 900* 57.3 61.6 24.3 51.9 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM & 901* 89.0 141.9 31.2 91.8 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM 902* 68.1 119.3 54.1 75.2 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM Standard 71.5 107.6 36.5 73.0 Off Peak 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM

SATURDAY ROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL Saturday Service Periods 900* 52.9 59.3 44.0 53.7 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 901* 57.8 84.3 50.4 66.2 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 902* 69.3 99.9 105.9 88.1 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM Standard 60.0 81.2 66.8 69.3

SUNDAY ROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL Sunday Service Periods 900* 42.1 51.3 33.3 44.1 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 901* 52.6 91.0 37.0 63.4 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 902* 60.6 120.3 43.3 74.7 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM Standard 51.8 87.5 37.9 60.7 Legend: Below standard No Service * Line 900 is the Ohlone/Chynoweth – Almaden line * Line 901 is the Alum Rock to Santa Teresa Line * Line 902 is the Mountain View to Winchester Line.

23 10.a

Paratransit Operating Statistics 10.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY PARATRANSIT OPERATING STATISTICS FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report FYTD 2016 FYTD 2015 Percent Jul' 15-Dec' 15 Jul' 14-Dec' 14 Change RIDERSHIP Clients 266,018 255,590 4.1% Attendants 48,085 60,910 -21.1% Companions 33,234 46,465 -28.5% Total Ridership 347,337 362,965 -4.3% Average Weekday Trips 2,415 2,558 -5.6% Average Weekday Client Trips 1,867 1,794 4.1% Active Clients 6,246 6,175 1.1% Average Trips per Client 42.6 41.4 2.9% PREMIUM SERVICES Same Day Trips 1,244 699 78.0% Second Vehicles 65 88 -26.1% Open Returns 110 149 -26.2% Service Area Surcharge Trips 1,600 1,474 8.5% Subscription Trips 43,232 46,367 -6.8% Total 46,251 48,777 -5.2% LEVEL OF SERVICE Revenue Miles 3,094,384 2,981,643 3.8% Revenue Hours 142,428 141,233 0.8% Passenger Miles (NTD) 3,370,060 3,486,502 -3.3% ELIGIBILITY Total Data Cards Received 3,374 3,396 -0.6% New Applicants Certified 1,234 1,101 12.1% New Applicants Denied 227 275 -17.5% Clients Recertified 1,296 1,217 6.5% Clients Denied Recertification 232 344 -32.6% Total Eligibility Assessments 2,989 2,937 1.8% Denial Rate 15.4% 21.1% 0.0% EXPENSES AND REVENUES EXPENSES Eligibility Certification Costs $303,437 $310,541 -2.3% Broker Costs $3,037,763 $3,137,228 -3.2% Vendor Costs $7,945,245 $6,846,043 16.1% Total Operating Costs $11,286,445 $10,293,812 9.6% REVENUES Client Fare $1,001,551 $971,238 3.1% Other Fare $468,249 $682,609 -31.4% Non-VTA Broker Revenue $2,488 $7,571 -67.1% Total Revenue $1,472,288 $1,661,417 -11.4% Net Expenses $9,814,157 $8,632,394 13.7% Fare Recovery Rate 13.0% 16.1% -18.9% Capital Expenses $55,810 $46,040 21.2% Total Expenses $9,869,967 $8,678,434 13.7% COST PER PASSENGER TRIP (excludes capital expenses) Total Reported Costs $32.49 $28.36 14.6% Fare Revenue $4.23 $4.56 -7.2% Non-fare revenue $0.01 $0.02 -50.0% Net Cost $28.25 $23.78 18.8%

24 10.a

Glossary 10.a

GLOSSARY

AVERAGE FARE PER BOARDING – This measure is calculated by dividing the total fare revenue (cash, passes, tokens, and Eco Pass) by total boarding riders. It measures the rider contribution towards the farebox recovery ratio.

AVERAGE WEEKDAY BOARDINGS – The average number of persons who board the transit system on a day that normal weekday revenue service is provided.

BOARDINGS PER REVENUE HOUR – This is a productivity measure comparing the number of boardings to the number of revenue hours operated. It measures service utilization per unit of service operated. The Revenue hours is the time when a vehicle is available to the general public to carry passengers. This will include layover but exclude deadheads.

BRT (BUS RAPID TRANSIT) ROUTES – The BRT route is a multi-component transit improvement that includes preferential treatment at traffic signals to improve bus operating speed and on-time performance. It operates in mixed traffic and relies on priority for buses at traffic signals to provide much of its time advantage over conventional buses.

COMMUNITY BUS ROUTES – Community Bus service is characterized by weekday frequencies of 30 minutes or more in both the peak and midday periods. Service span is 14 hours or less, usually 12 hours for weekdays. Community Bus services operate seven days per week or less. These routes are defined as neighborhood-based circulator and feeder routes that travel within a limited area .They may be distinguished from Core and Local service by a unique and smaller vehicle.

CORE ROUTES – Core network routes are defined as bus routes or shared corridors that feature weekday frequencies of 15 minutes or less during the peak and midday periods and/or service spans of 18 hours or more. Core routes operate seven days per week. They typically travel on long distance corridors, which connect major trip generators such as universities, regional shopping malls and high- density housing and employment sites. Multiple core routes will sometimes operate on the same corridor where demand warrants, providing additional service frequency and transfer opportunities. Core network corridors are typically large arterial streets and intersect with freeways and expressways.

DEADHEAD: Time during movement of a transit vehicle without passengers aboard, typically from the operating division to the start of the route.

EXPRESS & LIMITED SERVICE ROUTES – Express routes generally operate during peak periods and are primarily commuter oriented. Midday, evening, and weekend service may be offered on regional express lines. Express routes emphasize direct service, use freeways and expressways to reduce travel time, and make few stops. Limited Service routes are characterized by limited stops.

FEEDER ROUTES – Feeder routes are short-length lines, usually less than 10 miles in length, that provide feeder or distribution service to and from major stops, transit centers, activity centers or rail stations. This classification of service includes neighborhood lines, which link residential areas to rail stations, activity centers, and/or transit centers; and shuttle lines, which serve industrial areas from nearby rail stations or transit centers.

10.a

LAYOVER: Break the driver or the vehicle is given at the end of a trip before it starts operating its reverse route, or if the route is circular, before beginning its next trip

LIMITED STOP ROUTES – Limited-stop service generally operates during peak periods and is primarily commuter oriented. Midday, evening, and weekend service may be offered on limited-stop lines. Limited-stop routes use major arterials, freeways, and/or expressways; and make fewer stops than grid routes, but more stops than express routes.

LOCAL ROUTES – Local network routes are defined as bus routes or corridors that feature weekday frequencies of thirty minutes or more during the peak and midday periods and/or service spans less than 18 hours. Local Network routes operate seven days per week or less. They typically travel on medium distance corridors, serving minor trip generators such as schools, hospitals and medium-density housing and employment. They also provide feeder service to the core network or to rail stations and transit centers.

MILES BETWEEN CHARGEABLE ACCIDENTS – Safety measure that captures the number of total scheduled miles traveled between each occurrence of a preventable accident. A preventable accident is defined as accidents in which the transit driver is normally deemed responsible or partly responsible for the occurrence of the accident.

MILES BETWEEN MECHANICAL SERVICE LOSS – Service quality measure capturing the number of total scheduled miles traveled between each mechanical breakdown that result in a loss of service to the public.

SPECIAL SERVICE ROUTES – Special services routes only operate on certain days of the week or on a seasonal basis to address a specific service need.

NATIONAL TRANSIT DATABASE (NTD) – The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA's) primary national database for statistics on the transit industry. Recipients of FTA’s Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307) grants are required by statute to submit data to the NTD. Each year, NTD performance data are used to apportion over $4 billion of FTA funds to transit agencies in urbanized areas (UZAs). Annual NTD reports are submitted to Congress summarizing transit service and safety data. The NTD is the system through which FTA collects uniform data needed by the Secretary of Transportation to administer department programs. The data consist of selected financial and operating data that describe public transportation characteristics. The legislative requirement for the NTD is found in Title 49 U.S.C. 5335(a).

ON-TIME PERFORMANCE – A reliability measure capturing the percentage of transit vehicles departing or arriving at a location on time. On-time performance is measured only for specific locations called timepoints for which a schedule is published. A bus transit vehicle is considered “on time” if it departs a location within three minutes before and five minutes after its published scheduled time. A light rail transit vehicle is considered “on time” if it departs a location within one minute before and three minutes after its published scheduled time. At the last timepoint location of a trip, early arrival is considered on-time.

PASSENGER CONCERNS PER 100,000 BOARDINGS – A customer service measure that captures the number of passenger complaints/concerns per 100,000 boardings. This measure reports the amount of customer complaints received on the service that is attributed to an operating division.

10.a

PEAK LOAD (Express) - The Express bus standard is 60 percent of the seated vehicle loading capacity. This singular standard is needed due to the special characteristics of Express Bus lines where seat turnover is low.

PERCENT SCHEDULED SERVICE OPERATED – This service reliability measure indicates the percent of service hours completed based on published schedule. A service is considered not completed when scheduled service hours are lost due to equipment failure, missed or late pull-outs caused by operator absenteeism, pullouts, accidents/incidents, or natural causes.

PERSONAL TIME OFF (PTO) – This is defined as time off for non-scheduled absences such as: sick, industrial injury, FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act.), excused/unexcused leave, union business, and suspensions.

REVENUE HOURS: Time when a vehicle is available to the general public to carry passengers. This will include layover but exclude deadhead.

STANDARD (Boardings per revenue Hour): This is the average boardings per Revenue Hour and applies to Community Bus, Local, BRT, and Light Rail. The minimum standard is 15 boardings per revenue hour.

TOTAL BOARDINGS – The total number of boarding riders using VTA directly operated bus service and light rail service. Riders are counted each time they board a bus or light rail vehicle.

Date: March 1, 2016 Current Meeting: March 9, 2016 Board Meeting: April 7, 2016

BOARD MEMORANDUM

TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Citizens Advisory Committee

THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez

FROM: Director of Government Affairs, Jim Lawson

SUBJECT: Legislative Update Matrix

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

BACKGROUND:

The Legislative Update Matrix describes the key bills that are being considered by the California State Legislature during the second year of the 2015-2016 regular session, as well as during the special session called by Gov. Jerry Brown to address issues related to transportation funding. The matrix indicates the status of these measures and any VTA positions with regard to them.

DISCUSSION:

Transportation Funding Special Session: Conversations continue to take place behind the scenes to try to figure out how to merge three separate transportation funding proposals-SBX1-1 (Beall), AB 1591 (Frazier) and Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan-into one package that has a chance of obtaining the two-thirds majority vote needed to pass both the Assembly and Senate, and that the Governor would be willing to sign into law.

Progress continues to be slow. On a positive note, lawmakers appear to be coalescing around a number of key principles, including: (1) an emphasis on “fix-it-first” investments for state highways and local streets/roads; (2) the need to provide some level of ongoing funding for mobility improvements in critical goods movement corridors; (3) accelerated repayment of the outstanding balances of prior-year loans that were made to the General Fund from various transportation accounts; (4) some form of a constitutional amendment to protect transportation revenues; (5) a limited exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for roadway improvements occurring within existing rights-of-way; (6) an extension of existing statutory authority to utilize public-private partnerships for transportation projects; and (7) Caltrans efficiency improvements.

However, significant areas of disagreement still remain. In particular, the Assembly and Senate

3331 North First Street ∙ San Jose, CA 95134-1927 ∙ Administration 408.321.5555 ∙ Customer Service 408.321.2300 11

GOP caucuses are holding firm in their opposition to any transportation funding package that would impose new taxes or fees. Instead, they have countered with their own measures that call for using existing revenues dedicated to other purposes for state highways and local streets/roads, including cap-and-trade auction proceeds, funding for building the state’s high-speed rail system, vehicle weight fee revenues that are currently being transferred from the State Highway Account to the General Fund to pay general obligation bond debt service, and General Fund surpluses. Moderate Democrats in both the Assembly and Senate also appear to be reluctant to vote for any tax or fee increases. Many represent competitive districts and are expected to face strong Republican challengers in their re-election bids this year.

Variable Gas Tax: The variable gas tax continues to cause problems for transportation funding. The variable gas tax is a product of the complex transportation funding swap that was enacted by the Legislature in 2010-2011. Under the swap, the state’s share of the sales tax on gasoline was eliminated and replaced with a variable excise tax that the Board of Equalization is required to adjust annually to ensure that the same amount of money is being generated as by the former sales tax. Revenues derived from the variable gas tax are allocated 44 percent to cities and counties for local streets and roads; 44 percent to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); and 12 percent to the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP).

Last year, the Board of Equalization, as required under current law, lowered the variable gas tax rate by 6 cents per gallon because of the decline in fuel prices, resulting in a loss of $876 million in transportation funding in FY 2016. This action, which represented a 33 percent reduction, came on the heels of 3-cent-per-gallon cut in the variable gas tax rate that the Board of Equalization made in FY 2015. For the upcoming fiscal year, the Board of Equalization recently announced that it would have to lower the rate by another 2.2 cents per gallon, effective July 1, 2016, which will cost transportation another $328 million in lost revenues.

Meanwhile, the CTC is in the process of developing the 2016 STIP, which will cover FY 2017 through FY 2021. Currently, the variable gas tax is the only source of revenues for the STIP. The Fund Estimate for the 2016 STIP prepared by Caltrans takes into account the loss of revenues resulting from current and potentially future downward adjustments to the variable gas tax rate by the Board of Equalization. According to the Fund Estimate, there is no capacity to add any new projects to the 2016 STIP. In fact, with the reduction in funding, the STIP actually is over-programmed by $754 million, meaning that some projects that were programmed in the 2014 STIP may have to be deleted in order to bring the 2016 STIP into balance, if the Legislature does not take steps to fix this problem as part of a transportation funding package

All three transportation funding proposals -- SBX1-1 (Beall), AB 1591 (Frazier) and Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan -- attempt to address the volatility of the variable gas tax in the same way. They propose to: (1) end the Board of Equalization’s annual adjustments; (2) convert the variable rate to a fix rate (18 cents per gallon under the Governor’s plan versus 17.3 cents per gallon under SBX1-1 and AB 1591); and (3) index the rate to inflation to maintain purchasing power. Indexing would occur annually under the Gov. Brown’s plan, and every three years under SBX1- 1 and AB 1591. So far, this approach has not gained the support of Assembly or Senate Republicans, who consider it to be a tax increase.

Page 2 of 5 11

Then there is SB 321 (Beall), which continues to linger on the Senate Floor. Addressing the problem in a completely different way, this bill calls for changing the methodology used by the Board of Equalization to set the rate for the variable gas tax. While SB 321 would not eliminate downward adjustments to the rate, it would substantially “smooth out” the impact of any adjustments and, thus, reduce the volatility of this revenue stream.

New Bills: The deadline for Senators and Assemblymembers to introduce new pieces of legislation was February 19, 2016. More than 2,000 bills were introduced. Transportation- related measures of interest include the following:

 AB 1640 (Stone): States that public transit employees hired between January 1, 2013, and December 30, 2014, are exempt from the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA). This bill seeks to clarify that the retirement status of public transit employees hired while the issue of whether PEPRA violated a provision in federal law known colloquially as Section 13(c) was being litigated was not intended to change when the court rendered its decision on December 30, 2014.

 AB 1641 (Allen): Allows a public transit agency to permit private shuttles to stop to load or unload passengers alongside any curb spaces designated for users of the agency’s buses.

 AB 1746 (Stone): Authorizes VTA and five other agencies, with the concurrence of Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol (CHP), to operate buses on the shoulders of state highways in order to minimize congestion-related interruptions of service, and to improve travel times for public transit relative to cars in a manner that is low-cost and easy to implement.

 AB 1889 (Mullin): Declares the intent of the Legislature to enact a bill to provide the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) with the necessary tools to explore options that will help Caltrain obtain a dedicated source of funding.

 AB 2034 (Salas) and SB 902 (Cannella): Extend indefinitely the statutory authorization for Caltrans to participate in a federal program that allows states to assume the responsibilities of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

 AB 2090 (Alejo): Allows a public transit agency to use its formula share of Low Carbon Transit Operations Program funding to support the operation of existing bus or rail service if: (1) the governing board of the agency declares a fiscal emergency; (2) the agency would otherwise be required to reduce or eliminate the service; and (3) the governing board makes a finding that the service reduction or elimination would increase greenhouse gas emissions.

 AB 2222 (Holden): Beginning in FY 2017, continuously appropriates $50 million per year in cap-and-trade auction proceeds to Caltrans to be allocated to support programs that provide free or reduced-fare public transit passes to public school, community

Page 3 of 5 11

college, California State University, and University of California students.

 AB 2332 (E. Garcia): Requires the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to establish a process whereby Caltrans and local agencies receiving funding for highway improvements from the SHOPP or STIP prioritize projects that provide meaningful benefits to the mobility and safety needs of disadvantaged communities.

 AB 2374 (Chiu): Clarifies that regional transportation agencies, including VTA, may use the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) project delivery method to design and construct projects on expressways and roadway ramps that are not on the state highway system.

 SB 824 (Beall): Puts in place more tools and flexibility to allow public transit agencies to more effectively and efficiently manage and utilize their formula shares under the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program. For example, this measure would allow a public transit agency to: (1) “bank” its formula share, so that it can accumulate a sufficient amount of money to use for a larger project at a later date; (2) loan its formula share to another eligible recipient that has a project that it is trying to advance, but cannot fully fund with its own share; (3) enter into an agreement with a group of other eligible recipients to “pool” their respective formula shares into one larger pot of money that the group would share; or (4) obtain a Letter of No Prejudice (LONP), thereby allowing the agency to advance its project using local dollars and to be reimbursed with Low Carbon Transit Operations Program funds when they become available.

 SB 882 (Hertzberg): Prohibits a public transit agency from charging a minor with an infraction or misdemeanor for acts of fare evasion.

 SB 998 (Wieckowski): Prohibits a motorist from parking, stopping, leaving, or driving his or her vehicle in roadway lanes that have been designated for the exclusive use of public transit buses.

 SB 1128 (Glazer): Eliminates the January 1, 2017, sunset date, and indefinitely extends provisions in current law that authorize the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to jointly adopt a regional commute benefit ordinance requiring certain employers to offer their workers one of three specified commute benefits.

 SB 1320 (Runner): Excludes the CTC from the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and, instead, establishes the commission as a separate entity in state government to act in an independent oversight role.

Under the Legislature’s rules of procedure, a bill, once introduced, must be in print for 30 days before it can be scheduled for a hearing, meaning that the first round of Assembly and Senate policy committee meetings probably will not occur until late March or early April.

Prepared By: Kurt Evans, Government Affairs Manager

Page 4 of 5 11

Memo No. 5301

Page 5 of 5 11.a LEGISLATIVE UPDATE MATRIX

2015 1B - 2016 State Legislative Session

2BFebruary 19, 2016

2016 Regular Session Calendar

DAY JANUARY4B DAY JUNE8B 1 Statutes signed into law in 2015 take effect. Last day for bills introduced in 2016 to be passed out of their house of 3 4 Legislature reconvenes. origin. 10 Budget must be submitted by the Governor to the Legislature on or before 15 Budget must be passed by midnight. this date. Last day for legislative measures to qualify for placement on November 8 30 15 Last day for policy committees to hear and report fiscal bills introduced in general election ballot. their house of origin in 2015.

14B 22 Last day for any committee to hear and report to the floor bills introduced in DAY JULY9B their house of origin in 2015. 1 Last day for policy committees to hear and report bills introduced in the 22 Last day to submit bill requests to the Legislative Counsel’s Office. other house. Summer Recess begins upon adjournment, provided that the 31 Last day for bills introduced in 2015 to be passed out of their house of Budget Bill has been enacted. origin.

DAY AUGUST10B

DAY FEBRUARY5B 1 Legislature reconvenes from Summer Recess. 19 Last day for new bills to be introduced. 12 Last day for fiscal committees to hear and report to the floor bills

introduced in the other house. DAY MARCH 19 Last day to amend bills on the Assembly and Senate floors. 17 Spring Recess begins upon adjournment. 31 Last day for each house to pass bills. Final Recess begins at the end of this 28 Legislature reconvenes from Spring Recess. day’s session.

DAY DAY 11B APRIL6B SEPTEMBER 22 Last day for policy committees to hear and report fiscal bills introduced in 30 Last day for the Governor to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature their house of origin in 2016. before September 1, and in his possession on or after September 1.

DAY 12B DAY MAY7B DECEMBER 6 Last day for policy committees to hear and report to the floor non-fiscal bills 5 2017-2018 Regular Session convenes. introduced in their house of origin in 2016.

27 Last day for fiscal committees to hear and report to the floor bills introduced in their house of origin in 2016.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 1 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Bills

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 4 Until January 1, 2020, prohibits vehicle weight fee revenues from being used to pay debt service on As Assembly Support (Linder) transportation-related, general obligation bonds or from being loaned to the General Fund. Introduced Transportation Vehicle Weight Fee Committee: Revenues Failed Passage AB 6 Specifies that no further bonds shall be sold for high-speed rail purposes pursuant to the Safe, As Assembly (Wilk) Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century (Proposition 1A), except as Introduced Transportation High-Speed Rail: specifically provided with respect to an existing appropriation for early improvement projects Committee: Bond Funding related to the Phase I blended system. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, requires the unspent Failed Passage proceeds received from outstanding bonds issued and sold for high-speed rail purposes prior to the effective date of the provisions of this bill to be redirected to retiring the debt incurred from the issuance and sale of those outstanding bonds. Allows the remaining unissued bonds, as of the effective date of the provisions of this bill, that were authorized for high-speed rail purposes to be issued and sold. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, requires the net proceeds from the sale of these remaining unissued bonds to be made available to fund the construction of school facilities for K-12 and higher education. Makes no changes to the authorization under Proposition 1A for the issuance of $950 million in bonds for rail purposes other than high-speed rail. AB 12 By January 1, 2018, requires each state agency to do all of the following: (1) review all provisions 8/19/15 Senate (Cooley) of the California Code of Regulations adopted by that state agency; (2) identify any regulations Appropriations State Agency that are duplicative, overlapping, inconsistent, or out-of-date; and (3) adopt, amend or repeal Committee Regulations regulations to reconcile or eliminate any duplication, overlap, inconsistencies, or out-of-date provisions. AB 23 Prohibits the inclusion of suppliers of transportation fuels in the cap-and-trade system administered As Assembly (Patterson) by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Applies the provisions of the bill retroactively Introduced Natural Cap-and-Trade: from January 1, 2015. Resources Transportation Fuels Committee: Failed Passage AB 24 Requires a transportation network company to do all of the following: (1) participate in the 4/22/15 Assembly (Nazarian) Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) pull-notice system to regularly check the driving records of Appropriations Transportation all participating drivers; (2) register any vehicle used to transport passengers for compensation Committee: Network Companies: with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and display an identifying symbol Failed Passage Public Safety prescribed by the CPUC on the vehicle; and (3) provide for a mandatory controlled substance and Requirements alcohol testing certification program as adopted by the CPUC. Requires drivers hired or initially retained by a transportation network company on or after January 1, 2016, to be subject to mandatory drug and alcohol testing prior to employment or retention. For drivers hired or initially retained before January 1, 2016, requires a drug and alcohol test to be completed before January 1, 2017.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 2 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 51 Allows a motorcycle that has two wheels in contact with the ground to be driven between rows of 5/22/15 Senate (Quirk) stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane, including both divided and undivided streets, roads or Transportation Motorcycles: Lane highways, if both of the following conditions are present: (1) the motorcycle is not driven at a & Housing Splitting speed of more than 50 miles per hour (mph); and (2) the motorcycle is not driven more than 15 Committee mph faster than the speed of traffic moving in the same direction. Specifies that the provisions of the bill do not authorize a motorcycle to be driven in contravention of other laws relating to the safe operation of a vehicle. AB 61 Allows a public transit agency, by ordinance or resolution, to permit the vehicles of a private 4/20/15 Assembly (Allen) shuttle service provider to stop for the loading or unloading of its passengers alongside any or all Transportation Private Shuttles curb spaces designated for the passengers of the public transit agency’s buses. States that it is not Committee: the intent of the Legislature to replace public transit service. Failed Passage AB 102 Requires the Office of Emergency Services to develop a state regional railroad and surface 3/26/15 Assembly (Rodriguez) transportation accident preparedness and immediate response plan. Requires the office to Environmental Railroad and Surface biennially review the training of all emergency response personnel with responsibilities along rail Safety & Toxic Transportation Safety lines and other surface transportation routes to ascertain the level of readiness to respond to an Materials and Emergency accident involving hazardous materials. As part of this review, requires the office to determine Committee: Planning where there are gaps in the ability to respond to spills of hazardous materials in California, and to Failed Passage specify what is required to continue funding the training and response teams to close those gaps. Creates the Regional Railroad and Surface Transportation Accident Preparedness and Immediate Response Force within the Office of Emergency Services. Requires the force to be responsible for providing regional and onsite response capabilities in the event of: (1) a release of hazardous materials from a rail car, or a railroad accident involving a rail car; or (2) a hazardous materials release from a truck accident. Requires the Office of Emergency Services to establish a schedule of fees to be impose on any person owning hazardous materials that are transported by rail or surface transportation in California. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, requires the revenues generated by these fees to be used for purposes related to the transportation of hazardous materials. Requires every person who operates a railroad that transports hazardous materials by rail car to register with the Board of Equalization.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 3 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 156 Requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to prepare and post on its Internet Web site a 8/18/15 Senate (Perea) report on the projects being funded with cap-and-trade auction proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Appropriations Cap-and-Trade: Reduction Fund. Requires this report to include all of the following: (1) a general description of Committee Disadvantaged each project; (2) the location where each project will be implemented; (3) the estimated date of Communities completion of each project; (4) the amount awarded to each project; and (5) the status of any Technical Assistance revenues in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund not awarded to projects and the reasons why those Program moneys have not been awarded. Upon an appropriation of cap-and-trade auction proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, requires CARB to establish a comprehensive technical assistance program for eligible applicants assisting disadvantaged communities that CARB determines require technical assistance in accessing programs funded with cap-and-trade auction proceeds. Requires this program to provide assistance to eligible applicants with regard to any of the following: (1) identifying state agencies with appropriate grant programs; (2) developing competitive project proposals to apply for cap-and-trade funding available through state agencies; (3) coordinating existing local programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with new programs receiving cap-and- trade funding; or (4) conducting community outreach to residents of disadvantaged communities that CARB determines require such assistance. Requires the technical assistance provided pursuant to the bill to promote programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and demonstrate a direct, meaningful benefit to disadvantaged communities. AB 239 Beginning January 1, 2016, prohibits the California Air Resources Board (CARB) from adopting or As Assembly (Gallagher) amending regulations pursuant to the Global Warming Solutions Act. Authorizes CARB to submit Introduced Natural Global Warming to the Legislature recommendations on how to achieve the goals of the act. Resources Solutions Act: Committee: Regulations Failed Passage

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 4 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 318 If a lost or unclaimed item worth $100 or more in value is found on a vehicle or the property of a 6/11/15 Senate Judiciary (Chau) public transit agency, requires the person who found the item to turn it in to the public transit Committee Lost Items Found on agency, rather than to law enforcement. Provides 90 days for the owner of the item to reclaim it Public Transit from the public transit agency. Allows the public transit agency to require payment by the owner Property of a reasonable charge to defray the costs of storage and care of the property. If the reported value of the item is $250 or more, and no owner appears and proves his or her ownership of the item within 90 days, requires the public transit agency to cause notice of the item to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation. If, after seven days, no owner appears and proves his or her ownership of the item, and the person who found or saved the item pays the cost of the publication, provides that the title shall vest in that person. If the item was found in the course of employment by an employee of the public transit agency, requires the item to be sold at public auction. If the reported value of the item is less than $250, and no owner appears and proves his or her ownership of the item within 90 days, provides that the title shall vest in the person who found the item. If the item was found in the course of employment by an employee of the public transit agency, requires the item to be sold at public auction. Applies all of the following with respect to lost or unclaimed bicycles turned in to or held by a public transit agency: (1) if the owner of a bicycle appears within 45 days after receipt by the public transit agency, proves his or her ownership, and pays all reasonable charges, requires the public transit agency to restore the bicycle to the owner; (2) if the bicycle remains unclaimed after 45 days, allows the public transit agency to dispose of it by sale at a public auction to the highest bidder; (3) requires the public transit agency to give notice of the sale at least five days prior to the auction by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the bicycle was found; (4) if a bicycle remains unsold after the auction, allows the public transit agency to destroy or otherwise dispose of it; and (5) allows a public transit agency to donate an unclaimed bicycle after 45 days to a charitable organization if the agency’s board of directors holds a public hearing to determine the organization that would receive the bicycle and the agency provides notice at least five days prior to the donation by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the agency operates. Prohibits a public transit agency from donating unclaimed bicycles more than two times per calendar year. Provides that the number of bicycles donated shall not exceed 25 percent of the total number of lost or unclaimed bicycles found or saved by the public transit agency during the prior six months. Requires any public transit agency that donates unclaimed bicycles to a charitable organization pursuant to the provisions of this bill to submit a report, as specified, to the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees by January 1, 2020. Repeals all of the provisions of the bill on January 1, 2021.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 5 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 338 In addition to any other tax that it is authorized to impose or has imposed, allows the Los Angeles 4/13/15 Senate (R. Hernandez) County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) to impose a transactions and use tax at Transportation LA Metro: Local the rate of 0.5 percent for a period not to exceed 30 years that would be applicable in the & Housing Transportation Sales incorporated and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. Requires the ordinance imposing Committee Taxes the tax to contain the following: (1) an expenditure plan that lists the transportation projects and programs to be funded from net revenues from the tax; (2) a requirement that the expenditure plan include measures to ensure that net revenues are share equitably between regions of the county; (3) a provision limiting LA Metro’s costs of administering the ordinance and the net revenues from the tax to 1.5 percent of the total tax revenues; (4) a requirement that the net revenues from the tax, defined to mean the total tax revenues less any refunds, costs of administration by the state Board of Equalization and LA Metro’s administrative costs, be used to fund the transportation projects and programs identified in the expenditure plan; (4) a requirement that LA Metro, during the period that the ordinance is operative, allocate 20 percent of all net revenues from the tax for operating costs associated with bus service provided by LA Metro and the municipal transit operators in Los Angeles County; and (5) a requirement that LA Metro, during the period that the ordinance is operative, allocate 5 percent of all net revenues from the tax for rail operations. Requires LA Metro to notify the Legislature prior to taking action on any amendments to the adopted expenditure plan. Provides that the ordinance shall become operative if approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate in Los Angeles County. Authorizes LA Metro to incur bonded indebtedness payable from the net revenues of the tax. AB 378 Requires Caltrans, in coordination with the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo 1/4/16 Assembly (Mullin) County and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, to create an integrated corridor Transportation US 101 Corridor management team to consider transportation projects addressing congestion relief in the US 101 Committee: Corridor located in San Mateo County. Failed Passage AB 397 Specifies that no further bonds shall be sold for high-speed rail purposes pursuant to the Safe, 4/14/15 Assembly (Mathis) Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century (Proposition 1A), except as Transportation High-Speed Rail: specifically provided with respect to an existing appropriation for early improvement projects Committee: Bond Funding related to the Phase I blended system. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, requires the unspent Failed Passage proceeds received from outstanding bonds issued and sold for high-speed rail purposes prior to the effective date of the provisions of this bill to be redirected to retiring the debt incurred from the issuance and sale of those outstanding bonds. Allows the remaining unissued bonds, as of the effective date of the provisions of this bill, that were authorized for high-speed rail purposes to be issued and sold. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, requires the net proceeds from the sale of these remaining unissued bonds to be made available to fund the construction of water capital projects, including desalination facilities, wastewater treatment and recycling facilities, reservoirs, water conveyance infrastructure, and aquifer recharge. Makes no changes to the authorization under Proposition 1A for the issuance of $950 in bonds for rail purposes other than high-speed rail.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 6 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 457 Requires the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to prepare and submit a report to the 3/26/15 Assembly (Melendez) Legislature every two years, as opposed to annually, on the progress of the development and Transportation Express Lanes: CTC operation of express lanes that the commission previously approved for implementation by the Committee: Reporting Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Riverside County Transportation Failed Passage Requirements Commission (RCTC). AB 516 No later than January 1, 2018, requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to develop and 7/16/15 Senate Floor Support (Mullin) implement an operational system that allows a vehicle dealer or lessor-retailer to electronically Temporary License report the sale of a vehicle and provide a temporary license plate. Requires the dealer or lessor- Plates retailer to attach a temporary license plate at the point of sale. Allows a vehicle to operate with temporary license plates until either: (1) the permanent license plates and registration card are received by the vehicle owner; or (2) 90 days have lapsed from the vehicle’s selling date. Allows a vehicle to continue to display a report-of-sale form or temporary license plates after 90 days if the owner has not yet received the permanent license plates, and provides proof that he or she has submitted an application to the DMV. Requires the DMV to assess a fee for the recording of notices of delinquent parking and toll evasion violations given to the department by a processing agency that is sufficient to provide a total amount equal to at least its actual costs related to administering the electronic report-of-sale and temporary license plate system. Beginning January 1, 2018, authorizes vehicle dealers to raise their document processing fees by $10. In addition, allows vehicle dealers to impose an electronic filing charge for reporting vehicle sales and producing temporary license plates. Specifies that it is a felony for a person to alter, forge, counterfeit, or falsify a temporary license plate. AB 518 Eliminates a requirement in existing law for Caltrans to annually compile information and report to As Assembly (Frazier) the Legislature on the number of projects for which an agreement to transfer funds to a local or Introduced Transportation Caltrans Reporting regional agency was not executed within 90 days from the date on which the California Committee: Requirements Transportation Commission (CTC) approved an allocation request for the project, as well as the Failed Passage reasons for that occurrence. AB 528 Prohibits the employees of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) from engaging in a strike As Assembly Public (Baker) or work stoppage if the BART Board of Directors maintains the compensation and benefit Introduced Employees, BART Employees: provisions of an expired contract, and an employee or union has agreed to a provision prohibiting Retirement & Strike Prohibition strikes in the expired or previous written labor contract. Provides that an employee whom BART Social Security finds willfully engaged in a strike or work stoppage in violation of the provisions of this bill is Committee: subject to dismissal if that finding is sustained upon conclusion of the appropriate proceedings Failed Passage necessary for the imposition of a disciplinary action.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 7 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 590 Allows cap-and-trade auction proceeds deposited into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to be 7/9/15 Senate (Dahle) made available to the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, upon Appropriations Cap-and-Trade: appropriation by the Legislature, for purposes related to maintaining the current level of biomass Committee Biomass Power power generation and geothermal energy generation in California, and revitalizing currently idle Generation facilities in strategically located regions. To be eligible for funding, requires a generation facility to satisfy all of the following: (1) the energy is generated on and after January 1, 2016; (2) the energy is generated using biomass wood wastes and residues or geothermal resources, and is sold to a load-serving entity; (3) the energy is generated at a facility with a generation capacity of more than three megawatts; and (4) the energy is generated within California and sold to customers within the state. In prioritizing projects for funding, requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to maximize the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions achieved by a project for each dollar awarded. Working in consultation with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to ensure that projects receiving funding achieve net reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. AB 620 Requires the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) to take 1/27/16 Senate Rules (R. Hernandez) additional steps to increase enrollment and participation in its existing low-income assistance Committee LA Metro Express program related to its I-10 and I-110 express lanes. In this regard, requires LA Metro to improve Lanes: Low-Income the awareness of the program through advertising, and by working with local community groups Assistance Program and social service agencies to distribute information about the program. Requires LA Metro to consider offering greater incentives to encourage participation in the program. AB 645 Pursuant to the California Renewables Portfolio Standard, requires the California Public Utilities As Senate (Williams) Commission (CPUC), by January 1, 2017, to establish the quantity of electricity products from Introduced Appropriations Electricity: California eligible renewable energy resources to be procured by each retail seller for specified compliance Committee Renewables Portfolio periods sufficient to ensure that the procurement of electricity products from these resources Standard achieves 50 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2030. Requires the quantities to reflect reasonable progress in each of the intervening years sufficient to ensure that the procurement of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources achieves 25 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2016; 33 percent by December 31, 2020; 38 percent by December 31, 2023; 44 percent by December 31, 2026; and 50 percent by December 31, 2030. Requires the CPUC to require retail sellers to procure not less than 50 percent of retail sales of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources in all subsequent years.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 8 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 678 Requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB), in conjunction with the State Energy 8/18/15 Senate (O’Donnell) Resources Conservation and Development Commission, to develop and implement an Energy Appropriations Energy Efficiency and Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Reductions Ports Program. Provides that the purpose of this Committee Greenhouse Gas program is to fund energy efficiency upgrades and investments at public ports that help reduce the Reductions Ports emissions of criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants and greenhouse gases. Authorizes CARB to Program expend cap-and-trade auction proceeds that it receives from an appropriation from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to implement the program. In order to receive funding from the program for energy-related projects, requires a port to develop and adopt, in consultation with the respective electric utility providing service to the port, an energy plan. Requires a port’s energy plan to be approved by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission. Provides that the plan shall: (1) adhere to the state’s preferred energy loading order; and (2) require benchmarking for energy retrofit projects and reporting of measurable energy savings. In prioritizing projects for funding, requires CARB to consider the extent to which a project would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide environmental and public health co-benefits, including improved air and water quality. AB 720 For any market-based compliance mechanism that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) As Assembly (Cooley) might adopt pursuant to the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires CARB to allow Introduced Natural Cap-and-Trade: participating entities to freely sell or transfer greenhouse gas emissions allowances held in a Resources Market-Based holding account or compliance account, except for allowances that have been expressly retired to Committee: Compliance meet a compliance obligation. In addition, requires CARB to set a price cap on any allowances Failed Passage Mechanisms offered for purchase through the board. AB 742 Prohibits the California Air Resources Board (CARB) from enforcing regulations relating to the 1/4/16 Assembly (Gallagher) reduction of emissions of diesel particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen and other criteria pollutants Transportation Heavy-Duty Diesel- from in-use diesel-fueled vehicles until CARB receives from an independent private firm a Committee: Fueled Vehicles completed study of the safety of any particulate-matter filters required to be installed on those Failed Passage affected vehicles. AB 754 States the intent of the Legislature to enact a bill to provide tax relief to small businesses in Los As Assembly Desk: (Ridley-Thomas) Angeles County during periods of disruption caused by transit-related construction activities Introduced Failed Passage Small Business Tax conducted by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) that Relief in LA County result in decreased business revenues.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 9 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 779 Makes a number of modifications to state statutes pertaining to congestion management programs 8/19/15 Senate (Garcia) (CMPs). Eliminates the requirement that an infill opportunity zone must be located within one-half Transportation Congestion mile of a major transit stop and, instead, allows a city or county to designate an area as an infill & Housing Management Programs opportunity zone if it is a transit priority area within a sustainable communities strategy or Committee alternative planning strategy adopted by the applicable metropolitan planning organization (MPO). Replaces traffic level of service standards within a CMP with “measures of effectiveness” established for a system of highways and roadways designed by the congestion management agency (CMA). Requires the performance element of a CMP to include performance measures that support greenhouse gas emissions reduction objectives, as well as mobility, air quality, land-use, and economic objectives. Requires the land-use element of a CMP to analyze the relationship between land-use decisions made by local jurisdictions and regional transportation systems, instead of analyzing the impacts of local land-use decisions on regional transportation systems. If the capital improvement program (CIP) element of a CMP includes capacity enhancement projects, requires the CIP to evaluate the potential for those enhancement projects to induce additional travel. Requires a CMA to develop a uniform data base on transportation conditions for use in a countywide transportation computer model, instead of a uniform data base on traffic impacts. At least biennially, requires a CMA to determine if the applicable county and cities are conforming to its CMP, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) achieving performance standards for the transportation system as provided in the performance element of the CMP; (2) adoption and implementation of a program to analyze the relationship between land-use decisions and the regional transportation system; and (3) adoption and implementation of a deficiency plan, if required. Requires a city or county to prepare a deficiency plan if the CMA determines that it is not conforming with the CMP. Regarding the preparation of a deficiency plan, adds the following to the list of exclusions from an analysis of the cause of a deficiency: (1) traffic generated by any mixed-use development located within a transit priority project area or infill opportunity zone; (2) traffic generated by any transit priority project, as defined; and (3) improvements to facilities for bicyclists, pedestrians and public transportation. Specifies that the CMP statutes shall not be interpreted to require a local agency to implement improvements to reduce delay at intersections or roadway segments that the local agency determines would impede the development of a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner set forth in the circulation element of the local agency’s general plan. AB 828 Until January 1, 2018, excludes any motor vehicle operated in connection with a transportation 7/14/15 Senate Energy, (Low) network company from the definition of “commercial vehicle” if the vehicle: (1) is operated only Utilities & Regulated for passenger service; (2) is limited to seven passengers, not including the driver; (3) is operated Communications Transportation exclusively by the person to whom it is registered or insured; (4) is not a paratransit vehicle; (5) is Committee Services not operated for public transit services; and (6) is not operated for school bus services. Requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to conduct an investigation to consider whether existing statutes and regulations relating to transportation services meet the public interest, encourage innovation, and create a fair and competitive transportation market between companies that provide regulated transportation services. Requires the CPUC to complete this investigation, and report its conclusions and recommendations to the Legislature by January 1, 2017.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 10 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 869 For those public transit agencies that use an administrative adjudication process for fare evasion 6/18/15 Senate Floor (Cooper) and passenger misconduct violations, provides that a person who fails to pay the administrative Fare Evasion and penalty when due or to have the violation dismissed may be subject to criminal penalties. Requires Prohibited Conduct on the public transit agency to include in the notice of fare evasion or passenger misconduct a printed Transit Vehicles statement indicating that the person may be charged with an infraction or misdemeanor if the administrative penalty is not paid when due or is not dismissed. Requires the public transit agency to dismiss the original notice of fare evasion or passenger misconduct, and to make no further attempts to collect the administrative penalty if the person is charged with an infraction or misdemeanor after failing to pay the administrative penalty or failing to successfully complete the administrative adjudication process. Requires the public transit agency to serve the person charged with an infraction or misdemeanor with a new notice of fare evasion or passenger misconduct that sets forth the criminal violation. AB 875 Allows a low-speed electric bicycle to be operated on a bicycle path or trail; bikeway; bicycle lane; As Assembly (Harper) equestrian trail; or hiking or recreational trail. Defines “low-speed electric bicycle” to mean a two- Introduced Transportation Low-Speed Electric or three-wheeled device that has fully operative pedals for propulsion by human power and has an Committee: Bicycles electric motor that meets all of the following requirements: (1) has a power output of not more than Failed Passage 750 watts; (2) is incapable of propelling the device at a speed of more than 20 miles per hour on a paved level surface when ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds; (3) is incapable of further increasing the speed of the device when human power is used to propel the device faster than 20 miles per hour; and (4) has a weight of not more than 80 pounds. AB 877 Expands the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to 15 members, with one additional ex 3/26/15 Assembly (Chu) officio, non-voting member being appointed by the Assembly Speaker and one additional ex Transportation California officio, non-voting member being appointed by the Senate Rules Committee. States the intent of Committee: Transportation the Legislature to enact a bill to find a revenue stream to supplement the fuel excise tax to provide Failed Passage Commission and additional funding for transportation infrastructure projects in California. Transportation Funding AB 946 Provides that electric vehicle charging infrastructure projects in disadvantaged communities are 4/21/15 Assembly (Ting) eligible for funding under the state’s Alternative and Renewable Fuel Vehicle Technology Appropriations Electric Vehicle Program. Committee: Charging Stations Failed Passage AB 1030 For projects involving hiring that are seeking an allocation of cap-and-trade auction proceeds from 7/7/15 Senate (Ridley-Thomas) the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, requires priority to be given to those projects that support the Appropriations Cap-and-Trade: targeted training and hiring of workers from disadvantaged communities for career-track jobs. Committee Disadvantaged Workers

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 11 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1068 Enacts the Priority Project Parity Act of 2015. By November 15 of each year, authorizes each As Assembly (Allen) member of the Legislature to annually nominate and submit to the Governor one project within his Introduced Natural CEQA: Priority or her respective district as a priority project. Requires the Governor to designate a project as a Resources Projects priority project if all of the following are met: (1) the project will result in at least 100 new or Committee: retained full-time jobs; (2) the project is consistent with an adopted sustainable communities Failed Passage strategy for the region in which the project is located; and (3) the project applicant certifies its intent to remain in the location of the project for a minimum of five years. For purposes of complying with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), allows the environmental impact report (EIR) for a priority project to tier from an earlier EIR completed for the existing or earlier versions of the project. Requires the tiered EIR to be limited to the consideration of significant adverse impacts resulting from the project: (1) that were not previously identified in the earlier EIR; or (2) that were identified in the earlier EIR, but are more severe than previously identified. Provides that a new EIR is not required for a priority project that has already been included in an EIR prepared and certified under CEQA; however, requires the lead agency to prepare an addendum to the prior EIR to explain to the public and other interested stakeholders the manner in which the project had been addressed in the prior EIR. Prohibits a court from staying or enjoining the implementation of a priority project unless the court finds either of the following: (1) the continued implementation of the priority project presents an imminent threat to public health and safety; or (2) the priority project site contains unforeseen important Native American artifacts; or unforeseen important historical, archaeological or ecological values that would be materially, permanently and adversely affected by the continued implementation of the project. AB 1087 Restates that cap-and-trade auction proceeds allocated from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund As Assembly (Grove) for high-speed rail purposes shall be used for the following components of the initial operating Introduced Transportation Cap-and-Trade: segment and Phase 1 blended system as described in the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s Committee: High-Speed Rail 2012 Business Plan: (1) acquisition and construction; (2) environmental review and design; (3) Failed Passage other capital costs; and (4) repayment of any loans made to the High-Speed Rail Authority to fund the project.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 12 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1098 Eliminates traffic level of service standards as an element of a congestion management program, as 3/26/15 Assembly (Bloom) well as the requirement that a city or county prepare a deficiency plan when highway or roadway Transportation Congestion level of service standards are not met. Instead, requires a congestion management program to Committee: Management Programs include, at a minimum, performance measures related to vehicle miles traveled, air emissions, and Failed Passage bicycle, pedestrian and public transit mode share, as determined by the applicable regional agency. Requires the travel demand element of a congestion management program to include a broad range of transportation options. Requires a congestion management program to analyze the interaction between land-use decisions made by local jurisdictions and the regional transportation system. For roadway capacity expansion projects included in the capital improvement program element of a congestion management program, requires an analysis of the potential for induced vehicle travel. Requires the applicable regional agency to evaluate: (1) the consistency between a county congestion management program and the regional transportation plan, including any adopted sustainable communities strategy; and (2) how a county congestion management program contributes to achieving the greenhouse gas emissions reduction target that has been assigned to the region by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). AB 1138 Prohibits the California High-Speed Rail Authority, and the State Public Works Board acting on As Assembly (Patterson) behalf of the authority, from adopting a resolution of necessity to commence an eminent domain Introduced Transportation High-Speed Rail: proceeding to acquire a parcel of real property on a corridor or usable segment of the state’s Committee: Eminent Domain proposed high-speed train system unless the resolution includes both of the following: (1) Failed Passage identification of the sources of all funds that are to be invested in that corridor or usable segment, and the anticipated time of receipt of those funds; and (2) a certification that the authority has completed all necessary project level environmental clearances necessary to proceed to construction of the corridor or usable segment. AB 1160 Beginning January 1, 2016, prohibits a governmental agency from installing an automated traffic 4/14/15 Assembly (Harper) enforcement system. Allows a governmental agency that has an automated traffic enforcement Transportation Automated Traffic system in place on January 1, 2016, to continue to operate the system after that date only if the Committee: Enforcement Systems agency begins conducting a traffic safety study at each intersection where the system is in use to Failed Passage determine whether the system resulted in a reduction in the number of traffic accidents involving failing to stop at a red light or failing to stop at a red light when making a right turn at that intersection. Requires the traffic safety study to be completed by January 1, 2017. If the traffic safety study shows that the use of an automated traffic enforcement system did not reduce the number of traffic accidents occurring at an intersection by a statistically significant number, requires the governmental agency to terminate the use of the system at that intersection no later than January 1, 2018. AB 1169 Requires recipients of state grant funding from the Strategic Growth Council or any of its member 9/4/15 Senate Floor (Gomez) state agencies for a project located in a public place and that provides public benefits to post signs Strategic Growth acknowledging the sources of funds for the project pursuant to guidelines adopted by the council. Council: Signs for If the state funding equals 50 percent or more of the total cost of the project, requires the state Project Funding funding sources to be listed first on the signs.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 13 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1176 Establishes the Advanced Low-Carbon Diesel Fuels Access Program to be administered by the 8/18/15 Senate (Perea) State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, in consultation with the Appropriations Advanced Low- California Air Resources Board (CARB). Specifies that the purpose of the program is to reduce Committee Carbon Diesel Fuels greenhouse gas emissions of diesel motor vehicles by providing capital assistance for projects that Access Program expand advanced low-carbon diesel fueling infrastructure in communities that are disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards and where the greatest air quality impacts can be identified. Requires cap-and-trade auction proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for implementing this program. AB 1179 Requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to prepare and post on its Internet Web site a As Assembly (Rendon) report on the projects being funded with cap-and-trade auction proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Introduced Appropriations Cap-and-Trade: Reduction Fund. Requires the report to include all of the following: (1) a general description of Committee: Reporting each project; (2) the location where each project will be implemented; (3) the estimated date of Failed Passage Requirements completion of each project; (4) the amount awarded to each project; and (5) the status of any revenues in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund not awarded to projects and the reasons why. AB 1265 Extends existing statutory authority for Caltrans and regional transportation agencies, including the 4/29/15 Assembly Support (Perea) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), to utilize public-private partnerships for Appropriations Public-Private transportation infrastructure projects to January 1, 2030. Committee: Partnerships Failed Passage AB 1315 Prohibits a public entity from delegating to a contractor the development of a plan used to prevent 4/21/15 Assembly (Alejo) or reduce water pollution or runoff on a public works contract. Appropriations Public Contracts: Committee: Water Pollution Failed Passage Prevention Plans

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 14 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1335 Enacts the Building Homes and Jobs Act. Beginning January 1, 2016, imposes a fee of $75 to be 6/3/15 Assembly Floor: (Atkins) paid at the time of recording of every real estate instrument, paper or notice required or permitted Failed Passage Building Homes and by law to be recorded per each single transaction per single parcel of real property. Specifies that Jobs Act this fee shall not exceed $225. Prohibits the fee from being imposed on any real estate instrument, paper or notice recorded in connection with a transfer of real property that is a residential dwelling to an owner-occupier. Deposits the revenues derived from the fee in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund for expenditure by the Department of Housing and Community Development. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, requires 20 percent of the revenues in the trust fund to be expended for affordable owner-occupied workforce housing, and 10 percent to address affordable homeownership and rental housing opportunities for agricultural workers and their families. Requires the remainder of the money in the trust fund to be expended for the following purposes: (1) the development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of rental housing that is affordable to extremely low-income, very low-income, low-income, and moderate-income households; (2) affordable rental and ownership housing that meets the needs of a growing workforce up to 120 percent of area median income; (3) matching portions of funds placed into local or regional housing trust funds; (4) matching portions of funds available through the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund; (5) capitalized reserves for services connected to the creation of new permanent supportive housing, including developments funded through the Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention Program; (6) emergency shelters, transitional housing and rapid rehousing; (7) accessibility modifications; (8) efforts to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed or vacant homes; and (9) homeownership opportunities, including down payment assistance. At the time of the Department of Finance’s adjustments to the proposed FY 2016 budget, requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to submit to the Legislature an initial Building Homes and Jobs Investment Strategy. Beginning with FY 2021, and every five years thereafter, requires the department to update this investment strategy and submit it to the Legislature concurrent with the release of the Governor’s proposed budget. Requires the investment strategy to do all of the following: (1) identify the statewide needs, goals, objectives, and outcomes for housing for a five-year period; (2) provide for a geographically balanced distribution of funds, including a 50-percent direct allocation to local governments; (3) emphasize investments that serve households that are at or below 60 percent of area median income; (4) encourage economic development and job creation by helping to meet the housing needs of a growing workforce up to 120 percent of area median income; (5) identify opportunities for coordination among state departments and agencies; (6) incentivize the use and coordination of non-traditional funding sources; and (7) incentivize innovative approaches that produce cost savings to local and state services by reducing the instability of housing for frequent, high-cost users of hospitals, jails, detoxification facilities, psychiatric hospitals, and emergency shelters. Requires expenditure requests in the Governor’s proposed budget to be consistent with the Building Housing and Jobs Investment Strategy. Declares the intent of the Legislature to enact a bill to create a Secretary of Housing within state government to oversee all activities related to housing in California.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 15 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1336 Requires the Strategic Growth Council, in coordination with the California Air Resources Board 1/14/16 Assembly (Salas) (CARB), to establish and administer a Community Climate Improvement Program to be funded Appropriations Community Climate with cap-and-trade auction proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to provide grants Committee: Improvement Program for the development and implementation of regional projects that reduce or sequester greenhouse Failed Passage gas emissions. Requires the Strategic Growth Council, in coordination with CARB, to develop guidelines for the program that do all of the following: (1) promote projects that benefit the most disadvantaged communities; (2) maximize the delivery of multiple climate benefits, including advanced clean vehicles, renewable energy generation, energy efficiency and weatherization, organic waste diversion and compost development, and other measures that reduce or sequester greenhouse gas emissions; (3) ensure that all ancillary elements of project development and implementation are eligible for funding if they lead to better implementation, program delivery and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; (4) ensure that projects funded under the program use consistent accounting and modeling approaches to estimate and monitor greenhouse gas emissions, as well as emissions reductions over time; (5) promote projects that assist the state in reaching its climate goals beyond 2020; (6) promote investments in projects that include co-benefits, including achieving state and federal air quality standards; and (7) ensure that the projects that receive funding maximize the dollars appropriated for the program, create job opportunities and are consistent with other laws. In evaluating projects to be funded under this program, requires the Strategic Growth Council to give priority to projects that demonstrate one or more of the following characteristics: (1) regional implementation; (2) the ability to leverage additional public and private funding; (3) the potential for co-benefits or multi-benefit attributes; (4) the potential for the project to be replicated; (5) the use of existing regional infrastructure and institutions; or (6) the inclusion of technical assistance. AB 1340 Amends current state law to prohibit a folding device attached to the front of a public transit bus 1/4/16 Assembly (Chau) that is designed and used exclusively for transporting bicycles from extending more than 40 inches Transportation Bike Racks on Public from the front of the bus, rather than from the front body of the bus, when fully deployed. Committee: Transit Buses Failed Passage AB 1360 Allows a transportation network company or a charter-party carrier of passengers that prearranges a 7/2/15 Senate Energy, (Ting) ride among multiple passengers who share the ride in whole or in part to charge an individual fare, Utilities & Transportation rather than a vehicle-mileage or time-of-use fare, provided that all of the following conditions are Communications Network Companies: met: (1) the vehicle seats no more than seven passengers, not including the driver; (2) the driver is Committee Ridesharing a participating driver, as defined; (3) the vehicle is not used to provide public transit services or to carry passengers over a fixed route; (4) the vehicle is not used to provide pupil transportation or public paratransit services; and (5) the individual fare for each passenger is less than the fare that would be charged for the same ride to a passenger traveling alone. AB 1364 Excludes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) from the California State As Senate (Linder) Transportation Agency (CalSTA), and establishes it as a separate and independent entity in state Introduced Transportation California government. & Housing Transportation Committee Commission

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 16 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1384 Allows the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) to make direct contributions to the Metropolitan 1/4/16 Assembly (Baker) Transportation Commission (MTC) in furtherance of the exercise of the authority’s powers and Transportation Bay Area Toll duties, so long as those contributions do not exceed an amount equal to 1 percent of the funds Committee: Authority available to BATA in the fiscal year in which the contributions are made. Provides comparable Failed Passage authority for BATA to make additional contributions in the form of loans to MTC on a reimbursement-for-cost basis, subject to the same 1 percent cap and a requirement that the loans be fully repaid with interest. AB 1398 Enacts the Sustainable Environmental Protection Act. Prohibits a cause of action on the grounds of As Assembly (Wilk) non-compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that relates to any topical Introduced Natural CEQA: Sustainable area or criteria for which compliance obligations are identified. Also prohibits challenges to Resources Environmental environmental documents based on non-compliance with CEQA if: (1) the environmental Committee: Protection Act document discloses compliance with applicable environmental laws; (2) the project conforms with Failed Passage the use designation, density or building intensity in an applicable plan; and (3) the project approval incorporates applicable mitigation requirements into the environmental document. Specifies that the provisions of this bill only apply if the lead agency or project applicant has agreed to provide to the public in a readily accessible electronic format an annual compliance report prepared pursuant to a mitigation monitoring and reporting program required by CEQA. AB 1459 Prohibits Caltrans from seeking or providing funding for construction of a toll lane on a public 4/14/15 Assembly (Kim) highway in Orange County unless the project is first approved by a two-thirds vote of the board of Transportation Toll Lanes: Orange directors of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Committee: County Failed Passage AB 1549 Requires Caltrans to maintain an inventory of all conduits owned by the department that: (1) house 1/14/16 Senate (Wood) fiber optic communication cables; (2) are located in state highway rights-of-way; and (3) were Transportation State Highway Rights- installed on or after January 1, 2017. & Housing of-Way: Fiber-Optic Committee Cables AB 1550 Requires the three-year investment plan prepared by the Department of Finance for the expenditure As Assembly (Gomez) of cap-and-trade auction proceeds deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to do the Introduced Natural Greenhouse Gas following: (1) allocate a minimum of 25 percent of available dollars in the fund to projects located Resources Reduction Fund: within disadvantaged communities; and (2) allocate a minimum of 25 percent to projects that Committee Investment Plan benefit low-income households, which must be separate from the minimum 25 percent required for disadvantaged communities. AB 1555 States the intent of the Legislature to enact a bill to appropriate $1.7 billion in uncommitted cap- As Assembly Desk (Gomez) and-trade auction proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for the following purposes in Introduced Cap-and-Trade amounts to be determined in the bill: (1) low carbon transportation and infrastructure; (2) clean Auction Proceeds: FY energy communities; (3) community climate improvements; (4) wetlands and watershed 2016 Uncommitted restoration; and (5) carbon sequestration. Funds

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 17 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1569 Exempts from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a project that consists of the As Assembly (Steinorth) inspection, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, replacement, or removal of existing transportation Introduced Natural CEQA: Exemption for infrastructure, including highways, roadways, bridges, tunnels, culverts, public transit systems, Resources Certain Transportation bikeways, paths and sidewalks serving bicycles or pedestrians, and the addition of auxiliary lanes Committee Projects or bikeways to existing transportation infrastructure, if the project meets all of the following conditions: (1) the project is located within an existing right-of-way; (2) any area surrounding the right-of-way that is to be altered as a result of construction activities that are necessary for the completion of the project will be restored to its condition before the project; and (3) the project does not add additional motor vehicle lanes, except auxiliary lanes. AB 1572 Provides that a pupil attending a school that is eligible for Title 1 federal funding shall be entitled to As Assembly (Campos) free transportation from the local educational agency to and from school if either of the following Introduced Education School Transportation conditions are met: (1) the pupil resides more than one-half mile from the school; or (2) the Committee neighborhood through which the pupil must travel to get to school is unsafe due to stray dogs, no sidewalks, known gang activity, or other reasons documented by stakeholders. Requires a local educational agency to designate a liaison to be responsible for implementing a plan to ensure that free transportation is provided to all pupils who are entitled to it pursuant to this bill. Requires the local educational agency to develop its plan in consultation with teachers, school administrators, regional and local transit authorities, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), Caltrans, parents, pupils, and other stakeholders. Specifies that if free, dependable and timely transportation is currently not available for pupils who are entitled to it pursuant to this bill, the local educational agency must ensure that such pupils are provided free transportation using its existing funds, unless the local educational agency determines that the lack of transportation does not reduce pupil school attendance.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 18 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1591 Proposes to generate new revenues for transportation purposes from the following sources: (1) an As Assembly (Frazier) increase in the gasoline excise tax of 22.5 cents per gallon; (2) an increase in the diesel excise tax Introduced Transportation Transportation of 30 cents per gallon; (3) a registration surcharge of $38 per year imposed on all motor vehicles; Committee Funding and (4) a registration surcharge of $165 per year imposed on zero-emission vehicles. Requires the repayment over the next two years of approximately $879 million in outstanding loans owed by the General Fund to the State Highway Account, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Account, the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA), and the Motor Vehicle Account. Beginning July 1, 2019, and every three years thereafter, indexes the gas tax and the diesel excise tax to inflation. Calls for the revenues derived from the 30-cent-per-gallon increase in the diesel excise tax to be deposited into the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund and used for goods movement projects programmed by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Requires the revenues derived from the 22.5-cent-per gallon increase in the gas tax and the two vehicle registration surcharges to be deposited into a new Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account. Requires the revenues in the account to be used for the following purposes: (1) road maintenance and rehabilitation; (2) safety projects; (3) railroad grade separations; and (4) active transportation and pedestrian/bicycle safety projects in conjunction with any other allowable project. Requires 5 percent of the funds in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to be set aside for counties that currently do not have a local transportation sales tax, but gain voter approval for one after July 1, 2016. Allocates the remaining balance in the account after the 5-percent set-aside as follows: (1) 50 percent to Caltrans for state highway maintenance, or State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects; and (2) 50 percent to cities and counties for their local roadway systems. In the latter case, equally divides the funds between cities and counties, with the cities’ portion being allocated by a formula based on population, and the counties’ share by a formula based on vehicle registrations and miles of maintained county roads. Requires cities and counties to use their formula shares for any of the following: (1) improvements to transportation facilities that will assist in reducing further deterioration of the existing roadway system; (2) to satisfy a local match requirement for federal or state funds for similar purposes; or (3) an active transportation or pedestrian/bicycle safety project that is done in conjunction with any other eligible project. Allows a city or county to spend its formula share for other priorities only if it has an average Pavement Condition Index that meets or exceeds 85. In order to remain eligible for an allocation from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account, requires cities and counties to maintain their historic commitment of local funds for street/road purposes by annually spending not less than the average of its expenditures from FY 2010, FY 2011 and FY 2012. Increases the percentage of cap- and-trade auction proceeds distributed to the Transit and Intercity Rail Program from 10 percent to 20 percent. Requires 20 percent of cap-and-trade auction proceeds to be distributed to the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund. Converts the variable gas tax rate to a fixed rate of 18 cents per gallon and indexes it to inflation every three years, beginning July 1, 2019. Eliminates the Board of Equalization’s annual adjustments to the diesel excise tax rate pursuant to the 2010-2011 transportation funding swap. Prohibits vehicle weight fee revenues from being used to pay debt service on transportation general obligation bonds or from being loaned to the General Fund.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 19 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1595 Requires a private or public employer that provides mass transportation services in California to As Assembly Labor (Campos) train its relevant employees in recognizing the signs of human trafficking and how to report those Introduced & Employment Mass Transportation signs to the appropriate law enforcement agency. By January 1, 2018, requires this training to be Committee Employees: Human incorporated into the initial training process for all new employees who are likely to interact or Trafficking Training come into contact with victims of human trafficking. Requires all existing employees who are likely to interact or come into contact with victims of human trafficking to receive this training by January 1, 2018. Exempts taxi services and airlines from the provisions of the bill. AB 1640 Clarifies that public transit employees whose interests are protected under Section 5333(b) of Title As Assembly Public Sponsor (Stone) 49 of the United States Code and who became a member of a state or local public retirement system Introduced Employees, Retirement: Public prior to December 30, 2014, are exempt from the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Retirement & Transit Employees Act of 2013 (PEPRA). Social Security Committee AB 1641 Allows a public transit agency, by ordinance or resolution, to permit the vehicles of a private As Assembly (Allen) shuttle service provider to stop for the loading or unloading of its passengers alongside any or all Introduced Transportation Private Shuttles curb spaces designated for the passengers of the public transit agency’s buses. States that it is not Committee the intent of the Legislature to replace public transit service. AB 1661 Requires local agency officials to receive sexual harassment training and education if the agency As Assembly Local (McCarthy) provides any type of compensation, salary or stipend to those officials. Defines “local agency Introduced Government Sexual Harassment official” to mean any member of a local agency governing board and any elected local agency Committee Training and official. Allows a local agency to also require any of its employees to receive such training and Education education. Requires each local agency official or employee who is so required to receive at least two hours of sexual harassment training and education within the first six months of taking office or commencing employment, and every two years thereafter. Requires a local agency to maintain records indicating both of the following: (1) the dates that local agency officials or employees satisfied the requirements of this bill; and (2) the entity that provided the training. AB 1665 Until December 31, 2024, allows the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to impose a As Assembly Desk (Bonilla) transactions and use tax for the support of countywide transportation programs at a rate of not more Introduced Contra Costa than 0.5 percent that would, in combination with all other such taxes imposed in the county, exceed Transportation the state’s limit of 2 percent, subject to the following conditions: (1) the authority adopts an Authority: ordinance imposing the tax by the appropriate voting approval requirement; and (2) the ordinance Transactions and Use is submitted to the county’s electorate on a November general election ballot and is approved by Taxes the voters pursuant to Article XIII C of the California Constitution. AB 1669 Requires local agencies to give a bidding preference to any bidder on a contract to provide solid As Assembly Labor (R. Hernandez) waste collection and transportation services who agrees to retain employees of the prior contractor Introduced & Employment Solid Waste Collection or subcontractor. Committee and Transportation Services Contracts

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 20 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1707 Requires a local agency’s response to any request for public records that includes a denial of the As Assembly Desk (Linder) request, in whole or in part, to be in writing. Requires the written response to include a list Introduced Public Records containing the title or other identification of each record requested but withheld due to an Requests exemption, and the specific exemption that applies to that record. AB 1746 Allows the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit As Assembly Desk (Stone) District (AC Transit), the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (County Connection), the North Introduced Transit-Bus-Only County Transit District, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and the San Traffic Corridors Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) to utilize the shoulders of state highways within their service areas as transit-bus-only traffic corridors, subject to the approval of Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol (CHP). Requires these agencies to determine jointly with Caltrans and the CHP which state highway segments within their service areas would be designated as transit- bus-only traffic corridors based on right-of-way availability and capacity, peak congestion hours, and the most heavily congested areas. Requires the agencies to actively work with Caltrans and the CHP to develop guidelines that ensure driver and vehicle safety, as well as the integrity of the highway infrastructure. Requires the agencies and Caltrans to monitor the state of repair of highway shoulders used as transit-bus-only traffic corridors. Requires the agencies to be responsible for all costs associated with this effort, including those costs related to repairs attributable to the operation of transit buses on highway shoulders. AB 1768 Specifies that no further bonds shall be sold for high-speed rail purposes pursuant to the Safe, As Assembly Desk (Gallagher) Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century (Proposition 1A), except as Introduced High-Speed Rail: specifically provided with respect to an existing appropriation for early improvement projects Bond Funding related to the Phase I blended system. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, requires the unspent proceeds received from outstanding bonds issued and sold for high-speed rail purposes prior to the effective date of the provisions of this bill to be redirected to retiring the debt incurred from the issuance and sale of those outstanding bonds. Allows the remaining unissued bonds, as of the effective date of the provisions of this bill, that were authorized for high-speed rail purposes to be issued and sold. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, requires the net proceeds from the sale of these remaining unissued bonds to be made available to fund projects in the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). Makes no changes to the authorization under Proposition 1A for the issuance of $950 million in bonds for rail purposes other than high-speed rail. AB 1780 Creates the Sustainable Trade Corridors Program within the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund to As Assembly Desk (Medina) be administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Requires 25 percent of the Introduced Cap-and-Trade: annual amount of cap-and-trade auction proceeds deposited into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Sustainable Trade Fund to be continuously appropriated to this program. Requires 10 percent of the money available Corridors Program under the program to be allocated for research and development projects that promote sustainable trade corridors.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 21 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1813 Provides for the appointment of one senator by the Senate Rules Committee and one As Assembly Desk (Frazier) Assemblymember by the Speaker to serve as ex-officio members of the California High-Speed Rail Introduced California High-Speed Authority. Specifies that the ex-officio members shall participate in the activities of the High- Rail Authority: Speed Rail Authority to the extent that such participation is not incompatible with their positions as Membership members of the Legislature. AB 1815 Requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to prepare and post on its Internet Web site a As Assembly Desk (Alejo) report on the projects being funded with cap-and-trade auction proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Introduced Cap-and-Trade: Reduction Fund. Requires this report to include all of the following: (1) a general description of Disadvantaged each project; (2) the location where each project will be implemented; (3) the estimated date of Communities completion of each project; (4) the amount awarded to each project; and (5) the status of any Technical Assistance revenues in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund not awarded to projects and the reasons why those Program moneys have not been awarded. Upon an appropriation of cap-and-trade auction proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, requires CARB to establish a comprehensive technical assistance program for eligible applicants assisting disadvantaged communities that CARB determines require technical assistance in accessing programs funded with cap-and-trade auction proceeds. Requires this program to provide assistance to eligible applicants with regard to any of the following: (1) identifying state agencies with appropriate grant programs; (2) developing competitive project proposals to apply for cap-and-trade funding available through state agencies; (3) coordinating existing local programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with new programs receiving cap-and- trade funding; or (4) conducting community outreach to residents of disadvantaged communities that CARB determines require such assistance. Requires the technical assistance provided pursuant to the bill to promote programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and demonstrate a direct, meaningful benefit to disadvantaged communities. Requires the three-year cap-and-trade investment plan developed by the Department of Finance and submitted to the Legislature to allocate money from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to CARB to implement the technical assistance program. AB 1833 Requires Caltrans to establish an Advanced Mitigation Program to accelerate project delivery and As Assembly Desk (Linder) improve the outcomes of environmental mitigation for transportation infrastructure projects. Introduced Advanced Mitigation Allows the program to utilize mitigation instruments, including mitigation banks and conservation Program and Federal easements. Allows Caltrans to use advanced mitigation credits to fulfill mitigation requirements of Environmental Review any environmental law for a transportation project eligible for the State Transportation Process Improvement Program (STIP), or the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). Extends indefinitely the statutory authorization for Caltrans to participate in a federal program that allows states to assume the responsibilities of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition, extends indefinitely provisions in existing law that authorize Caltrans to consent to the jurisdiction of the federal court’s with regard to the assumption of FHWA’s responsibilities under NEPA and that waive the state’s Eleventh Amendment protection against NEPA-related lawsuits brought in federal court for as long as Caltrans participates in the program.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 22 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1841 By July 1, 2017, requires the Office of Emergency Services to transmit to the Legislature a As Assembly Desk (Irwin) statewide emergency services response plan for cybersecurity attacks on critical infrastructure Introduced Office of Emergency systems that includes all of the following: (1) methods for providing emergency services; (2) Services: command structure for statewide coordinated emergency services; (3) emergency service roles of Cybersecurity appropriate state agencies; (4) identification of resources to be mobilized; (5) public information plans; and (6) continuity of government services. By July 1, 2018, requires the Office of Emergency Services to develop a comprehensive cybersecurity strategy setting standards for state agencies and private entities to prepare for cybersecurity attacks on critical infrastructure systems. Requires each state agency to transmit a cybersecurity strategy that meets these standards to the Office of Emergency Services in a manner and at a time directed by the office. Defines “critical infrastructure” to mean a public or private information technology system that services any of the following sectors: (1) communications; (2) emergency services; (3) energy; (4) financial services; (5) food and agriculture; (6) health care and public health; (7) transportation systems; or (8) water and wastewater systems. AB 1866 Specifies that no further bonds shall be sold for high-speed rail purposes pursuant to the Safe, As Assembly Desk (Wilk) Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century (Proposition 1A), except as Introduced High-Speed Rail: specifically provided with respect to an existing appropriation for early improvement projects Bonding Funding related to the Phase I blended system. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, requires the unspent proceeds received from outstanding bonds issued and sold for high-speed rail purposes prior to the effective date of the provisions of this bill to be redirected to retiring the debt incurred from the issuance and sale of those outstanding bonds. Allows the remaining unissued bonds, as of the effective date of the provisions of this bill, that were authorized for high-speed rail purposes to be issued and sold. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, requires the net proceeds from the sale of these remaining unissued bonds to be made available to fund the construction of water capital projects, including desalination facilities, wastewater treatment and recycling facilities, reservoirs, water conveyance infrastructure, and aquifer recharge. Makes no changes to the authorization under Proposition 1A for the issuance of $950 million in bonds for rail purposes other than high- speed rail. AB 1886 Specifies that a transit priority project shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major As Assembly Desk (McCarty) transit stop or high-quality transit corridor and, thus, shall qualify for an exemption from the Introduced CEQA: Transit California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), if all parcels within the project have no more than Priority Projects 50 percent, rather than 25 percent, of their area farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor. AB 1889 Declares the intent of the Legislature to enact a bill to provide the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers As Assembly Desk (Mullin) Board (JPB) with the necessary tools to explore options that will help Caltrain obtain a dedicated Introduced Caltrain Funding source of funding.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 23 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1908 Prohibits establishing a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane on a state highway in Southern As Assembly Desk (Harper) California, unless the lane is established as an HOV lane only during the hours of heavy commuter Introduced HOV Lanes in traffic, as determined by Caltrans. Requires existing HOV lanes in Southern California to be Southern California modified to conform to this provision. On or after May 1, 2018, provides that if Caltrans determines that there is an adverse impact on safety, traffic conditions or the environment by limiting the use of HOV lanes in Southern California only during the hours of heavy commuter traffic, authorizes the department to submit to the Legislature a notice of that determination and its intent to reinstate 24-hour HOV lanes in Southern California. Provides that Caltrans may reinstate 24-hour HOV lanes following the submittal of the notice to the Legislature. AB 1910 Requires the Secretary of State’s Office to submit the following advisory question to the voters as As Assembly Desk (Harper) part of the November 8, 2016, general election ballot: “Shall the California Legislature Introduced Transportation disproportionately target low-income and middle-class families with a regressive tax increase on Advisory Ballot gasoline and annual vehicle registrations to fund road maintenance and rehabilitation, rather than Measure ending the diversion of existing transportation tax revenues for nontransportation purposes, investing surplus state revenue in transportation accounts, repaying funds borrowed from transportation accounts, prioritizing roads over high-speed rail, and eliminating waste at the Department of Transportation?” AB 1919 Clarifies that accrued interest and premiums received on the sale of bonds by a local transportation As Assembly Desk (Quirk) authority may be used either for the payment of bond debt service or for transportation purposes for Introduced Local Transportation which the debt was incurred. Authorities: Bonds AB 1938 Provides that the 1 percent limitation on the amount of direct contributions or loans that the Bay As Assembly Desk (Baker) Area Toll Authority (BATA) may make to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Introduced Bay Area Toll applies to any revenues derived from bridge tolls, fees or taxes, regardless of classification. Authority ACA 3 Calls for placing before the voters an amendment to the California Constitution to make several As Assembly Public (Gallagher) changes to retirement benefits for public employees. Requires any enhancement to a public Introduced Employees, Public Employees’ employee’s retirement formula or benefit adopted on or after the effective date of this constitutional Retirement & Retirement amendment to apply only to serve performed on and after the operative date of the enhancement, Social Security and not to any service performed prior to that date. Provides that if a change to a public Committee employee’s retirement membership classification or a change in employment results in an enhancement to the retirement formula or benefit applicable to that employee, requires that enhancement to apply only to serve performed on or after the operative date of the change, and not to service performed prior to that date. Specifies that an increase to a retiree’s annual cost-of-living adjustment within existing statutory limits is not considered to be an enhancement to a retirement benefit.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 24 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position ACA 4 Calls for placing before the voters an amendment to the California Constitution to allow a city, 8/17/15 Assembly Support (Frazier) county or special district to impose, extend or increase a sales and use or a transactions and use tax Appropriations Local Transportation for the purpose of providing funding for local transportation projects, if approved by a 55 percent Committee Special Taxes majority vote. Defines “local transportation project” to mean the planning, design, development, financing, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, improvement, acquisition, lease, operation, or maintenance of local streets, roads and highways; state highways and freeways; and public transit systems. Specifies that this constitutional amendment shall become effective upon approval by the voters, and shall apply to any local measure imposing, extending or increasing a sales and use or transactions and use tax to fund local transportation projects that is submitted at the same election. ABX1-1 Retains the revenues generated by vehicle weight fees in the State Highway Account, and requires As Assembly Desk Support (Alejo) the General Fund to pay debt service on transportation general obligation bonds. With regard to the Introduced Transportation revenues derived from increases in the state gasoline excise tax resulting from the transportation Funding funding swap initially enacted in 2010 and reaffirmed in 2011, requires all of the money to be allocated in the following manner: (1) 44 percent to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); (2) 44 percent to cities and counties for local streets and roads; and (3) 12 percent to the State Highway Operation & Protection Program (SHOPP). With respect to any loans made to the General Fund from the State Highway Account, the Public Transportation Account, the Bicycle Transportation Account, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Account, the Highway Users Tax Account, the Pedestrian Safety Account, the Transportation Investment Fund, the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund, the Motor Vehicle Account, and the Local Airport Loan Account with a repayment date of January 1, 2019, or later to be repaid to the account from which the loan was made by December 31, 2018. Recaptures revenues generated by Caltrans through the rental or sale of property, the sale of documents and other miscellaneous services to the public for transportation purposes. ABX1-2 Extends existing statutory authority for Caltrans and regional transportation agencies, including the As Assembly Desk Support (Perea) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), to utilize public-private partnerships for Introduced Public-Private transportation infrastructure projects indefinitely. Partnerships ABX1-3 Declares the intent of the Legislature to enact a bill to establish permanent, sustainable sources of 9/3/15 Conference (Frazier) transportation funding to maintain and repair highways, local roads, bridges, and other critical Committee Transportation transportation infrastructure. Funding: State Highways and Local Roadways

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 25 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position ABX1-4 Declares the intent of the Legislature to enact a bill to establish permanent, sustainable sources of As Senate Rules (Frazier) transportation funding to improve the state’s key trade corridors, and support efforts by local Introduced Committee Transportation governments to repair and improve local transportation infrastructure. Funding: Trade Corridors and Local Transportation Infrastructure ABX1-6 Requires 20 percent of the cap-and-trade auction proceeds provided to the Affordable Housing and As Assembly Desk (R. Hernandez) Sustainable Communities Program to be allocated to rural areas. Requires half of these funds to be Introduced Cap-and-Trade: allocated to eligible affordable housing projects. Requires the Strategic Growth Council to amend Affordable Housing its guidelines for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program to be consistent and Sustainable with the provisions of this bill. Communities Program ABX1-7 Increases the amount of cap-and-trade auction proceeds continuously appropriated from the As Assembly Desk Support (Nazarian) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program from 5 percent to Introduced Cap-and-Trade: 10 percent, and to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program from 10 percent to 20 percent. Public Transit Funding ABX1-8 Increases the sales and use tax rate on diesel fuel by 3.5 percent. Dedicates the revenues derived As Assembly Desk Support (Chiu) from this increase to the State Transit Assistance Program (STA). Introduced Diesel Sales Tax ABX1-9 By September 30, 2015, requires Caltrans to implement an operational improvement project that As Assembly Desk (Levine) does the following: (1) temporarily restores to automobile traffic the third eastbound lane on I-580 Introduced Richmond-San Rafael that existed prior to 1977 and that was temporarily restored immediately following the Loma Prieta Bridge earthquake, from the beginning of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge in Marin County to Marine Street in Contra Costa County; and (2) temporarily converts the existing one-way bicycle lane along the north side of westbound I-580 from the Marine Street Interchange to Stenmark Drive and the toll plaza in Contra Costa County into a bidirectional bicycle and pedestrian lane. Requires Caltrans to keep the temporary third automobile lane and the temporarily bidirectional bicycle lane in place until the department has completed the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Access Improvement Project. ABX1-10 Prohibits a state entity in a mega-infrastructure project contract from providing for the payment of As Assembly Desk (Levine) extra compensation to the contractor until the project has been completed, and an independent third Introduced Public Works party has verified that the project meets all architectural or engineering plans and safety Contracts: Mega- specifications of the contract. Applies to contracts entered into or amended on or after the effective Infrastructure Projects date of the bill. Defines “mega-infrastructure project” to mean the erection, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement of any public structure, building, road, or other public improvement of any kind that exceeds $1 billion in cost.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 26 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position ABX1-12 Authorizes the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) to enter As Assembly Desk (Nazarian) into agreements with private entities for transportation projects in Los Angeles County, including Introduced LA Metro: Public- on the state highway system, subject to various terms and requirements. Allow LA Metro to Private Partnerships impose tolls and user fees for use of those projects. Requires LA Metro to implement such projects on the state highway system in cooperation with Caltrans pursuant to an agreement that addresses all matters related to design, construction, maintenance, and operation of state highway facilities in connection with the project. Authorizes LA Metro to issue bonds to finance any costs necessary to implement such a project, payable from revenues generated from the project or other available resources. ABX1-13 For FY 2016, reduces the amount of cap-and-trade auction proceeds deposited into the Greenhouse As Assembly Desk (Grove) Gas Reduction Fund that are continuously appropriated to the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Introduced Cap-and-Trade: State Communities Program from 20 percent to 10 percent. Beginning in FY 2017, continuously Highways and Local appropriates 50 percent of the cap-and-trade auction proceeds deposited into the Greenhouse Gas Streets/Roads Reduction Fund to the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP), and 50 percent to cities and counties for local streets/roads. ABX1-14 Continuously appropriates $1 billion from the General Fund to be distributed as follows: (1) 50 As Assembly Desk (Waldron) percent to the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP); and (2) 50 percent to Introduced General Fund cities and counties for local streets/roads. Appropriations: State Highways and Local Streets/Roads ABX1-15 Reduces the FY 2016 appropriation to Caltrans for capital outlay support by $500 million and, As Assembly Desk (Patterson) instead, distributes this money as follows: (1) 50 percent to the State Highway Operation and Introduced Caltrans: Capital Protection Program (SHOPP); and (2) 50 percent to cities and counties for local streets/roads. Outlay Support

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 27 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position ABX1-16 Establishes a five-year pilot program under which two counties, one in Northern California and one As Assembly Desk (Patterson) in Southern California, would be selected to operate, maintain and make improvements to all state Introduced Pilot Program: highways within their respective jurisdictions. For the duration of the pilot program, requires Transferring State Caltrans to convey all of its authority and responsibility over state highways in a participating Highways to Local county to the applicable county or regional transportation agency. Requires the pilot program to Agencies begin no later than January 1, 2017. Requires the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to administer and oversee the pilot program, and to select the counties that will participate in the program from applications received by the commission. For the duration of the pilot program, requires funding to be appropriated as block grants in the annual Budget Act to the participating counties in an amount equivalent to federal and state dollars otherwise to be expended by Caltrans on state highways in those counties, including money for operations, maintenance, capital outlay support, the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP), and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). In consultation with Caltrans, requires the CTC to determine the applicable grant amounts for each participating county, and to submit its recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature. Provides that any cost savings realized by a participating county, compared to comparable expenditures that otherwise would have been undertaken by Caltrans on state highways in the county in the absence of the pilot program, may be used by the county for other transportation priorities consistent with eligible expenditures for the funding sources involved, subject to approval by the CTC. ABX1-17 Beginning in FY 2017, continuously appropriates 25 percent of the cap-and-trade auction proceeds As Assembly Desk (Achadjian) deposited into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to the State Highway Operation and Protection Introduced Cap-and-Trade: State Program (SHOPP). Highway Operation and Protection Program ABX1-18 Beginning January 1, 2016, prohibits vehicle weight fee revenues from being used to pay debt As Assembly Desk Support (Linder) service on transportation-related, general obligation bonds. Introduced Vehicle Weight Fee Revenues ABX1-19 Excludes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) from the California State As Assembly Desk (Linder) Transportation Agency (CalSTA), and establishes it as a separate and independent entity in state Introduced California government. Transportation Commission ABX1-20 Requires the Department of Human Resources to eliminate 25 percent of the vacation positions in As Assembly Desk (Gaines) state government that are funded by the General Fund. Continuously appropriates $685 million Introduced State Government: from the General Fund, with 50 percent to be made available to Caltrans for maintenance of the Elimination of Vacant state highway system or for projects funded under the State Highway Operation and Protection Positions Program (SHOPP), and 50 percent to be made available to cities and counties for local streets/roads.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 28 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position ABX1-21 Prohibits a court in a judicial action or proceeding under the California Environmental Quality Act As Assembly Desk (Obernolte) (CEQA) from staying or enjoining a project related to constructing or improving a highway unless Introduced Environmental the court finds either of the following: (1) the project presents an imminent threat to the public Quality: Highway health and safety; or (2) the project site contains unforeseen important Native American artifacts, Projects or unforeseen important historical, archaeological or ecological values that would be materially, permanently and adversely affected by the project unless the court stays or enjoins the project. ABX1-22 Authorizes Caltrans to utilize design-build contracting for an unlimited number of state highway As Assembly Desk (Patterson) projects, and requires the department to contract with consultants to perform construction Introduced Design-Build inspection services related to those projects. For design-build contracts for state highway projects Contracting: Highway administered by regional transportation agencies, including the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Projects Agency (VTA), eliminates the requirement in existing law that Caltrans perform construction inspection services related to those projects. ABX1-23 By January 1, 2017, requires the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to establish a As Assembly Desk (E. Garcia) process whereby Caltrans and local agencies receiving funding for highway capital improvement Introduced Transportation projects from the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP), or from the State Projects: Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) prioritize projects that provide meaningful benefits to Disadvantaged the mobility and safety needs of disadvantaged community residents, as identified by the Communities community through strong public participation. In this regard, requires the CTC to do all of the following: (1) establish a funding floor where no less than 35 percent of rehabilitation and reconstruction projects are located in urban and rural disadvantaged communities, and provide meaningful benefits to the residents of those communities; (2) include robust public stakeholder engagement with regard to the development of guidelines relating to the prioritization of projects in disadvantaged communities; and (3) prioritize projects that recruit, hire and train low-income, formerly incarcerated, or disconnected youth and adults, as well as other individuals with barriers to employment. Specifies that a “disadvantaged community” means a community with any of the following characteristics: (1) an area with a median household income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide median household income based on the most current census-tract-level data from the American Community Survey; (2) an area identified as among the most disadvantaged 25 percent of areas in the state according to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), based on the latest version of CalEnviroScreen scores; or (3) an area where at least 75 percent of public school students are eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program. Requires $125 million to be appropriated annually from the State Highway Account to the Active Transportation Program, with these additional funds to be used for network grants that prioritize projects in underserved areas.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 29 of 45

11.a

State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position ABX1-24 Effective January 1, 2017, redesignates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as the As Assembly Desk (Levine) Bay Area Transportation Commission. Requires commissioners to be elected by districts Introduced Bay Area comprised of approximately 750,000 residents, based on the 2010 Census. Declares the intent of Transportation the Legislature that the district boundaries should be drawn by a citizen’s redistricting commission. Commission Requires each district to elect one commissioner, except that a district with a toll bridge within its boundaries would elect two commissioners. Requires the initial elections for commissioners to occur in 2016. Requires the elected commissioners to take office on January 1, 2017. Declares the intent of the Legislature that campaigns for commissioners should be publicly financed. Specifies that each commissioner’s term of office is four years. Effective January 1, 2017, deletes the Bay Area Toll Authority’s status as a separate entity from MTC and merges the authority into the Bay Area Transportation Commission.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 30 of 45

11.a

State3B Senate Bills

State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 1 Delays the inclusion of suppliers of transportation fuels in the cap-and-trade system administered by the As Senate (Gaines) California Air Resources Board (CARB) from January 1, 2015, to January 1, 2025. Introduced Environmental Cap-and-Trade: Quality Transportation Fuels Committee: Failed Passage SB 3 Increases the minimum wage for all industries as follows: (1) to $11 per hour beginning January 1, 3/11/15 Assembly (Leno) 2016; and (2) to $13 per hour beginning July 1, 2017. Commencing on January 1, 2019, requires the Appropriations Minimum Wage Industrial Welfare Commission to automatically adjust the minimum wage each year to maintain Committee employee purchasing power diminished by the rate of inflation that occurred during the previous year. Requires the automatic adjustment to be calculated using the California Consumer Price Index. Prohibits the Industrial Welfare Commission from adjusting the minimum wage if the average percentage of inflation for the previous year was negative. Specifies that the provisions of the bill apply to all industries, including public and private employment. SB 5 Delays the inclusion of suppliers of transportation fuels in the cap-and-trade system administered by the As Senate (Vidak) California Air Resources Board (CARB) from January 1, 2015, to January 1, 2020. Applies the Introduced Environmental Cap-and-Trade: provisions of the bill retroactively from January 1, 2015. Quality Transportation Fuels Committee: Failed Passage SB 8 Imposes a state sales and use tax on the gross receipts from the sale of, or the receipt of the benefits of, 2/10/15 Senate (Hertzberg) services at an unspecified rate. Governance & Sales and Use Tax: Finance Services Committee: Failed Passage

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 31 of 45

11.a

State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 16 Establishes the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program for an initial five-year period running 6/1/15 Senate Floor: Support (Beall) through FY 2020. Allows the Legislature to reauthorize the program beyond FY 2020. Proposes to Failed Passage Road Maintenance generate between $2 billion and $4 billion per year in new revenues for transportation purposes from and Rehabilitation the following sources: (1) a temporary 10-cent increase in the gasoline excise tax; (2) a temporary 12- Program cent increase in the diesel excise tax; (3) a temporary registration surcharge of $35 per year imposed on all motor vehicles; (4) an additional, permanent registration surcharge of $100 per year imposed on zero-emission vehicles; (5) full repayment over the next three years of all outstanding loans owed by the General Fund to the State Highway Account, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Account, the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA), and the Motor Vehicle Account; and (6) permanent recapture of vehicle weight fee revenues for transportation projects to be accomplished incrementally over a five-year period. Provides for an incremental increase over a five-year period in the vehicle license fee from 0.65 percent to 1 percent of the market value of a vehicle to backfill the General Fund for the loss of vehicle weight fee revenues. Dedicates these license fee revenues to paying debt service for transportation-related general obligation bonds. Terminates the increases in the gasoline and diesel excise taxes, as well as the $35 vehicle registration surcharge, if the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program is not reauthorized. Calls for 2 cents of the 12-cent increase in the diesel excise tax to be deposited into the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund and used for goods movement projects programmed by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Requires the balance to be deposited into a new Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account. Requires 5 percent of the funds in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to be set aside for allocation to counties that currently do not have a local transportation sales tax in place, but gain voter approval for one after July 1, 2015. Requires the CTC to develop guidelines to define the specific methodology that would be used to distribute these funds to eligible counties. Specifies that any of the 5-percent set-aside that is not allocated to counties in a given fiscal year would be split 50/50 between the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) and local streets/roads. Allocates the remaining balance in the account after the 5-percent set- aside as follows: (1) 50 percent to the SHOPP; and (2) 50 percent to cities and counties for maintenance and rehabilitation work on their local roadway systems. In order to remain eligible for an allocation under the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program, requires cities and counties to maintain their historic commitment of local funds for street/road purposes by annually spending not less than the average of its expenditures from FY 2010, FY 2011 and FY 2012. Establishes a substantial oversight role for the CTC to ensure that the funds allocated under the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program are used by Caltrans and cities/counties in the most efficient and effective manner possible. Requires Caltrans, by April 1, 2016, to submit a plan to the CTC to increase the department’s efficiency by up to 30 percent over the subsequent three years.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 32 of 45

11.a

State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 32 Requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB), based on the best available scientific, 9/10/15 Assembly Natural (Pavley) technological and economic assessments, to approve a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit that is Resources Greenhouse Gas equivalent to 40 percent below the 1990 level to be achieved by 2030. Requires CARB to make Committee Emissions Limit recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature on how to continue reductions of greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2030. Provides that the Legislature and appropriate state agencies should adopt complementary policies ensuring that long-term emissions reductions advance all of the following: (1) job growth and local economic benefits; (2) public health benefits for California residents, particularly in disadvantaged communities, that result from direct onsite reductions of greenhouse gas emissions; (3) innovation in technology, as well as in energy, water and resource management practices; and (4) regional and international collaboration to adopt similar greenhouse gas emissions reduction policies. Specifies that CARB shall not take any action to implement the next update of its scoping plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions unless it has conducted an evaluation of both of the following: (1) the current and projected actions that other jurisdictions within the United States and around the world are taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and how those actions compare to and complement California’s efforts; and (2) the cost effectiveness of the various emissions reduction strategies that CARB has undertaken to achieve the 2020 statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit. Requires CARB to submit the next update of its scoping plan to the Legislature. Allows the Legislature to modify, reject or delay some or all of the scoping plan update before its approval by CARB. By January 1, 2017, and each year thereafter, requires CARB to submit to the Legislature a report that contains both of the following: (1) a detailed list of regulatory policies that have been adopted and implemented by state agencies in furtherance of achieving the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit; and (2) the amounts, sources and locations of greenhouse gas emissions reductions achieved toward the statewide limit. By July 1, 2017, requires the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to prepare and make available a report analyzing the impacts of the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit on disadvantaged communities. Requires this report to include all of the following: (1) tracking and analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, criteria air pollutants and other pollutant emission levels in disadvantaged communities; (2) compliance strategies used for greenhouse gas emissions sources in disadvantaged communities; and (3) analysis of public health and other relevant environmental health exposure indicators related to air pollutants in disadvantaged communities. SB 39 Increases the number of green stickers that can be issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) 4/8/15 Assembly (Pavley) to allow certain low-emission and fuel-efficient vehicles to use high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes Transportation HOV Lanes: Low- regardless of the number of occupants from 70,000 to 85,000. Committee Emission and Fuel- Efficient Vehicles

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 33 of 45

11.a

State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 122 At the request of a project applicant, requires the lead agency for California Environmental Quality Act 6/1/15 Assembly (Jackson) (CEQA) purposes to prepare a record of proceedings concurrently with the preparation of a negative Appropriations CEQA: Record of declaration, mitigated negative declaration, environmental impact report (EIR), or other environmental Committee Proceedings documents for the project, as specified. Requires the Office of Planning and Research to establish and maintain a database for the collection, storage, retrieval, and dissemination of environmental documents, notices of exemption, notices of preparation, notices of determination, and notices of completion provided to the office. Requires a lead agency to submit a sufficient number of copies, in either a hard copy or electronic form as required by the Office of Planning and Research, of its draft environmental document, proposed negative declaration or proposed mitigated negative declaration to the State Clearinghouse for review and comment by state agencies. Requires a lead agency to accept comments on these documents through electronic mail and to treat such comments as equivalent to written comments. SB 158 Allows Caltrans to enter into an agreement to implement a public-private partnership for the I-710 Gap 3/26/15 Senate (Huff) Closure Project in Los Angeles County on or after January 1, 2017, which is when current state Transportation & Public-Private statutory authority for utilizing public-private partnerships for transportation projects expires. Housing Partnerships: I-710 Committee: Gap Closure Project Failed Passage SB 189 Creates the Clean Energy and Low-Carbon Economic and Jobs Growth Blue Ribbon Committee within 8/17/15 Assembly (Hueso) the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to be comprised of seven members Appropriations Clean Energy and appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Rules Committee. Requires Committee Low-Carbon the committee to consist solely of persons with expertise in economic, financial or policy aspects of Economic and Jobs clean energy, economic growth, job creation, workforce standards, or employment opportunities for Growth Blue Ribbon disadvantaged workers. Requires the committee to advise state agencies on the most effective ways to: Committee (1) expend funds related to clean energy and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; and (2) implement policies in order to maximize California’s economic and employment benefits. In addition, requires the committee to do all of the following: (1) develop guidance for tracking, reporting and evaluating jobs outcomes for state clean energy and low-carbon investments; (2) develop guidance to measure the quantity and quality of jobs created by state clean energy and low-carbon investments, as well as the geographic and demographic distribution of those jobs; (3) advise state agencies on the most effective ways to require responsible contractor standards, as applicable, and minimum training and skill certifications for workers to ensure high-quality work for state clean energy and low-carbon investments; (4) advise state agencies on the most effective ways to connect disadvantaged communities to good quality jobs and career pathways created by state clean energy and low-carbon investments; and (5) advise state agencies on the most effective ways to align state clean energy and low-carbon training funds with existing state workforce development investments and strategies. SB 192 Requires the Office of Traffic Safety to conduct a comprehensive study of bicycle helmet use in 4/30/15 Senate (Liu) California. Requires this study to include: (1) a determination of the percentage of California bicyclists Appropriations Bicycle Helmets who do not wear helmets; and (2) the fatalities and serious injuries that could have been avoided if Committee: helmets had been worn. Requires a report of the study’s findings to be submitted to the Legislature by Failed Passage January 1, 2017.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 34 of 45

11.a

State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 206 Prohibits the California Air Resources Board (CARB) from obtaining locational data from a vehicle 5/6/15 Senate (Gaines) information system, except to assist the vehicle owner or operator to use as a defense in an enforcement Appropriations Vehicle Information action brought by CARB. Committee: Systems Failed Passage SB 207 Requires any state agency expending cap-and-trade auction proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas 3/24/15 Assembly Natural (Wieckowski) Reduction Fund to post on its Internet Website a record describing each expenditure and how that Resources Greenhouse Gas expenditure would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Committee Reduction Fund: State Agency Reporting SB 254 Authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC), without legislative action, to relinquish 6/2/15 Assembly (Allen) portions of the state highway system to a city or county, provided that the state highway facility is not Transportation State Highways: an interstate highway or part of the state’s interregional road network. Requires Caltrans to enter into Committee Relinquishments an agreement with the local jurisdiction before the state highway facility can be relinquished. Requires this agreement to transfer all legal liability for the relinquished state highway facility from Caltrans to the local jurisdiction, as well as include any financial terms. Requires Caltrans and the local jurisdiction to agree on the condition of the relinquished state highway facility at the time of its transfer from the department to the local jurisdiction. Specifies that relinquishment shall not occur unless all of the following conditions are met: (1) the CTC has determined that the relinquishment is in the best interest of the state; (2) Caltrans completes a cost-benefit analysis on behalf of the state; and (3) the CTC holds a public hearing on the proposed relinquishment. In the case of a state highway that has been superseded by relocation, prohibits relinquishment until Caltrans has placed the facility in a state of good repair. By April 1, 2016, and biennially thereafter, requires Caltrans to report to the CTC on which state highway routes or segments primarily serve regional travel, and do not primarily facilitate the interregional movement of people and goods. Requires this report to: (1) identify those routes or segments that are the best candidates for relinquishment; and (2) include an aggregate estimate of future maintenance and preservation costs of the identified routes and segments. Requires the CTC to compile a list of all portions of the state highway system that have been relinquished in the previous 12 months and to include this information in its annual report to the Legislature. SB 321 In calculating adjustments to the variable gas tax rate to be made for FY 2017 and each fiscal year 8/18/15 Senate Floor: Support (Beall) thereafter in order to ensure that the same amount of revenue is generated as by the former state sales Concurrence Variable Gas Tax tax on gasoline pursuant to the 2010-2011 transportation funding swap, requires the Board of Rate Equalization to use a combined average based on an estimate of fuel prices for the current fiscal year and the actuals for the four previous fiscal years, rather than using projections of fuel prices for only the upcoming fiscal year.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 35 of 45

11.a

State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 344 Beginning January 1, 2018, requires a person, in addition to a written and driving test, to successfully 6/23/15 Assembly (Monning) complete a course of instruction from either a commercial driver training institution or a program Appropriations Commercial Driver’s offered by an employer that has been certified by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) before he Committee License: Education or she is issued an original commercial driver’s license. Provides an exemption to this course of instruction requirement in the following cases: (1) a commercial motor vehicle driver with military motor vehicle experience who is currently licensed with the U.S. Armed Forces; (2) a commercial motor vehicle driver who presents a valid certificate of driving skill from an approved employer-testing program that includes a course of instruction that meets the minimum standards set by the DMV; (3) a commercial motor vehicle driver who presents a certificate issued by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) or a Transit Driver Training Record DL 260 form signed by an employer trainer certified by the Federal Transit Administration’s “Train-the-Trainer” Program; or (4) a commercial motor vehicle driver who has received and documented training in compliance with the Education Code. SB 389 Enacts the Sustainable Environmental Protection Act. Prohibits a cause of action on the grounds of 4/6/15 Senate (Berryhill) non-compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that relates to any topical area Environmental CEQA: Sustainable or criteria for which compliance obligations are identified. Also prohibits challenges to environmental Quality Environmental documents based on non-compliance with CEQA if: (1) the environmental document discloses Committee: Protection Act compliance with applicable environmental laws; (2) the project conforms with the use designation, Failed Passage density or building intensity in an applicable plan; and (3) the project approval incorporates applicable mitigation requirements into the environmental document. Specifies that the provisions of this bill only apply if the lead agency or project applicant has agreed to provide to the public in a readily accessible electronic format an annual compliance report prepared pursuant to a mitigation monitoring and reporting program required by CEQA. SB 391 Makes an assault committed against a public transit employee punishable by imprisonment in a county 4/21/15 Senate Public (Huff) jail for up to one year, by a fine not to exceed $2,000, or by both imprisonment and that fine. Makes a Safety Assault and Battery: battery committed against a public transit employee punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up Committee: Public Transit to one year, by a fine not to exceed $2,000, or by both imprisonment and that fine. Makes a battery Failed Passage Employees committed against a public transit employee that results in an injury punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year, by a fine not to exceed $2,000, or by both imprisonment and that fine; or by imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or two or three years. SB 398 Establishes the Green Assistance Program to be administered by the California Environmental 6/2/15 Assembly (Leyva) Protection Agency (CalEPA). Requires the Green Assistance Program to provide technical assistance Appropriations Green Assistance to small businesses, small non-profit organizations and disadvantaged communities in applying for an Committee Program allocation of cap-and-trade auction proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Specifies that the Green Assistance Program may include the following: (1) basic information on available programs funded with cap-and-trade auction proceeds, and the eligibility requirements and deadlines for those programs; and (2) referrals to designated contact people in public agencies administering programs funded with cap-and-trade auction proceeds. Requires CalEPA to use existing resources appropriated by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act to administer the Green Assistance Program.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 36 of 45

11.a

State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 400 Requires not less than 25 percent of the cap-and-trade auction proceeds continuously appropriated to 6/1/15 Assembly (Lara) the California High-Speed Rail Authority from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to be allocated for Appropriations Cap-and-Trade: projects that either reduce or offset greenhouse gas emissions directly associated with the construction Committee High-Speed Rail of the high-speed rail project and provide a co-benefit of improving air quality. Requires priority to be given to measures and projects in communities that are located in areas designated as extreme non- attainment. Provides that measures and project eligible for funding may include the following: (1) public transit improvements that reduce congestion; (2) transportation improvements that reduce congestion, including network improvements and roadway modifications; (3) alternative transportation options, including infrastructure improvements that support clean transportation, facilitate bicycle and pedestrian use, and connect bicycle and pedestrian routes to public transit facilities; (4) natural systems, including rural and urban forests, that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or increase the sequestration of carbon to mitigate the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, and create greater climate resiliency; and (5) the use of low- and zero-emission equipment for transportation and construction. SB 433 For FY 2017 through FY 2021, requires the Department of Finance, rather than the Board of 5/7/15 Assembly (Berryhill) Equalization, to calculate any adjustments to the variable gas tax rate that would be needed to ensure Revenue & Variable Gas Tax that the same amount of revenue is generated as by the former state sales tax on gasoline pursuant to the Taxation Rate: Department of 2010 transportation funding swap. Similarly, for FY 2017 through FY 2021, requires the Department Committee Finance of Finance, rather than the Board of Equalization, to adjust the diesel excise tax rate to maintain revenue neutrality with the increase in the state sales tax rate on diesel fuel that was enacted as part of the 2010 transportation funding swap. SB 564 Adds $35 to the base fine for certain traffic violations that occur: (1) when passing a school building or As Assembly (Cannella) grounds contiguous to a highway; or (2) when passing any school grounds not separated from the Introduced Transportation Traffic Violations: highway by a fence, gate or other physical barrier while in use by children. Requires the revenues from Committee School Zones these additional fines to be deposited in the State Transportation Fund for school zone safety projects in the Active Transportation Program. SB 578 For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2016, allows a tax credit in an amount equal to 30 4/13/15 Senate (Block) percent of the cost of purchasing Level 2 or direct current fast charger electric vehicle charging stations Appropriations Income and to be used in the trade or business of the taxpayer. Provides that this tax credit may not exceed $30,000 Committee: Corporate Tax Credit per taxable year. Failed Passage for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations SB 627 For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2015, allows a tax credit in an amount computed by As Senate (Galgiani) multiplying an unspecified dollar figure by the total number of a taxpayer’s commuting miles. Introduced Governance & Commuting Miles Finance Tax Credit Committee: Failed Passage

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 37 of 45

11.a

State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 681 Decreases the penalty for failing to come to a complete stop before making a right turn, or a left turn 1/5/16 Senate (Hill) from a one-way street onto another one-way street, when a traffic light is red from $100 to $35. Appropriations Vehicles: Right Committee: Turn Violations Failed Passage SB 698 Requires an unspecified amount of cap-and-trade auction proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction As Senate (Cannella) Fund to be continuously appropriated to the State Highway Account for purposes of funding school Introduced Environmental Cap-and-Trade: zone safety projects under the state’s Active Transportation Program. Quality School Zone Safety Committee: Projects Failed Passage SB 706 Allows cap-and-trade auction proceeds deposited into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to be used 4/6/15 Senate (Pavley) to encourage the in-state production of alternative fuels with low-carbon intensity from new and Appropriations Cap-and-Trade: existing facilities using sustainable feedstocks. Committee: Alternative Fuels Failed Passage SB 757 States the intent of the Legislature to enact a bill to do the following: (1) require the Alameda County As Senate Rules (Wieckowski) Transportation Commission to explore the feasibility of a multimodal station in the city of Fremont at a Introduced Committee: South Bay Area location that can be served by both Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) and Altamont Commuter Failed Passage Public Transit Express (ACE) trains; and (2) require the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to Service explore expansion of light rail service to Levi’s Stadium in the city of Santa Clara. SB 773 Requests the University of California to conduct a study on motor vehicle registration fraud and failure 6/23/15 Assembly (Allen) to register a motor vehicle. If conducted, requires the study to include all of the following: (1) Transportation Vehicle Registration quantification of the magnitude of the problem; (2) the strategies being used by motorists to commit Committee Fraud Study motor vehicle registration fraud; (3) the reasons for the behaviors of motorists who commit motor vehicle registration fraud or who fail to register their motor vehicles; (4) the costs to the state and local governments in lost revenues; (5) increases in air pollution; (6) other costs and consequences of these behaviors; and (7) recommended strategies for increasing compliance with registration requirements. Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to enter into an agreement with the University of California to share its vehicle registration information with university researchers for purposes of conducting the study. Requests the University of California to post a report regarding the study on its Internet Web site by January 1, 2017.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 38 of 45

11.a

State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 824 Makes a number of changes to the structure of the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program. For As Senate Sponsor (Beall) capital projects, requires a recipient transit agency to do all of the following: (1) specify the phases of Introduced Transportation & Low Carbon Transit work for which the agency is seeking an allocation of funding from the Low Carbon Transit Operations Housing Operations Program Program; (2) identify the sources and timing of all funding required to undertake and complete any Committee phase of a project for which the agency is seeking an allocation from the program; and (3) described intended sources and timing of funding to complete any subsequent phases of the project through construction or procurement. Allows a recipient transit agency that does not submit a project for funding in a particular fiscal year to retain its funding share, and to accumulate and utilize that funding share in a subsequent fiscal year for a larger expenditure. Allows a recipient transit agency, in a particular fiscal year, to loan or transfer its funding share to another recipient transit agency with an identified eligible project. Allows a group of recipient transit agencies, in a particular fiscal year, to enter into an agreement to pool their funding shares for an identified eligible project. Allows a recipient transit agency to apply to Caltrans to do either of the following: (1) reassign any savings of Low Carbon Transit Operations Program funding allocated for a completed project to another eligible project; or (2) reassign to another eligible project any Low Carbon Transit Operations Program funding previously allocated to a project that the agency has determine is no longer a high priority. Allows for the use of Letters of No Prejudice (LONPs), so that recipient transit agencies can advance their projects with local money and then get reimbursed with Low Carbon Transit Operations Program dollars when that funding becomes available. SB 879 Declares the intent of the Legislature to enact a bill that would authorize the issuance of bonds for As Senate Rules (Beall) financing housing-related programs that would serve the homeless, as well as extremely low-income Introduced Committee Housing Bond Act and very low-income Californians over the course of the next decade. SB 882 Prohibits a public transit agency from charging a minor with an infraction or misdemeanor for acts of As Senate Public (Hertzberg) fare evasion. Introduced Safety Committee Fare Evasion: Minors SB 885 Commencing with contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2017, provides that a design professional As Senate Judiciary (Wolk) shall only have the duty to defend claims that arise out of, pertain to or relate to the negligence, Introduced Committee Design recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. Provides that a design professional shall Professionals: have no duty to defend claims against other persons or entities. Claims SB 901 Requires Caltrans to establish an Advanced Mitigation Program to accelerate project delivery and As Senate (Bates) improve the outcomes of environmental mitigation for transportation infrastructure projects. Allows Introduced Transportation & Advanced Mitigation the program to utilize mitigation instruments, including mitigation banks and conservation easements. . Housing Program Allows Caltrans to use advanced mitigation credits to fulfill mitigation requirements of any Committee environmental law for a transportation project eligible for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), or the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). Beginning with FY 2017, requires Caltrans to set aside at least $30 million per year from the annual appropriations for the STIP and the SHOPP for the planning and implementation of projects in the Advanced Mitigation Program.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 39 of 45

11.a

State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 902 Extends indefinitely the statutory authorization for Caltrans to participate in a federal program that As Senate (Cannella) allows states to assume the responsibilities of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under the Introduced Transportation & Federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition, extends indefinitely provisions in existing Housing Environmental law that authorize Caltrans to consent to the jurisdiction of the federal court’s with regard to the Committee Review Process assumption of FHWA’s responsibilities under NEPA and that waive the state’s Eleventh Amendment protection against NEPA-related lawsuits brought in federal court for as long as Caltrans participates in the program. SB 903 Acknowledges that as of June 30, 2015, there is $879 million in loans of certain transportation revenues As Senate (Nguyen) still outstanding, and requires this amount to be repaid by the General Fund from the Budget Introduced Transportation & Transportation Stabilization Account no later than June 30, 2016. Requires the loan repayments to be distributed as Housing Loans follows: (1) $148 million to be allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to fund Committee construction and associated support costs for projects that are programmed in the Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP), but which have not received their full allocations pursuant to current law; (2) $334 million to the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund; (3) $265 million to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program; and (4) $132 million to the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). SB 998 Prohibits a person from operating, parking, stopping, or leaving a motor vehicle in a highway or As Senate Rules Co- (Wieckowski) roadway lane that has been designated to be used exclusively for public mass transit, except when Introduced Committee Sponsor Bus-Only Lanes: necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or Motorist Violations official traffic control device. SCA 7 Calls for placing before the voters an amendment to the California Constitution to prohibit the 5/28/15 Senate (Huff) Legislature from borrowing revenues derived from fees and taxes imposed by the state on motor Transportation & Motor Vehicle Fees vehicles or their use or operations, and from using these revenues other than for state highways, local Housing and Taxes: streets and roads, and fixed guideway mass transit as specified in Article 19 of the Constitution. Also Committee Restrictions on prohibits these revenues from being pledged or used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds, Expenditures or for other indebtedness. Requires the revenues derived from that portion of the vehicle license fee that exceeds 0.65 percent of the market value of a vehicle to be used for street and highway purposes. Prohibits the Legislature from borrowing these revenues and from using them other than as specifically permitted. Also prohibits these revenues from being pledged or used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds, or for other indebtedness.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 40 of 45

11.a

State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SBX1-1 Proposes to generate between $4 billion and $5 billion per year in new revenues for transportation 9/1/15 Senate Support (Beall) purposes from the following sources: (1) an increase in the gasoline excise tax of 12 cents per gallon; Appropriations Transportation (2) an increase in the diesel excise tax of 22 cents per gallon; (3) a registration surcharge of $35 per Committee Funding year imposed on all motor vehicles; (4) a registration surcharge of $100 per year imposed on zero- emission vehicles; and (5) a road access charge of $35 per year imposed on all motor vehicles to be collected by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) as part of the annual vehicle registration process. Requires the repayment over the next three years of approximately $879 million in outstanding loans owed by the General Fund to the State Highway Account, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Account, the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA), and the Motor Vehicle Account. Beginning July 1, 2019, and every three years thereafter, indexes the gas tax and the diesel excise tax to inflation. Calls for 12 cents of the 22-cent increase in the diesel excise tax to be deposited into the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund and used for goods movement projects programmed by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Requires the balance of the new revenues generated from the five tax and fee increases, as well as the one-time revenues from the General Fund loan repayments, to be deposited into a new Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account. Requires the revenues in the account to be used for the following purposes: (1) road maintenance and rehabilitation; (2) safety projects; (3) railroad grade separations; (4) active transportation and pedestrian/bicycle safety projects in conjunction with any other allowable project; or (5) wildlife crossings. Every year, requires 5 percent of the funds in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to be set aside for allocation to counties that currently do not have a local transportation sales tax, but gain voter approval for one after July 1, 2015. Requires the CTC to develop guidelines to define the specific methodology that would be used to distribute these funds to eligible counties. Requires any of the 5-percent set-aside that is not allocated to counties in a given fiscal year to be split 50/50 between Caltrans and cities/counties. Allocates the remaining balance in the account after the 5-percent set-aside as follows: (1) 50 percent to Caltrans for state highway maintenance, State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects, or other eligible purposes; and (2) 50 percent to cities and counties for their local roadway systems. In the latter case, equally divides the funds between cities and counties, with the cities’ portion being allocated by a formula based on population, and the counties’ share by a formula based on vehicle registrations and miles of maintained county roads. Requires cities and counties to use their formula shares for any of the following: (1) improvements to transportation facilities that will assist in reducing further deterioration of the existing roadway system; (2) to satisfy a local match requirement for federal or state funds for similar purposes; (3) an active transportation project that is done in conjunction with a roadway maintenance, repair or rehabilitation project; or (4) any other eligible project, as specified. Allows a city or county to spend its formula share for other priorities only if it has an average Pavement Condition Index that meets or exceeds 85. In order to remain eligible for an allocation from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account, requires cities and counties to maintain their historic commitment of local funds for street/road purposes by annually spending not less than the average of its expenditures from FY 2010, FY 2011 and FY 2012. Establishes a substantial oversight role for the CTC to ensure that the funds allocated from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account are used by Caltrans and cities/counties in manner that is consistent with performance criteria adopted by the commission related to highway/roadway performance, greenhouse gas emissions, social equity impacts, and public health impacts. Requires Caltrans, by April 1, 2016, to submit a plan to the CTC to increase its efficiency by up to 30 percent over the subsequent three years. 2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 41 of 45

11.a

State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SBX1-2 Requires the Legislature to appropriate cap-and-trade auction proceeds generated from the As Senate (Huff) transportation fuels sector for transportation infrastructure, including public streets and highways, but Introduced Transportation & Cap-and-Trade: excluding high-speed rail. Infrastructure State Highways and Development Local Roadways Committee SBX1-3 Specifies that no further bonds shall be sold for high-speed rail purposes pursuant to the Safe, Reliable 8/17/15 Senate (Vidak) High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century (Proposition 1A), except as specifically Transportation & High-Speed Rail: provided with respect to an existing appropriation for early improvement projects related to the Phase I Infrastructure Bond Funding blended system. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, requires the unspent proceeds received from Development outstanding bonds issued and sold for high-speed rail purposes prior to the effective date of the Committee provisions of this bill to be redirected to retiring the debt incurred from the issuance and sale of those outstanding bonds. Allows the remaining unissued bonds, as of the effective date of the provisions of this bill, that were authorized for high-speed rail purposes to be issued and sold. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, requires the net proceeds from the sale of these remaining unissued bonds to be made available as follows: (1) 50 percent to Caltrans to fund repair and new construction projects on state highways and freeways; and (2) 50 percent to Caltrans to create a program to fund repair and new construction projects on local streets and roads, with each county receiving a base amount of funding, and any additional funding being allocated based on a county’s population. Makes no changes to the authorization under Proposition 1A for the issuance of $950 million in bonds for rail purposes other than high-speed rail. SBX1-4 Declares the intent of the Legislature to enact statutory changes to establish permanent, sustainable 9/4/15 Conference (Beall) sources of transportation funding to maintain and repair the state’s highways, local roads, bridges, and Committee Transportation other critical transportation infrastructure. Funding: State Highways and Local Roadways SBX1-5 Declares the intent of the Legislature to enact a bill to establish permanent, sustainable sources of As Assembly Desk (Beall) transportation funding to improve the state’s key trade corridors, and support efforts by local Introduced Transportation governments to repair and improve local transportation infrastructure. Funding: Trade Corridors and Local Transportation Infrastructure SBX1-6 Prohibits the use of cap-and-trade auction proceeds for the state’s high-speed rail project. Requires 65 As Senate (Runner) percent of the cap-and-trade auction proceeds deposited into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to be Introduced Transportation & Cap-and-Trade: distributed to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for allocation to high-priority Infrastructure High-Speed Rail transportation projects, as determined by the commission. Requires the CTC to allocate these funds as Development follows: (1) 40 percent to state highway projects; (2) 40 percent to local street/road projects, equally Committee divided between cities and counties; and (3) 20 percent to public transit projects.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 42 of 45

11.a

State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SBX1-7 Increases the sales and use tax rate on diesel fuel by 3.5 percent. Dedicates the revenues derived from 9/3/15 Senate Support (Allen) this increase to the State Transit Assistance Program (STA). Restricts the expenditure of these Appropriations Diesel Sales Tax revenues to transit capital projects, or services to maintain or repair a public transit agency’s existing Committee vehicle fleet or facilities, including the following: (1) rehabilitation or modernization of existing vehicles or facilities; (2) design, acquisition and construction of new vehicles or facilities that improve existing public transit services or that enable the implementation of future planned services; or (3) services that complement local efforts for repair and improvement of local transportation infrastructure. SBX1-8 Increases the amount of cap-and-trade auction proceeds continuously appropriated from the Greenhouse As Senate Support (Hill) Gas Reduction Fund to the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program from 5 percent to 10 percent, and Introduced Appropriations Cap-and-Trade: to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program from 10 percent to 20 percent. Committee Public Transit Funding SBX1-9 Prohibits Caltrans from using any non-recurring funds, including loan repayments, bond funds or grant As Senate (Moorlach) funds, to pay the salaries or benefits of any permanent civil service position within the department. Introduced Transportation & Caltrans: Beginning on July 1, 2016, requires Caltrans to contract with qualified private entities for a minimum Infrastructure Architectural and of 15 percent of the total annual value of architectural and engineering services with respect to public Development Engineering Services works projects undertaken by the department. Increases this percentage each year to a minimum of 50 Committee percent by July 1, 2023. SBX1-10 Revises the process for programming and allocating the 75-percent share of federal and state funds As Senate (Bates) available for regional transportation improvement programs (RTIPs). Requires the California Introduced Transportation & State Transportation Transportation Commission (CTC) to compute the annual county share amounts for each county for Infrastructure Improvement programming and allocation under the RTIPs. Requires these funds, along with an appropriate amount Development Program of capital outlay support dollars, to be appropriated annually through the Budget Act. Upon the Committee enactment of the Budget Act, requires Caltrans to apportion the RTIP county shares for each county as block grants to the applicable regional transportation planning agency (RTPA). Requires the RTPAs to identify the transportation capital improvement projects to be funded with these dollars in their RTIPs. Requires the CTC to incorporate the RTIPs into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Eliminates the role of the CTC in programming and allocating funding for RTIP projects, but retains certain oversight roles of the commission with respect to the expenditure of these dollars. Repeals provisions in current law governing the computation of county shares over multiple fiscal years.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 43 of 45

11.a

State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SBX1-11 Exempts from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a project that consists of the 9/4/15 Senate (Berryhill) inspection, maintenance, repair, restoration, reconditioning, relocation, replacement, or removal of Transportation & CEQA: Exemption existing transportation infrastructure, including highways, roadways, bridges, tunnels, public transit Infrastructure for Certain systems, and paths and sidewalks serving either bicycles or pedestrians, if the project meets all of the Development Transportation following conditions: (1) the project is located within an existing right-of-way; (2) any area Committee Projects surrounding the right-of-way that is altered as a result of construction activities that are necessary for the completion of the project will be restored to its condition before the project; and (3) the project applicant agrees to comply with all conditions otherwise authorized by law or imposed by a city or county as part of any local agency permit process that are required to mitigate potential impacts of the project. Prohibits a court in a judicial action or proceeding under CEQA from staying or enjoining a transportation infrastructure project that is included in a regional sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy unless the court finds either of the following: (1) the project presents an imminent threat to the public health and safety; or (2) the project site contains unforeseen important Native American artifacts, or unforeseen important historical, archaeological or ecological values that would be materially, permanently and adversely affected by the project unless the court stays or enjoins the project. SBX1-12 Excludes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) from the California State Transportation 8/20/15 Senate (Runner) Agency (CalSTA) and, instead, establishes the commission as a separate entity in state government to Appropriations California act in an independent oversight role. Requires Caltrans to submit its proposed program of projects for Committee Transportation the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) to the CTC for review by January 31 of Commission each even-numbered year. Requires Caltrans to program capital outlay support resources for each project included in the SHOPP. Requires Caltrans to provide the CTC with detailed information for all programmed SHOPP projects, including cost, scope and schedule. Specifies that the CTC is not required to approve the SHOPP in its entirety, as submitted by Caltrans, and may approve or reject individual SHOPP projects programmed by the department. Requires Caltrans to submit to the CTC for approval any changes in a programmed SHOPP project’s cost, scope or schedule.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 44 of 45

11.a

State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SBX1-13 Creates the Office of the Transportation Inspector as an independent state government entity to ensure 9/3/15 Senate (Vidak) that Caltrans; the California High-Speed Rail Authority; and all other state agencies expending state Appropriations Office of the transportation funds are operating efficiently, effectively, and in compliance with applicable federal and Committee Transportation state laws. Requires the Governor to appoint a transportation inspector general, subject to confirmation Inspector General by the Senate, to a six-year term. Provides that the transportation inspector general cannot be removed from office during that term, except for good cause. Requires the transportation inspector general to review policies, practices and procedures, and to conduct audits and investigations of activities involving state transportation funds in consultation with all affected state agencies. Specifically, requires the transportation inspector general to do all of the following: (1) examine the operating practices of Caltrans, the High-Speed Rail Authority and all other state agencies expending state transportation funds to identify fraud and waste, opportunities for efficiencies, and opportunities to improve the data used to determine appropriate project resource allocations; (2) identify best practices in the delivery of transportation projects, and develop policies or recommend proposed legislation enabling state agencies to adopt these practices when practicable; (3) provide objective analysis of, and when possible, offer solutions to, concerns raised by the public or generated within agencies involving the state’s transportation infrastructure and project delivery methods; (4) conduct, supervise and coordinate audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of all state transportation agencies with state-funded transportation projects; and (5) recommend policies promoting economy and efficiency in the administration of programs and operations of all state transportation agencies with state-funded transportation projects. Prohibits the Office of the Transportation Inspector General from conducting any audit or investigation that would be redundant to or concurrent with any audit or investigation of the same matter. SBX1-14 Extends existing statutory authority for Caltrans and regional transportation agencies, including the As Senate Support (Cannella) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), to utilize public-private partnerships for Introduced Transportation & Public-Private transportation infrastructure projects indefinitely. Infrastructure Partnerships Development Committee SCAX1-1 Calls for placing before the voters an amendment to the California Constitution to prohibit the As Senate (Huff) Legislature from borrowing revenues derived from fees and taxes imposed by the state on motor Introduced Appropriations Motor Vehicle Fees vehicles or their use or operations, and from using these revenues other than for state highways, local Committee and Taxes: streets and roads, and fixed guideway mass transit as specified in Article 19 of the Constitution. Also Restrictions on prohibits these revenues from being pledged or used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds, Expenditures or for other indebtedness. Requires the revenues derived from that portion of the vehicle license fee that exceeds 0.65 percent of the market value of a vehicle to be used for street and highway purposes. Prohibits the Legislature from borrowing these revenues and from using them other than as specifically permitted. Also prohibits these revenues from being pledged or used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds, or for other indebtedness.

2015-2016 Legislative Update Matrix Page 45 of 45

Date: March 2, 2016 Current Meeting: March 9, 2016 Board Meeting: April 7, 2016

BOARD MEMORANDUM

TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee

THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez

FROM: Director of Planning and Program Development,, Director of Engr. & Trans. Infrastructure Dev., John Ristow, Carolyn M. Gonot

SUBJECT: 2000 Measure A Semi-Annual Report Ending December 31, 2015

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

BACKGROUND:

Please find attached the Semi-Annual Report for the Measure A Program for the period of July 1 to December 31, 2015. Highlights for this reporting period include the following:

Extend BART from Fremont through Milpitas to Downtown San Jose and the Santa Clara Caltrain station

Staff submitted the New Starts Project Development application letter and supporting documentation to FTA on December 21, 2015. The Administrative Draft of the Phase II environmental document was sent for FTA review in January 2016.

The Berryessa Station Campus and Roadways construction contract (C742) was awarded in August 2015.

The Montague Expressway and South Milpitas Boulevard improvements construction contract (C640) was awarded to O. C. Jones and Sons in November 2015. The contractor has been focusing on critical submittals approval, mobilized onsite in January 2016.

At the future Milpitas station, the pedestrian overcrossing structure between the BART station and the VTA Light Rail station was set into place in October 2015.

3331 North First Street ∙ San Jose, CA 95134-1927 ∙ Administration 408.321.5555 ∙ Customer Service 408.321.2300 12

Notice to Proceed for BART’s Component Repair Facility and Hayward Shop Modification contract was issued on October 20, 2015. Asbestos inspection/abatement of the existing building at the future Component/Repair Shop location was done and demolition of the building was completed.

Improve Caltrain: DT to Gilroy & Electrify from Palo Alto to Gilroy

The Request for Proposals (RFP) for the electrification contract was released in February 2015. The RFP is expected to be awarded in 2016. VTA continues to reimburse Caltrain for project related costs.

Caltrain Service Upgrades

Final design and packing incorporating stakeholders for the Santa Clara Caltrain Station Pedestrian Underpass Extension is currently ongoing. Construction contract will be advertised mid-2016 and construction is expected to start in summer 2016.

Improve Bus Service in Major Corridors

VTA issued a safety shutdown to the contractor in July 2015 for all field activities on the Alum Rock Santa Clara Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project, followed by a Notice of Default later that month. VTA entered into a Closeout Agreement with the contractor for the prompt and orderly closeout and demobilization of contractor from the Project. Using the completion contractor and certain subcontractors from the original contract, critical work was prioritized so traffic can be restored to its final configuration and reopened to vehicles and pedestrians by April 2016. The work scope not started by the original contractor is being repackaged into a two new contracts. All construction work will be completed by early 2017.

The El Camino Real Rapid Transit Policy Advisory Board (PAB) has recommended that VTA’s Board of Directors approve of starting environmental analysis and the implementation of a pilot project for a new Right Lane street configuration. The Board of Directors will consider the PAB’s recommendations at their April Meeting.

Project team is developing design for bus stop placement, shelter options, bike and pedestrian improvements for the Stevens Creek Rapid 523.Construction contract is expected to be advertised for bids in late 2016.

DISCUSSION:

The 2000 Measure A Semi-Annual Report has been updated to correspond to the 14 transit projects/program areas as identified in the 2000 Measure A sales tax. The report contains the schedule, budget and status information as provided in previous versions. The individual summary sheets provide more information on the 14 project/program areas. The 2000 Measure A Semi-Annual Report will continue to be brought to committees and the

Page 2 of 3 12

Board of Directors twice a year as an information item.

Prepared By: Suja Prasad, Sr. Cost & Schedule Coordinator Memo No. 5170

Page 3 of 3 12.a

Semi-Annual Report December 2015 12.a

12.a 2000 Measure A Program Semi-Annual Report – December 2015 Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND PROJECT COSTS A. Executive Summary ...... 1-2 B. Project Costs ...... 1-5 C. Measure A Fund Exchange ...... 1-8 D. Funding...... 1-9

2 PROJECT SUMMARY REPORTS 1 Silicon Valley Rapid Transit 1. BART SV Program Development Implementation & 2-1-1 Warm Springs 2. BART SV Corridor Establishment and Maintenance ...... 2-1-2 3. Berryessa Extension Project SVBX - Phase 1 ...... 2-1-3 4 Future Extension to Santa Clara – Phase II and NMF ...... 2-1-4 5. BART Core Systems Modifications (BCS) ...... 2-1-5 6. Other Supporting Project ………………………………….. 2-1-6

2. Mineta San Jose Airport People Mover ...... 2-2 3. Capitol Expressway Light Rail to Eastride ...... 2-3 4. Low Floor Light Rail Vehicles ...... 2-4 5. Caltrain – Capacity Improvements & Electrification ...... 2-5 6. Caltrain Service Upgrades ...... 2-6 7. Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center ...... 2-7 8. Bus Rapid Transit ...... 2-8 9. Upgrade Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) ...... 2-9 10. Highway 17 Bus Service Improvements ...... 2-10 11. Dumbarton Rail Corridor ...... 2-11 12. ZEB Demonstration and Facility Improvements ...... 2-12 13. Develop New Light Rail Corridors ...... 2-13

A APPENDIX A – 2000 MEASURE A BALLOT LANGUAGE ...... A-1 B APPENDIX B – 2000 MEASURE A FUND SWAPS...... B-1

i 12.a

12.a 2000 Measure A Program Semi-Annual Report – December 2015 Executive Summary and Project Costs

SECTION 1.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND PROJECT COSTS

12.a

12.a 2000 Measure A Program Semi-Annual Report – December 2015 Executive Summary and Project Costs

SECTION 1.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND PROJECT COSTS

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Semi-Annual Report is a periodic update of the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program prepared by VTA staff and provided to the 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee and the VTA Board of Directors.

In the same manner VTA was committed to and completed all projects in the 1996 Measure B Program, VTA is committed to completing all the projects in the 2000 Measure A Program. During FY2016, VTA will advance projects to a ready state and advocate for outside fund sources and matched funds to advance projects including potential public-private partnerships.

This report shows a snapshot of the 2000 Measure A Program at the time of writing. However, it is important to understand that the timing and prioritization of projects in the program remains fluid. The report is based on the Program’s budgeted, forecast, and incurred costs as of December 31, 2015.

Key activities that occurred in the six months leading up to December 31, 2015 are described below:

Extend BART from Fremont through Milpitas to Downtown San Jose and the Santa Clara Caltrain station

. Staff submitted the New Starts Project Development application letter and supporting documentation to FTA on December 21, 2015. FTA reviews the request and notifies Congress and VTA within 45-days from the start of review whether entry into New Starts Project Development has been granted. The Administrative Draft of the Phase II environmental document was sent for FTA review in January 2016.

. The Berryessa Station Campus and Roadways construction contract (C742) was awarded in August 2015. The contractor has been focusing on critical submittals approval, and has mobilized to the site for initial setup.

. The Montague Expressway and South Milpitas Boulevard improvements construction contract (C640) was awarded to O. C. Jones and Sons in November 2015. The contractor has been focusing on critical submittals approval, mobilized onsite in January 2016.

. At the future Milpitas station, the pedestrian overcrossing structure between the BART station and the VTA Light Rail station was set into place in October 2015.

. Notice to Proceed for BART’s Component Repair Facility and Hayward Shop Modification contract was issued on October 20, 2015. Asbestos inspection/abatement of the existing

1-2 12.a 2000 Measure A Program Semi-Annual Report – December 2015 Executive Summary and Project Costs

building at the future Component/Repair Shop location was done and demolition of the building was completed.

. Early planning for SVBX Systems Startup is underway. A kick-off meeting was held in September 2015.

. Mountain View Light Rail Double Track project was completed in December 2015. This will support the new line planned from Mountain View to Alum Rock that connects Caltrain and new Milpitas BART station.

Extend Light Rail from Downtown San Jose to the East Valley

. Phase I which includes pedestrian and bus improvements along Capitol Expressway from Capitol Avenue to Quimby Road (completed in the spring of 2013) and reconstruction of the Eastridge Transit Center was completed in May 2015. Phase II will extend light rail to the Eastridge Transit Center and is dependent on securing funds.

Improve Caltrain: Double Track to Gilroy & Electrify from Palo Alto to Gilroy

. The environmental process for electrification and new electric trains was completed in January 2015. The Request for Proposals (RFP) for the electrification contract was released in February 2015. The RFP is expected to be awarded in 2016. VTA continues to reimburse Caltrain for project related costs.

Caltrain Service Upgrades

. Final design and bid package incorporating comments from stakeholders for the Santa Clara Caltrain Station Pedestrian Underpass Extension is currently ongoing. Construction contract will be advertised mid 2016 and construction is expected to start in summer 2016.

Improve Bus Service in Major Corridors

. In July 2015, VTA issued a safety shutdown to the contractor for all field activities on the Alum Rock Santa Clara Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project after the contractor struck a marked gas line. This was followed by a Notice of Default later that month. In September, VTA entered into a Closeout Agreement with the contractor for the prompt and orderly closeout and demobilization of contractor from the project. Using the completion contractor and certain subcontractors from the original contract, VTA prioritized critical and unfinished work along the corridor so traffic can be restored to its final configuration and all areas reopened to vehicles and pedestrians. This will be completed by April 2016. The work scope not started by the original contractor is being repackaged into a two new contracts. All construction work will be completed by early 2017.

. The El Camino Real Rapid Transit Policy Advisory Board has recommended that VTA’s Board of Directors approve of starting environmental analysis and the implementation of a pilot project for a new Right Lane street configuration. The Board of Directors will consider the PAB’s recommendations at their April Meeting.

1-3 12.a 2000 Measure A Program Semi-Annual Report – December 2015 Executive Summary and Project Costs

. Project team is developing design for bus stop placement, shelter options, bike and pedestrian improvements for the Stevens Creek Rapid 523.Construction contract is expected to be advertised for bids in late 2016.

1-4 12.a 2000 Measure A Program Semi-Annual Report – December 2015 Executive Summary and Project Costs

B. PROJECT COSTS

Figure 1.1, on page 1-7, shows the incurred costs for each of the 14 transit projects/program areas as identified in the 2000 Measure A sales tax.

2000 Measure A Programwide Programwide costs are incurred when activities are performed that provide either an indirect benefit to multiple projects or provide benefit to the overall 2000 Measure A Program. There are five programwide cost components to the 2000 Measure A Program:

. Capitalized Interest and Bond Costs . Non-Capitalized Interest and Bond Costs . Programwide Expenses . VTA Operating Assistance . Miscellaneous Operating Expenses

Interest and Bond Costs Interest and Bond Costs represent interest and other bond charges (net of interest earned on bond proceeds) related to 2000 Measure A Sales Tax Revenue Bonds. Other bond charges include periodic fees related to variable rate bonds, including liquidity, remarketing, trustee and rating fees.

Capitalized interest/bond charges need to be associated with the assets that were funded by the bond proceeds. In accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) 62, capitalized interest related to restricted assets should be net of the interest income earned by the reinvested bond proceeds. Costs are allocated directly to specific projects based on the prorata share of bond proceeds used to fund expenditures on a quarterly basis. These costs will continue to be allocated directly to project expenditures until the bonds are repaid in full or until such projects are completed, whichever comes first.

Non-Capitalized interest/bond charges represent the bond costs allocated to projects that have been completed as well as the costs associated with Taxable Build America Bonds proceeds that have not yet been drawn down.

Bonds were initially issued beginning in 2003, prior to the start of the 2000 Measure A Sales Tax, in order to advance the SVRT, Commuter Rail, and Light Rail programs prior to sales tax revenue collections. Currently there are approximately $933.2 million in 2000 Measure A Sales Tax Revenue Bonds outstanding.

Programwide Expenses Programwide expenses include preparation of progress and cost reports and other general project related tasks that are not attributable to individual projects. On a quarterly basis, the programwide expenses are allocated to individual projects based on the incremental costs of the projects during the quarter. The allocation is necessary to associate the costs to the individual projects that were benefited by the incurrence of the programwide costs.

1-5 12.a 2000 Measure A Program Semi-Annual Report – December 2015 Executive Summary and Project Costs

VTA Operating Assistance 18.46% of the Measure A Sales Tax revenue is used in support of VTA operations. Through December 31, 2015, a cumulative total of $300.1 million has been expended for this purpose.

Miscellaneous Operating Expenses Miscellaneous Operating Expenses represent expenditures related to the ongoing costs of administering the overall Measure A program. These expenses include financial forecasting, investment consultants, annual financial audit preparation, election fees, publication of annual financial audits and public hearings conducted by the 2000 Measure A Citizen’s Watchdog Committee, and other general tasks.

1-6 12.a 2000 Measure A Program Semi-Annual Report – December 2015 Executive Summary and Project Costs

Figure 1.1 – Incurred Cost

$ in millions Incurred Cost Incurred Cost Incurred Cost This Project Thorugh Jun 2015 Thorugh Dec 2015 Period A B C = A-B 1-Extend BART from Fremont through Milpitas to Downtown San Jose and the Santa Clara Caltrain Station 1-1 BART SV Program Development, Implementation & Warm Springs $ 267.0 $ 392.5 $ 125.5 1-2 BART SV Corridor Establishment and Maintenance (CEM) $ 403.8 $ 421.7 $ 17.9 1-3 BART Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension $ 1,149.0 $ 1,360.0 $ 211.0 1-4 BART Silicon Valley Santa Clara Extension $ 165.7 $ 168.1 $ 2.4 1-5 BART Core System Modifications (BCS) $ 116.1 $ 120.1 $ 4.0 BART Core System Modifications (BCS) $ 116.1 $ 120.1 $ 4.0 Total $ - 1-6 BART Other Supporting Projects $ 57.6 $ 77.5 $ 19.9 P-King Road BRT $ 0.3 $ 0.3 $ 0.1 P-Northern Light Rail Express $ 33.8 $ 50.1 $ 16.3 P-Santa Clara Pocket Track $ 23.5 $ 26.9 $ 3.5 P-BART Transit Integration Analysis & Imp $ 0.1 $ 0.1 $ 0.0 P-N.1st Speed Imp & 1st/Tasman Mods $ - $ 0.0 $ 0.0 Total $ 2,159.2 $ 2,539.9 $ 380.7 2 - Provide Connections from Mineta San Jose International Airport to BART, Caltrain and VTA Light Rail Mineta San Jose Airport People Mover (APM) $ 2.0 $ 2.0 $ 0.0 3- Extend Light Rail From Downtown San Jose to the East Valley DTEV Planning & Conceptual Engg/DTEV Environmental & 90% CELR $ 63.4 $ 64.0 $ 0.6 CELR Phase I - Pedestrian Improvements $ 19.0 $ 19.0 $ - CELR Phase I - Eastridge Transit Center $ 53.6 $ 55.8 $ 2.2 CELR Phase II - LRT to Eastridge $ - $ - $ - Total $ 136.0 $ 138.8 $ 2.8 4 - Purchase Low-Floor Light Rail Vehicles 70 Low-Floor Light Rail Vehicles $ 200.6 $ 200.6 $ 0.0 Total $ 200.6 $ 200.6 $ 0.0 5 - Improve Caltrain: Double Track to Gilroy and Electrify from Palo Alto to Gilroy Caltrain South County Capacity Improvements $ 17.2 $ 17.2 $ 0.0 Caltrain Electrification (VTA Share) $ 11.9 $ 39.9 $ 28.0 Total $ 29.1 $ 57.1 $ 28.0 6- Increase Caltrain Service Caltrain Improvement Plan/Caltrain Service Upgrades $ 15.8 $ 16.0 $ 0.2 Caltrain Mountain View Parking Structure $ 0.3 $ 0.3 $ 0.0 Blossom Hill Pedestrian Grade Separation $ 10.8 $ 10.8 $ 0.0 Caltrain Safety Enhancements $ 15.7 $ 15.7 $ 0.0 Santa Clara Station Pedestrian Underpass Extension $ 2.1 $ 2.2 $ 0.1 Santa Clara and San Jose Diridon Station Upgrade $ 12.2 $ 12.2 $ - Bike Sharing Pilot Project $ 0.8 $ 0.8 $ 0.0 Total $ 57.7 $ 58.0 $ 0.3 7 - Construct a New Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center Palo Alto Intermodal Transit C enter $ 0.2 $ 0.2 $ 0.0 8 - Improve Bus Service in Major Bus Corridors BRT Alternative Analysis/ BRT Strategic Plan $ 2.2 $ 2.2 $ 0.0 Alum Rock - Santa Clara Bus Rapid Transit $ 62.2 $ 80.9 $ 18.7 Stevens Creek Bus Rapid Transit $ 2.9 $ 3.2 $ 0.2 El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit $ 9.8 $ 10.3 $ 0.5 Procure BRT Articulated Buses $ 31.7 $ 32.1 $ 0.4 Modifications to Chaboya and North Division for BRT Buses $ 1.6 $ 1.7 $ 0.1 Money Counting Facility Replacement $ 0.1 $ 0.1 $ 0.0 De Anza College Transit Center Improvement $ - $ 0.0 $ 0.0 Total $ 110.5 $ 130.5 $ 20.0 9 - Upgrade Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Included in Santa Clara and San Jose Diridon Station Upgrade $ - $ - $ - 10 - Improve Highway 17 Express Bus Service Highway 17 Bus Service Improvements $ 2.5 $ 2.5 $ 0.0 11 - Connect Caltrain with Dumbarton Rail Corridor Dumbarton Rail Corridor $ 2.3 $ 2.3 $ 0.0 Total $ 2.3 $ 2.3 $ 0.0 12 - Purchase Zero-Emission Buses and Construct Service Facilities 3 Zero Emission Buses (Pilot Program) $ 14.7 $ 14.7 $ 0.0 Zero Emission Buses Facility Improvements $ 4.8 $ 4.8 $ 0.0 Total $ 19.4 $ 19.4 $ 0.0 13 - Develop New Light Rail Corridors New Rail Corridors Study $ 0.8 $ 0.8 $ 0.0 Light Rail Systems Analysis $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.0 Southern Light Rail Express $ 1.1 $ 1.1 $ 0.0 LRT Extension to Vasona Junction $ 0.9 $ 0.9 $ 0.0 Winchester LR Double Track & Platform Extension $ - $ - $ - Total $ 4.4 $ 4.4 $ 0.0 14 - Fund Operating and Maintenance Cost for Increased Bus, Rail and Paratransit Service Fund Operating and Maintenance Costs $ 280.3 $ 300.1 $ 19.8 Total $ 280.3 $ 300.1 $ 19.8 Other Expenditures Debt Service on Current Bonds (incl principal, interest & other bond costs) $ 346.3 $ 283.6 $ (62.7) Fund Exchange Payments $ 94.5 $ 97.1 $ 2.6 Miscellaneous Operating Expenses $ 7.5 $ 7.9 $ 0.4 Total $ 448.3 $ 388.6 $ (59.7) GRAND TOTAL $ 3,452.7 $ 3,844.6 $ 391.9

1-7 12.a 2000 Measure A Program Semi-Annual Report – December 2015 Executive Summary and Project Costs

C. MEASURE A FUND EXCHANGE

State law guarantees Santa Clara County a formula share of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) over a six-year period. State law and regional policy make the VTA Board of Directors responsible for determining which eligible transportation projects will receive those funds.

The VTA Board of Directors, at its June 7, 2007, and December 13, 2007 meetings approved the exchange of STIP grant funds for Measure A funds and programmed STIP funds to Measure A projects in exchange for an equivalent amount of 2000 Measure A Sales Tax funds. The exchange of funds creates the Local Program Reserve (LPR) which allows the Board of Directors to use those funds to program to other transportation projects. The Board approved the fund exchange because it:

. Accelerates Project Delivery and Reduces Administrative Costs - STIP funds come with substantial state requirements that impact schedule and cost of project delivery. The exchange of funds allows the Board to free the projects from costly administrative burdens.

. Enables the VTA Board to Manage Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Expenditures - By exchanging STIP funds, the VTA Board eliminates the need for Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to approve all STIP programming decisions after they are approved by the VTA Board. Further, it eliminates the CTC’s approval of all subsequent STIP fund allocations for all STIP funded projects.

A portion of the exchange funds will be used to pay interest to the Measure A Program for fund advances. The initial amount is paid back when the CTC allocates STIP funds to the Measure A projects and VTA draws the cash from the State. The interest will be calculated, and paid from the LPR account when (1) all STIP funds are drawn by the project and (2) all associated LPR funds are actually paid to projects. Interest will be calculated at that time as well, based on VTA's rates of return on its pooled investment accounts at the time the advances occurred.

Of note, the first three projects in the "Local Program Reserve Projects" table (Appendix B) qualified for CMIA funds only because we were able to use exchange funds to advance these projects. These CMIA projects are under construction.

These and other VTP Highway projects that utilize Measure A exchange funds are the subject of the VTP Highway Semi-Annual Report that goes as an information item to the VTA Board in twice each year.

1-8 12.a 2000 Measure A Program Semi-Annual Report – December 2015 Executive Summary and Project Costs

D. FUNDING

Funding is a key issue for many of the 2000 Measure A projects. As a consequence, in this report we refer to several terms associated with a project’s funding level. These terms, arranged in order of increasing certainty of funding availability, are as follows:

1. Estimated Cost – An estimate of the total cost of a project given the currently known scope and configuration of the project. In the case of projects where there is little or no scope definition, “TBD” (To be Determined) is shown. As the project is better defined, estimated cost figures will be included for these projects. In the individual project information sheets, we have included the “Estimate Class” in order to give an idea of the level of uncertainty associated with the estimated cost. A more detailed discussion of this topic is included in Appendix A.

2. Secured Funding – Funding that has been committed by funding agencies and is now available to VTA for project expenditures. In many cases, secured funding is at a lower level than the appropriation in the Adopted Budget. For these projects, it is anticipated that additional funding may be secured during the FY16/FY17 period. It is important to note that, regardless of the level of appropriation, actual expenditures will not exceed secured funding at any time.

1-9 12.a 2000 Measure A Program Semi-Annual Report – December 2015 Project Summary Reports

SECTION 2

PROJECT SUMMARY REPORTS

12.a Silicon Valley Rapid Transit December 2015 1-1 BART SV Program Development & Warm Springs

Estimated Cost: $398.6 million** Secured Funding: $398.6 million** Year of Completion: TBD Project Description: Project Development Through FY09: When work began on VTA’s Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) extension, environmental clearance and preliminary engineering was performed for the entire 16-mile extension. However, in 2009 this approach was changed to focus on the first 10 miles of the extension (SVBX), leading to the execution of a Full Funding Grant Agreement in 2012. Initial project development costs not transferred to the SVBX project as well as costs associated with previously allocated Measure A program-wide and bond costs still reside in this account. Project Development after FY09: SVRT program management, early Measure A program-wide allocations, and ongoing bond cost allocations are included here. Warms Springs Extension: VTA has assigned $8 million in State Local Partnership Program (SLPP) funds and $111.4 million in TCRP funds directly to BART for the project, and has provided an additional $8 million of Measure A funds to match the SLPP grant as well as $1 million of financing costs.

Project Status: Measure A matching funds attributable to the Warm Springs Extension have been paid. At this point, SVRT program management and allocations of Measure A bond costs are the only ongoing efforts. Project Cost:

Total Total Estimated Cost (in $M) Incurred through Dec 2015 (in $M) Project Status Estimate Others Measure A TBD Others Measure A Total BART SV Program Development and Implementation $ 270.1 $ 124.5 $ 145.6 $ - $ 124.4 $ 139.6 $ 264.0 Ongoing Warm Springs Extension (WSX) (VTA Share)$ 128.5 $ 119.4 $ 9.1 $ - $ 119.4 $ 9.1 $ 128.5 Construction Total$ 398.6 $ 243.9 $ 154.7 $ - $ 243.8 $ 148.7 $ 392.5

Project Schedule:

Activity Start End 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Proj Dev. Through FY09 Early 2003 Mid 2009

Proj Dev. After FY09 Mid 2009 TBD

Warm Springs Extension Mid 2009 Late 2016

*P-0501 (portion) P-0502, P-0509 (portion), P-0732 **Warm Springs Extension cost includes $8M in SLPP and $111.4M in TCRP grant funds designated directly to 2-1-1 BART. 12.a Silicon Valley Rapid Transit December 2015 1-2 BART SV Corridor Establishment and Maintenance

Estimated Cost: $468.8 million Secured Funding: $459.8 million Year of Completion: 2018

Project Description: . Relocate freight railroad from VTA-purchased right-of-way to existing UPRR right-of-way, between Warm Springs Yard and Calaveras Blvd. . Build a new railroad overcrossing structure at Mission Boulevard and a new roadway underpass at Warren Avenue and Kato Road, and sever shipper freight service south of Montague Expressway. . Construct flood control improvements at Berryessa Creek, Wrigley Creek, Scott Creek, Line B, and Agua Caliente. . Widen Montague Expressway and construct flood control improvements near the intersection of South Milpitas Blvd. . Environmental clearance and final design of a pedestrian overcrossing (POC) that spans Montague Expressway and connects to the new Milpitas BART Station. . Construct a shared-use trail, a new traffic signal, and intersection improvements to connect to the Upper Penitencia Creek (UPC) Trail. Project Status: . The Chevron petroleum pipelines relocation, SFPP/Kinder- Morgan petroleum pipeline relocation, and Verizon/MCI fiber optic relocation have been completed. . The Berryessa Creek crossing, Abel Street Seismic Retrofit, and Railroad Relocation contract has been completed. . On the Mission Boulevard/Warren Avenue/Union Pacific Railroad Relocation Construction contract, Warren Avenue was opened to traffic in August 2014. Mission Boulevard was fully opened to traffic in Spring 2015. Creek work was completed in 2011/2012. . The Kato Grade Separation was opened to traffic in April 2013. . The Montague Expressway Reconstruction Project is underway. The construction Notice to Proceed was issued in early 2016. . The Montague POC design contract is in the procurement stage. . Upper Penitencia Creek (UPC) Trail Connector construction is planned to begin in Spring 2016.

Project Cost:

Total Total Estimated Cost (in $M) Incurred through Dec 2015 (in $M) Project Status Estimate Others Measure A TBD Others Measure A Total BART SV Corridor Establishment and Maintenance $ 468.8 $ 156.9 $ 311.9 -$ $ 122.1 $ 299.6 $ 421.7 Ongoing

Total $ 468.8 $ 156.9 $ 311.9 $ - $ 122.1 $ 299.6 $ 421.7

Project Schedule:

Activity Start End 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Design Early 2008 Early 2017 Utility Relocations Mid 2008 Mid 2015 Construction Early 2009 Early 2017

*P-3100, P-3121 through P-3129, P-0508, P-0832, P-0890, P-0985 2-1-2 12.a Silicon Valley Rapid Transit December 2015 1-3 Berryessa Extension Project SVBX – Phase 1

Estimated Cost: $2,421.3 million Appropriation Through FY17: $2,129.1 million Secured Funding: $2,421.3 million Year of Completion: 2018 Project Description: The first phase of VTA’s 16.1-mile Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) extension of BART, the Berryessa Extension (SVBX) is an approximately ten-mile extension of BART service. SVBX extends from the Warm Springs Station in the City of Fremont, proceeds on the former Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way, and ends near Las Plumas Avenue in the City of San Jose. The SVBX Project includes one station in retained-cut (Milpitas Station) and one above-grade station (Berryessa Station). The project also includes facility additions to BART’s existing Hayward Yard (located in the City of Hayward, approximately 14 miles north of Santa Clara County) to provide fleet management operations for the revenue vehicles procured by BART for the extension, as well as the purchase of 40 BART vehicles. Project Status: Guideway and Trackwork: The Line, Track, Stations and Systems (LTSS) Design-Build contract is engaged in constructing guideway trench structures in Milpitas and San Jose. Additionally, ballast, track, and special trackwork installation is underway north of Kato Road, and fencing was started at the wayside facilities and guideway.

Stations: At the future Milpitas station, the pedestrian overcrossing structure between the BART station and the Light Rail station has been installed. Platform level mechanical and electrical work is ongoing, as is site work and adjacent road work. Work is also progressing on the parking garage and surface parking lot. At the Berryessa Station, concourse level slab on grade was installed, and delivery and assembly of the upper and lower roof canopy steel continues. Work is also progressing on the parking garage. Wall and mechanical/ electrical/ plumbing construction continued at the Police Zone Facility. Sewer and storm drain trunk lines were installed at Berryessa Station Way. Systems: Work is underway on underground utilities, train control houses, traction power substations. Also, Systems Startup Meetings are occurring on a weekly basis with the contractor. Project Cost:

Total Total Estimated Cost (in $M) Incurred through Dec 2015 (in $M) Project Status Estimate Others Measure A TBD Others Measure A Total Berryessa Extension Project (SVBX - Ph I) $ 2,421.3 $ 1,342.3 $ 1,079.0 $ - $ 828.7 $ 531.3 $ 1,360.0 Construction

Total $ 2,421.3 $ 1,342.3 $ 1,079.0 $ - $ 828.7 $ 531.3 $ 1,360.0

Project Schedule: Activity Start End 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Environmental Early 2004 Early 2011 Design Early 2004 Mid 2015 Right-of-Way Mid 2007 Mid 2015 Construction Mid 2012 Late 2017 Testing and Commissioning Mid 2017 Mid 2018 Revenue Service Mid 2018 N/A

**P-0728 2-1-3 12.a Silicon Valley Rapid Transit December 2015 1-4 Future Extension to Santa Clara – Phase II and NMF

Estimated Cost: $4,692.7 million Secured Funding: $223.7 million Year of Completion: 2026 Project Description: The second phase of VTA’s 16.1-mile Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) extension of BART, the Santa Clara Extension is an approximately six-mile extension of BART service. Phase II of the project will include four stations and will extend from the Phase I terminus for approximately six miles, with a five-mile-long subway tunnel through downtown San Jose. The extension will end at-grade in Santa Clara, near the Caltrain Station. The project also includes the construction of a maintenance facility at the current Newhall Yard, the Newhall Maintenance Facility (NMF), as well as the purchase of 48 BART vehicles.

Project Status: Staff submitted the New Starts Project Development application letter and supporting documentation to FTA on December 21, 2015. FTA reviews the request and notifies Congress and VTA within 45-days from the start of review whether entry into New Starts Project Development has been granted. The Administrative Draft of the Phase II environmental document was sent for FTA review in January 2016. VTA continues to hold Community Working Group (CWG) meetings on a regular basis. Upcoming topics include presentations on VTA/City projects within the Phase II corridor, High Speed Rail and Caltrain electrification, and a review of BART station naming polices.

Project Cost:

Total Total Estimated Cost (in $M) Incurred through Dec 2015 (in $M) Project Status Estimate Others Measure A TBD Others Measure A Total Future Extension to Santa Clara (SVSX - Ph II)$ 4,304.4 $ 135.1 $ 1,062.6 $ 3,106.6 $ 135.1 $ 7.0 $ 142.2 Under Development Newhall Maintenance Facility (NMF) $ 388.3 $ 25.4 $ 0.5 $ 362.4 $ 25.4 $ 0.5 $ 25.9 Under Development Total $ 4,692.7 $ 160.5 $ 1,063.1 $ 3,469.0 $ 160.5 $ 7.5 $ 168.1 Project Schedule:

Activity Start End 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Environmental Early 2015 Late 2017 Design Late 2017 Mid 2019 Right-of-Way Early 2018 Late 2021 Construction Mid 2018 Late 2025 Testing and Commissioning Late 2024 Mid 2026 Revenue Service Mid 2026 N/A

** P-0501 (portion), P-0503 through P-0507, P-0509 (portion), P-3101 2-1-4 12.a Silicon Valley Rapid Transit December 2015 1-5 BART Core Systems Modifications (BCS)

Estimated Cost: $269.4 million Secured Funding: $269.4 million Year of Completion: 2018

Project Description: Some modifications to the BART Hayward Maintenance Complex (HMC) are required due to greater demands arising from the Berryessa Extension. This project includes property acquisition and construction of several shop buildings. 60 BART rail cars are required for SVBX. 40 of these vehicles are included in SVBX. This project covers the purchase of the additional 20 railcars required to integrate into BART. New BART Vehicle Under the Comprehensive Agreement between VTA and BART covering the extension to Santa Clara County, VTA committed to pay a proportional share of BART Core System capital investments made by BART that are used by the SVRT extension.

Hayward Maintenance Complex (HMC) Site Plan Project Status: On the Hayward Maintenance Complex (HMC), Notice to Proceed for BART’s Component Repair Facility and Hayward Shop Modification contract was issued on October 20, 2015. The contractor has completed mobilization and early submittals are in progress. Asbestos inspection/abatement of the existing building at the future Component/Repair Shop location was done and demolition of the building was completed. On the 20 Non-New Starts BART Vehicles, BART completed First Article Configuration Inspections and continued subsystem qualification testing and continued system-level qualification testing. The vehicle manufacturer completed Car #11 car body compression testing in Canada and shipped Car #2,3, and 4 car bodies to the final assembly facility in Plattsburgh, New York. Work is underway to develop an implementation plan and cost sharing arrangements for BART Core System improvements. Project Cost:

Total Total Estimated Cost (in $M) Incurred through Dec 2015 (in $M) Project Status Estimate Others Measure A TBD Others Measure A Total BART Core System Modifications (BCS)$ 269.4 $ 69.8 $ 199.6 -$ $ 56.4 $ 63.7 $ 120.1 Construction Total $ 269.4 $ 69.8 $ 199.6 $ - $ 56.4 $ 63.7 $ 120.1

Project Schedule:

Activity Start End 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Hayward Maintenance Complex (HMC) Design Mid 2011 Late 2014 Right-of-Way Mid 2013 Mid 2015 Construction Early 2015 Early 2018 20 Non-New Starts BART Vehicles Design Mid 2012 Late 2014 Pilot Vehicle Delivery Early 2016 Late 2016 Production Vehicle Delivery Mid 2017 Late 2025 BART Core Sytems Mod's Incl OCC Schedule TBD TBDTBD

** P-0800, P-0801, P-0861 2-1-5 December 201512.a Extend BART from Fremont through Milpitas to Downtown San Jose and the Santa Clara Caltrain Station

1-6 - Other Supporting Projects

Estimated Cost: $105.6 million Secured Funding: $100.6 million Year of Completion: 2017

Project Description: The Santa Clara Pocket Track project installed an additional track and supporting infrastructure so one track can be used as a pocket track to store additional cars on Tasman, near Old Ironsides Station, in the City of Santa Clara. Northern Light Rail Express will implement a series of improvements including double-tracking in Mountain View to establish a new line from Mountain View to Alum Rock to connect with Caltrain and the new Milpitas BART Station, commensurate with the opening of the BART Silicon Valley Berryessa extension.

The N. First St. Improvement & Tasman Modification project will construct improvements to increase Light Rail Transit (LRT) speeds along the North First Street corridor to 45 miles per hour. Project Status: The Santa Clara Pocket Track construction started in February 2014 and was completed in early 2015. Project is currently being closed out. The Northern Light Rail Express (Mountain View Double Track Phase I) construction contract was awarded in August 2014 and field construction started in September 2014. Phase II construction contract was awarded in January 2015. All major construction under both contracts has been completed. Contract closeout is ongoing. Project team is currently reviewing alternatives, and developing conceptual plans and estimates for the N. First St. Improvement & Tasman Modification project.

Project Cost:

Total Total Estimated Cost (in $M) Incurred through Dec 2015 (in $M) Project Status Estimate Others Measure A TBD Others Measure A Total King Road BRT$ 3.0 $ - $ 3.0 $ - $ - $ 0.3 $ 0.3 Ongoing Northern Light Rail Express$ 65.2 $ 8.0 $ 57.2 $ - $ 8.0 $ 42.1 $ 50.1 Closeout Santa Clara Pocket Track$ 29.6 $ - $ 29.6 $ - $ - $ 26.9 $ 26.9 Ongoing BART Transit Integration Analysis & Imp$ 0.8 $ - $ 0.8 $ - $ - $ 0.1 $ 0.1 Ongoing N.1st Speed Imp & 1st/Tasman Mods$ 7.0 $ 1.1 $ 0.9 $ 5.0 $ - $ 0.0 $ 0.0 Ongoing Total$ 105.6 $ 9.1 $ 91.5 $ 5.0 $ 8.0 $ 69.5 $ 77.5

Project Schedule: Activity Start End 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Santa Clara Pocket Track Late 2012 Early 2015

Mountain View Phase I Early 2013 End 2015

Mountain View Phase II Mid 2013 End 2015

N First St Improvements & Tasman Mods Late 2015 Late 2017

Environmental Design/Bid Construction

P-0783, P-0784, P-0860, P-0875, P-0966 2-1-6 12.a Mineta San Jose Airport December 2015 2 Mineta San Jose Airport People Mover

Estimated Cost: TBD Secured Funding: $4.0 million Year of Completion: TBD

Project Description: The Airport People Mover Project will provide a dedicated guideway connection from the San Jose International Airport to the Caltrain, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and future BART stations at the Santa Clara Transit Center, and the VTA Light Rail on North First Street.

Project Status: The original preferred option, a tunnel under the airport, proved to be cost-prohibitive given both available funds and anticipated ridership. The City of San Jose envisioned a Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) application to meet this need, given its reported low cost to construct and operate. They engaged a team of consultants to lead planning, and a federally funded research center firm, Aerospace, to assess the viability of PRT technology for the Mineta San Jose International

Airport People Mover Connection. The study found that PRT technology is not ready for a public application of this scale. Project Cost:

Total Total Estimated Cost (in $M) Incurred through Dec 2015 (in $M) Project Status Estimate Others Measure A TBD Others Measure A Total Mineta San Jose Airport People Mover (APM) $ 2.0 -$ $ 2.0 -$ -$ $ 2.0 $ 2.0 Inactive; on hold

Total $ 2.0 $ - $ 2.0 -$ -$ $ 2.0 $ 2.0

Project cost for future activities will be established once scope is established. Estimate in table refers to actual cost incurred to-date.

Project Schedule: The schedule for future activities will be established once scope is established and funding is secured.

P-0588 2-2 12.a December 2015 3 Capitol Expressway Light Rail to Eastridge

Estimated Cost: $521.8 million* Secured Funding: $152.0 million Year of Completion: Phase 1: 2015, Phase 2: TBD

Project Description: This project will transform Capitol Expressway into a multimodal boulevard offering bus and light rail transit, and safe pedestrian pathways with connections to the regional trail system. Phase I includes pedestrian and bus improvements along Capitol Expressway to improve pedestrian access by adding sidewalks, street lights, and landscaping from Capitol Avenue to Quimby Road. This phase also includes reconstruction of the Eastridge Transit Center.

Phase II will extend light rail to the Eastridge Transit Center with elevated structures at Capitol Avenue, Story Road, and Tully Road. The Eastridge extension will include LRT station at Story Road (aerial) and Eastridge (at-grade). Project Status: Phase I - The pedestrian improvements were completed in the spring of 2013. Eastridge Transit Center was completed in May 2015. Phase II is dependent on funding. Remaining scope includes: right of way acquisition; utility relocation, final engineering and construction.

Project Cost:

Total Total Estimated Cost (in $M) Incurred through Dec 2015 (in $M) Project Status Estimate Others Measure A TBD Others Measure A Total DTEV Planning & Conceptual Engg $ 11.1 $ 5.7 $ 5.3 -$ $ 5.7 $ 5.3 $ 11.1 Completed DTEV Environmental & 90% CELR $ 52.9 $ 0.2 $ 52.8 -$ $ 0.2 $ 52.7 $ 52.9 Ongoing CELR Phase I - Pedestrain Improvements $ 19.0 $ 16.0 $ 3.0 $ - $ 16.0 $ 3.0 $ 19.0 Completed CELR Phase I - Eastridge Transit Center $ 61.9 $ 26.9 $ 35.0 $ - $ 26.3 $ 29.5 $ 55.8 Closeout; Underrun projected CELR Phase II - LRT to Eastridge $ 376.9 $ 376.9 $ - -$ $ - Contingent on funding

Total $ 521.8 $ 48.8 $ 96.1 $ 376.9 $ 48.2 $ 90.6 $ 138.8

Phase II is dependent on funding. Remaining scope in Phase II includes: Right of way Acquisition; Utility Relocation & Engineering: $30 million; 2 year duration assume starting in 2018. Construction: $347 million; 3 year duration. Cost escalated accordingly.

Project Schedule:

Activity 2010 2011 2012 2013 20142015 2016 Environmental Env. Impact Stmt. Pedestrian Improvements Eastridge Transit Center

CELR LR Extn TBD DEPENDENT ON FUNDING

Environmental Design/ Bid ROW Construction Closeout

2-3 * P-0375, P-0476, P-0743, P-0744, P-0787 12.a

4 Low Floor Light Rail Vehicles Estimated Cost: $200.6 million* Secured Funding: $200.6 million Year of Completion: 2004

Project Description: VTA purchased 70 low floor light rail vehicles to serve the entire VTA Light Rail system. Low floor vehicles provide enhanced ADA accessibility and improved service by minimizing boarding and exit times for all riders. Low floor light rail vehicles eliminate the need for wheelchair lifts and enhance access for all VTA riders, as well as providing additional space for bicycles.

Project Status: Project was completed and closed.

Project Cost:

Total Total Estimated Cost (in $M) Incurred through Dec 2015 (in $M) Project Status Estimate Others Measure A TBD Others Measure A Total 70 Low-Floor Light Rail Vehicles $ 200.6 $ 200.6 $ - -$ $ 200.6 $ - $ 200.6 Completed

Total $ 200.6 $ 200.6 $ - $ - $ 200.6 -$ $ 200.6

Project funded through a Board approved fund exchange between Santa Clara County, VTA and Measure A. Measure A costs incurred for this item reflected as a portion of Debt Service.

2-4 * P-0447 12.a December 2015 5- Caltrain – Capacity Improvements & Electrification

Estimated Cost: $1.5 billion (Total) $105.1 million (VTA) Secured Funding*: $105.1 million (VTA) Year of Completion: 2021

Project Description: Original scope included 8 miles of double tracking on the existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) corridor between San Jose and Gilroy to increase Caltrain capacity. Caltrain from San Jose to San Francisco will be upgraded to an electric system in conjunction with the California High Speed Rail (CHSRA) Project. Project Status: Fiber optic cable relocation of the northern segment ($5.3 miles) required for double tracking was completed. Remaining scope is pending Cal Mod to San Jose and High Speed Rail project.

The environmental process for electrification and new electric trains was completed in January 2015. The Request for Proposals for the electrification contract was released in February 2015. The RFP is expected to be awarded in 2016

Project Cost:

Total Total Estimated Cost (in $M) Incurred through Dec 2015 (in $M) Project Status Estimate Others Measure A TBD Others Measure A Total Caltrain South County Capacity Improvements $ 17.2 $ 14.9 $ 2.3 $ - $ 14.9 $ 2.3 $ 17.2 Inactive Caltrain Electrification/ HS Rail $ 1.3 $ - $ 1.3 $ - -$ $ 0.5 $ 0.5 Ongoing Caltrain Electrification Early Investment Program $ 86.6 $ 26.4 $ 60.1 $ - $ 26.4 $ 13.0 $ 39.4 Ongoing

Total $ 105.1 $ 41.3 $ 63.8 $ - $ 41.3 $ 15.8 $ 57.1

Project Schedule:

Activity 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Environmental

Testing & Commissioning Revenue Service

Environmental Design/ Bid ROW Construction

*P-0550, P-0595, P-0829 2-5 **Caltrain Electrification includes $26.4M in Prop 1A CTC grant funds designated directly to Caltrain 12.a December 2015 6 - Caltrain Service Upgrades

Estimated Cost: $71.0 million Secured Funding: $88 million Year of Completion: 2018 Project Description: Capital improvement projects to the Caltrain system with the goals of improving service, ridership and passenger accessibility.

Project Status: . Mountain View Parking – Project is inactive until right-of-way needs of High Speed Rail project are known, and the plan for future Caltrain capital and operating improvements is determined. . Blossom Hill Pedestrian Grade Separation – The bridge was opened to the public in September 2012. . Safety Enhancements Construction along the JPB segment is completed and design for approximately 15 crossings along the UPRR segment started in January 2012. Design for the next phase is complete, construction is pending High Speed Rail project. . Santa Clara Caltrain Station Pedestrian Underpass Extension - This project will provide an extended pedestrian tunnel under the UPRR tracks to Brokaw Road at the Santa Clara Station. Construction contract will be advertised mid 2016 for construction to start summer 2016. . Santa Clara and Diridon Station Upgrades was administered by Caltrain and is now complete. Final invoice from Caltrain has been paid. . The Bike Share Pilot Program opened on August 29, 2013 with 280 bicycles and 28 bike share stations at Caltrain stations and downtown areas in the cities of San Jose, Mountain View, and Palo Alto. The grant-funded pilot program is set to conclude in June 2016. Post-pilot expansion will occur in select cities, including San Jose, and will be funded by a private company. Project Cost: Total Total Estimated Cost (in $M) Incurred through Dec 2015 (in $M) Project Status Estimate Others Measure A TBD Others Measure A Total Caltrain Service Upgrades $ 15.7 -$ $ 15.7 -$ $ - $ 15.6 $ 15.6 Ongoing Caltrain Improvement Plan $ 0.3 $ - $ 0.3 -$ $ - $ 0.3 $ 0.3 Completed Caltrain Mountain View Parking Structure $ 0.3 $ 0.1 $ 0.2 -$ $ 0.1 $ 0.2 $ 0.3 Inactive; on hold Blossom Hill Pedestrian Grade Separation $ 12.1 $ 9.9 $ 1.6 $ 0.50 $ 9.6 $ 1.2 $ 10.8 Completed; Closeout -in claim Caltrain Safety Enhancements $ 15.8 $ 0.1 $ 15.7 -$ $ 0.1 $ 15.6 $ 15.7 Next phase dependent on electrification/HSR Santa Clara Station Pedestrian Underpass Extension $ 13.7 $ 13.0 $ 0.7 -$ $ 1.5 $ 0.7 $ 2.2 Ongoing Santa Clara and San Jose Diridon Stations Upgrade $ 12.2 -$ $ 12.2 -$ $ - $ 12.2 $ 12.2 Completed Bike Sharing Pilot Project $ 0.9 $ 0.7 $ 0.3 -$ $ 0.6 $ 0.2 $ 0.8 Ongoing

Total $ 71.0 $ 23.8 $ 46.7 $ 0.5 $ 11.9 $ 46.1 $ 58.0

Project Schedule: Activity Start End 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Santa Clara Station Ped UC Design/Bid/Award Mid 2010 Mid 2016 Santa Clara Station Ped UC Construction/Closeout Mid 2016 Early 2018

2-6 P-0511, P-0740, P-3201 through P-3205 12.a

7 - Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center

Estimated Cost: $TBD* Secured Funding: $0.2 million Year of Completion: TBD; Studies completed: 2004

Project Description: This project will create an intermodal facility for trains, buses, bicycles, autos and pedestrians, and act as a gateway to both Downtown Palo Alto and Stanford University. This project is inactive, as significant issues related to the High Speed Rail project will need to be resolved before further planning work can proceed for this project.

Project Status: Project is inactive/ on hold.

Project Cost:

Total Total Estimated Cost (in $M) Incurred through Dec 2015 (in $M) Project Status Estimate Others Measure A TBD Others Measure A Total Palo Alto Intermodal Transit C enter$ 0.2 $ 0.2 $ 0.0 -$ $ 0.2 $ 0.0 $ 0.2 Inactive; on hold

Total $ 0.2 $ 0.2 $ 0.0 $ - $ 0.2 $ 0.0 $ 0.2 Project on hold. Completed project studies.

Project Schedule: Project on hold

2-7 P-0529 12.a December 2015 8 Bus Rapid Transit Estimated Cost: $606.7 million Secured Funding: $266.1 million* Year of Completion: 2018 Project Description: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is an enhanced bus transit service that offers many of the same service attributes as rail transit, such as specialized vehicles, large stations, real-time information, and more frequent and reliable operations. Project Status: Santa Clara Alum Rock BRT construction began in March 2014. In July 2015, VTA issued a safety shutdown for all field activities on this contract after the contractor struck a marked gas line. This was followed by a Notice of Default later that month. In September, VTA entered into a Closeout Agreement with the contractor for the prompt and orderly closeout and demobilization of contractor from the Project. Using the completion contractor and certain subcontractors from the original contract, VTA prioritized critical and unfinished work along the corridor so traffic can be restored to its final configuration and all areas reopened to vehicles and pedestrians. The work scope not started by the original contractor is being repackaged into a two new contracts. All construction work will be completed by early 2017. The El Camino Real Rapid Transit Policy Advisory Board has recommended that VTA’s Board of Directors approve of starting environmental analysis and the implementation of a pilot project for a new Right Lane street configuration. The Board of Directors will consider the PAB’s recommendations at their April Meeting. Project team is evaluating bus stop placement, shelter options, bike and pedestrian improvements for the Stevens Creek Rapid 523 . Options are being developed for an interim transit center at DeAnza College and the King Rd/Alum Rock northbound bus stop. Modifications at Chaboya/North Divisions Phase I (North Yard) were completed in March 2015. RFP for design services for Phase II involving modification to the Chaboya Yard is planned for early 2016. Construction is expected to start Spring 2017. Articulated Buses (29 units) have been accepted by VTA and are starting to be used for special event service. An option for 20 additional buses to operate on the Stevens Creek corridor is also available and is being considered. Project Cost:

Total Total Estimated Cost (in $M) Incurred through Dec 2015 (in $M) Project Status Estimate Others Measure A TBD Others Measure A Total BRT Strategic Plan$ 1.5 -$ $ 1.5 -$ -$ $ 1.3 $ 1.3 Ongoing Highway-Based BRT Alternative Analysis $ 0.9 $ 0.7 $ 0.2 -$ $ 0.7 $ 0.2 $ 0.9 Completed Alum Rock - Santa Clara Bus Rapid Transit $ 141.6 $ 90.7 $ 51.0 $ 58.6 $ 22.2 $ 80.9 Ongoing; Overrun estimated Stevens Creek Bus Rapid Transit $ 151.0 $ 1.4 $ 6.9 $ 142.7 $ 0.4 $ 2.8 $ 3.2 Contingent on funding El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit $ 229.0 -$ $ 15.0 $ 214.0 -$ $ 10.3 $ 10.3 Ongoing; Est. depends on LPA Procure BRT Articulated Buses $ 57.7 $ 19.2 $ 38.5 -$ $ 19.1 $ 13.0 $ 32.1 Ongoing Modifications to Chaboya and North Division for BRT $ 14.4 -$ $ 14.4 -$ -$ $ 1.7 $ 1.7 Ongoing Money Counting Facility Replacement $ 0.1 -$ $ 0.1 -$ -$ $ 0.1 $ 0.1 Closed De Anza College Transit Center Improvement $ 10.0 -$ $ 10.0 -$ -$ $ 0.0 $ 0.0 Ongoing

Total $ 606.7 $ 111.9 $ 137.6 $ 356.7 $ 78.8 $ 51.7 $ 130.5

2-8 * P-0551,P-0725, P-0475, P-0715, P-0717, P-0719, P-0785, P-0786, P-0967 12.a

9 Upgrade Altamont Commuter Express (ACE)

Estimated Cost: $10.0 million* Secured Funding: $0.0 million Year of Completion: 2013

Project Description: ACE provides weekday commute service between Stockton and San Jose to three stations in Santa Clara County: Great America, Santa Clara, and Downtown San Jose. Work was completed in 2012.

Project Status: Closed.

Project Cost:

Total Total Estimated Cost (in $M) Incurred through Dec 2015 (in $M) Project Status Estimate Others Measure A TBD Others Measure A Total Included in Santa Clara and San Jose Diridon Station $ - $ - -$ $ - -$ -$ $ - Included in SC/SJ Station Upgrade

Total $ - $ - -$ -$ $ - -$ -$

* A $10 million Measure A contribution to the $26 million Santa Clara Station project was approved and included in the Caltrain Service Upgrades project for improvements to the Santa Clara Station to allow ACE trains to stop at the station.

Project Schedule: Project completed in 2013.

2-9 P-0590 12.a

10 - Highway 17 Bus Service Improvements

Estimated Cost: $2.5 million* Secured Funding: $2.5 million Year of Completion: 2011

Project Description: VTA reimbursed Santa Cruz Metro $2.5 million for the procurement of five buses necessary to operate service between Santa Cruz, Scott Valley, and Downtown San Jose. These buses replaced existing buses that are 20 years old, with an average of 950,000 miles each. The five buses went into service in March/April 2011.

Project Status: Project closed.

Project Cost:

Total Total Estimated Cost (in $M) Incurred through Dec 2015 (in $M) Project Status Estimate Others Measure A TBD Others Measure A Total Highway 17 Bus Service Improvements$ 2.5 $ - $ 2.5 -$ $ - $ 2.5 $ 2.5 Completed

Total $ 2.5 $ - $ 2.5 -$ $ - $ 2.5 $ 2.5

Project Schedule: Project completed in 2011.

2-10 P-0589 12.a Commuter Rail Program December 2015 11 Dumbarton Rail Corridor

Estimated Cost: TBD Secured Funding: $2.3 million (VTA) Year of Completion: TBD

Project Description: The project will rehabilitate rail bridges and tracks that span the bay between Redwood City and Newark and make improvements to existing tracks in Union City and Fremont. The project will involve the construction of two new rail stations at Menlo Park and Newark, as well as upgrades to the Fremont Centerville Station and a new intermodal station at the Union City BART station.

Project Status: Environmental/Design: Based on the detailed cost estimate prepared by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), the project is now projected to cost between $700 million and $1 billion. Environmental information was prepared but due to funding constraints, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was not completed. Operational funds and an operator have yet to be identified for the proposed service. This Project is currently inactive.

Project Cost:

Total Total Estimated Cost (in $M) Incurred through Dec 2015 (in $M) Project Status Estimate Others Measure A TBD Others Measure A Total Dumbarton Rail Corridor$ 2.3 $ - $ 2.3 -$ -$ $ 2.3 $ 2.3 Inactive; on hold Total $ 2.3 $ - $ 2.3 $ - -$ $ 2.3 $ 2.3

Project Schedule:

Activity Start End 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Environmental Late 2006 Mid 2013

Design Project development will proceed on a schedule consistent with available funding. Construction

P-0498 2-11 12.a

12 ZEB Demonstration and Facility Improvements

Estimated Cost: $19.4 million* Secured Funding: $19.4 million Year of Completion: 2005

Project Description: VTA procured three 40-foot low-floor zero-emission fuel-cell bus (ZEB) to comply with California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) regulation to reduce nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emitted by public transit buses. Facilities were modified, a hydrogen fueling station was installed, and training was provided for staff, emergency responders, and others. The three ZEBs started revenue service in February 2005. Project is closed.

Project Status: Closed.

Project Cost:

Total Total Estimated Cost (in $M) Incurred through Dec 2015 (in $M) Project Status Estimate Others Measure A TBD Others Measure A Total 3 Zero Emission Buses (Pilot Program) $ 14.7 $ 11.4 $ 3.2 -$ $ 11.4 $ 3.2 $ 14.7 Completed Zero Emission Buses Facility Improvements $ 4.8 $ 2.4 $ 2.4 -$ $ 2.4 $ 2.4 $ 4.8 Completed Total $ 19.4 $ 13.9 $ 5.6 $ - $ 13.9 $ 5.6 $ 19.4

Project Schedule: Project completed in 2005

2-12 P-0336; P-0449 12.a Light Rail Program December 2015 13 - Develop New Light Rail Corridors

Estimated Cost: $351.1 million* Secured Funding: $7.1 million Year of Completion: Varies

Description: The VTA Board adopted the Light Rail Systems Analysis in May 2010. The Systems Analysis provides an evaluation of infrastructure and operational shortcomings of the existing light rail system along with a three-phase improvement plan for immediate action.

Southern Light Rail Express project developed alternatives for more efficient operation of the light rail system. The Vasona LRT Extension project will provide a 1.6 mile extension from existing Winchester Station to a new Vasona Junction Station in Los Gatos.

Status: The Light Rail Systems Analysis was adopted by the VTA Board in May 2010. The initial projects recommended from the Systems Analysis began planning, design and construction in Fall 2011. Southern Light Rail Express project has been closed out. Findings from this study will be used for future operating plan analysis. This study did not result in a capital construction project. Vasona LRT Extension - Since 2000, environmental and design conditions have changed; therefore, the Vasona LRT extension project was re-evaluated in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)/Environmental Assessment (EA). The VTA Board of Directors certified the SEIR and approved the project in March 2014. FTA approved the project in August 2014. The Winchester Light Rail Double Track & Platform Extension Project team is developing detailed scope and is preparing to start conceptual engineering in 2017.

Project Cost:

Total Total Estimated Cost (in $M) Incurred through Dec 2015 (in $M) Project Status Estimate Others Measure A TBD Others Measure A Total New Rail Corridors Study $ 1.5 -$ $ 1.5 $ - $ - $ 0.8 $ 0.8 Ongoing Light Rail Systems Analysis $ 1.7 -$ $ 1.7 $ - $ - $ 1.7 $ 1.7 Completed Southern Light Rail Express $ 1.1 -$ $ 1.1 $ - $ - $ 1.1 $ 1.1 Completed LRT Extension to Vasona Junction $ 174.1 -$ $ 0.9 $ 173.2 $ - $ 0.9 $ 0.9 Contingent on funding Winchester LR Double Track & Platform Extension $ 172.8 -$ $ 2.0 $ 170.8 $ - -$ $ - Ongoing Contingent on funding Total $ 351.1 -$ $ 7.1 $ 344.0 $ - $ 4.4 $ 4.4

Vasona LRT Extension and Winchester LR Double Tracking/Platform Extension is dependent on funding. Estimate assumes starting in 2018. Cost escalated accordingly. Project Schedule:

Activity Start End 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Vasona LRT Environmental Late 2009 End 2014

Schedule for future activities will be established when funding is secured.

* P-0552, P-0660, P-0799, P-0587, P-0968 2-13 12.a APPENDIX A - 2000 MEASURE A BALLOT LANGUAGE

OFFICIAL BALLOT GENERAL ELECTION COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA November 7, 2000

DISTRICT SANTA CLARA VALLY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

A ½ CENT TRANSIT SALES TAX To: • Connect BART to Milpitas, San Jose, Santa Clara; • Build rail connection from San Jose International Airport to BART, Caltrain, light rail; • Purchase vehicles for disabled access, senior safety, clean air buses; • Provide light rail throughout Santa Clara County; • Expand, electrify Caltrain; • Increase rail, bus service.

Shall Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority enact a ½ cent sales tax for 30 years beginning 4/1/06 when current tax expires, with annual audits published in local newspapers and an independent citizens watchdog committee?

COMPLETE TEXT OF MEASURE A Shall the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) be authorized to enact a retail transactions and use tax ordinance imposing (a) a tax for the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail upon every retailer in Santa Clara County, the territory of VTA; such tax to be at the rate of one-half of one percent of the gross receipts of the retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold by him at retail in the territory of VTA, and (b) a complimentary tax upon the storage, use, or other consumption in Santa Clara County, the territory of VTA; such tax to be at the rate of one-half of one percent of the sales price of the property whose storage, use , or other consumption is subject to the tax, such taxes to be imposed for a period not to exceed 30 years, and to take effect only upon the expiration of the current County of Santa Clara 1996 Measure B ½ cent sales tax in April, 2006, and to be used only to:

• Extend BART from Fremont through Milpitas to Downtown San Jose and the Santa Clara Caltrain Station, specifically,

To build a BART Extension from Fremont to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara with a major connection to the Tasman Light Rail line at the Milpitas BART Station. In San Jose to include a BART subway section with stations at San Jose State University, the new San Jose City Hall, Downtown San Jose at Market Street, San Jose Arena and the Diridon Multimodal Station connecting to Caltrain, ACE, Amtrak, the Vasona Light Rail line and VTA bus service. In Santa Clara, to serve Santa Clara University, and the Caltrain Station with a

A-1 12.a APPENDIX A - 2000 MEASURE A BALLOT LANGUAGE

people mover connection to San Jose International Airport.

• Provide Connections from San Jose International Airport to BART, Caltrain and the VTA Light Rail, specifically,

To build a people mover rail line connecting the airport passenger terminals directly with BART, Caltrain and the VTA Light Rail line.

• Extend Light Rail from Downtown San Jose to the East Valley by

Building a Downtown/East Valley Light Rail line from downtown San Jose serving the new San Jose City Hall and San Jose State University, out Santa Clara Street to Capitol Avenue to join the Capitol Light Rail line then south to Eastridge Shopping Center.

• Purchase Low Floor Light Rail Vehicles, specifically

To better serve disabled, seniors and others; purchase an additional 20 low floor light rail vehicles to join the 30 low floor vehicles now being constructed for the new Tasman, Capitol and Vasona Light Rail lines and 50 new low floor vehicles to replace VTA's existing 50 light rail vehicles.

• Improve Caltrain: Double Track to Gilroy and Electrify from Palo Alto to Gilroy

Extend the Caltrain double track from the San Jose Tamien Station through Morgan Hill to Gilroy. Provide VTA's funds for the partnership with San Francisco and San Mateo counties to electrify Caltrain from San Francisco to Gilroy.

• Increase Caltrain Service, specifically

Purchase new locomotive train sets for increased Caltrain service in Santa Clara County from Gilroy to Palo Alto and provide additional facilities to support the increased service.

• Construct a New Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center

In partnership with the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University, design and construct a new parkway and underpass for University Avenue from the campus to downtown Palo Alto to improve bicycle, pedestrian and transit access to the campus, Palo Alto Caltrain station and downtown Palo Alto. Upgrade passenger facilities at the historic Palo Alto Caltrain station, upgrade transit facilities for VTA, SAMTRANS, Dumbarton Express and the Stanford Marguerita and Palo Alto shuttle services.

• Improve Bus Service in Major Bus Corridors

For VTA Line 22 (Palo Alto to Eastridge Center) and the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor, purchase new low floor articulated buses. Improve bus stops and major passenger transfer points and provide bus queue jumping lanes at intersections to permit buses quick access along the corridors.

• Upgrade Altamont Commuter Express (ACE)

Provide VTA's matching funds for additional train sets, passenger facilities and service upgrades for the ACE Commuter Service from San Joaquin and Alameda Counties.

A-2 12.a APPENDIX A - 2000 MEASURE A BALLOT LANGUAGE

• Improve Highway 17 Express Bus Service

Provide VTA's share of funds for the partnership with the Santa Cruz County Transit District for additional buses and service upgrades for the Highway 17 Express Bus Service.

• Connect Caltrain with Dumbarton Rail Corridor

Provide VTA's share of matching funds for a partnership with Alameda and San Mateo counties for the rebuilding of the Dumbarton Rail Corridor to connect to Caltrain and train sets for this new service conditioned on Alameda and San Mateo County's funding.

• Purchase Zero Emission Buses and Construct Service Facilities

Provide funds to supplement federal funds to expand and replace existing VTA diesel bus fleet from current size of just over 500 vehicles to 750 vehicles with the new zero emission buses and to provide maintenance facilities for this new, clean vehicle propulsion system. All new buses to be low floor for easier boarding by seniors and the disabled.

• Develop New Light Rail Corridors

Provide capital funds for at least two new future light rail corridors to be determined by Major Investment Studies (MIS). Potential corridors include: Sunnyvale/Cupertino; Santa Teresa/Coyote Valley; Downtown/East Valley Connection to Guadalupe Line; Stevens Creek Boulevard; North County/Palo Alto; Winchester/Vasona Junction; and, initial study of BART connection from Santa Clara through Palo Alto to San Mateo County.

• Fund Operating and Maintenance Costs for Increased Bus, Rail and Paratransit Service

Provide revenue to ensure funding, to at least 2014, and possibly longer, of the following: the new Tasman East, Capitol and Vasona Light Rail lines, the commuter rail connection to BART, expanded paratransit services, expanded bus fleet of 750 vehicles, the Downtown/East Valley Light Rail line operations, which can commence in 2008, and the BART extension to San Jose which can commence operations by 2010;

All subject to the following mandatory requirements:

• The Tax Must Expire 30 Years After Implementation. If approved by the voters, this half-cent sales tax must expire 30 years after implementation. The tax will be imposed for the period commencing April 1, 2006 when current tax expires and terminate on March 31, 2036. The length of this tax cannot be extended without a vote – and the approval – of the residents of Santa Clara County.

• An Independent Citizen's Watchdog Committee Must Review all Expenditures. The Independent Citizen’s Watchdog Committee will consist of private citizens, not elected officials, who comprise the VTA’s Citizen’s Advisory Committee. Responsibilities of the Citizen’s Watchdog Committee are:

• Public Hearings and Reports: The Committee will hold public hearings and issue reports on at least an annual basis to inform Santa Clara County residents how the

A-3 12.a APPENDIX A - 2000 MEASURE A BALLOT LANGUAGE

funds are being spent. The hearings will be held in full compliance with the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law with information announcing the hearings well- publicized and posted in advance.

• Annual Independent Audits: An annual audit conducted by an independent Auditor will be done each fiscal year to ensure tax dollars are being spent in accordance with the intent of this measure.

• Publish results of Audits and Annual Reports: The Committee must publish the results of the Independent Auditor and the Annual Report in local newspapers. In addition, copies of these documents must be made available to the public at large.

such authorization being pursuant to the provisions of Sections 100250 et seq. of the public Utilities Code and Sections 7251 et seq. of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

A-4 12.a APPENDIX B – 2000 MEASURE A FUND SWAPS

Figure 1.2 Funds Outgoing From Measure A: Local Program Reserve Projects Receiving Measure A Funds

Total LPR Total LPR Expended Expended Allocated to Closed Sponsor Project Allocated to by Allocated to as of as of Dec 2015 Status Phase Project (000s) Y/N Board (000s) Projects (000s) Dec 2015

$8,540 $8,519 VTA I-880 HOV Widening: SR-237 to US-101 $17,791 $18,185 $17,738 N Completed $9,645 $9,219 $0 VTA VTP PW $100 $100 N Ongoing $100 $5,276 $5,276 VTA US 101 Improvements (280/680 to Yerba Buena) $6,088 $5,633 $5,633 Y Completed $356 $356 $6 $2 VTA US 101/Capitol Expwy and Yerba Buena Int. Imp. $5,088 $5,482 $4,316 N Completed $5,476 $4,314 $3,500 $3,500 VTA US 101 Improvements (85 to Embarcadero) $15,119 $15,028 $14,862 N Completed $11,528 $11,362 $945 $919 VTA I-880/I-280/Stevens Creek Interchange $1,700 $1,000 $974 N Completed $55 $55 $4,500 $4,500 VTA US 101/SR-25 Interchange $4,900 $4,900 $4,900 Y Env./PA/ED $400 $400 VTA/ACCMA I-680 Sunol Grade HOV/HOT Lane $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 Y Completed VTA SR-87 HOV North & South - Cost Increase $2,500 $2,497 $2,497 $2,497 $2,497 Y Completed VTA SR-152/SR-156 Interchange - Cost Increase $405 $555 $555 $352 $352 Y Completed Gilroy Gilroy/Arroyo Circle/Arroyo Camino Improvements $6,725 $6,725 $6,725 $6,725 $6,725 Y Completed Morgan Hill Butterfield Blvd Extension Project $2,510 $2,510 $2,510 $2,510 $2,510 Y Completed San Jose Julian/St. James Downtown Couplet Conversion $5,076 $5,076 $5,076 $5,076 $5,076 Y Completed Saratoga Citywide Signal Upgrade Project Phase 2 $400 $400 $400 $0 $0 N Not initiated yet SCCounty ITS Enhancements on Bascom Ave $450 $450 $450 $342 $342 Y Completed SCCounty Santa Teresa/Fitzgerald Ave Intersection Signals $275 $275 $275 $268 $268 Y Completed SCCounty Alum Rock School District Area Traffic Calming $315 $315 $315 $315 $315 Y Completed Sunnyvale Mathilda Ave Caltrain Bridge Construction $524 $524 $524 $524 $524 Y Preliminary Engineering Sunnyvale Mary Ave Extn PS&E; moved to MB $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Y Completed Sunnyvale US101/Mathilda Ave/SR237 IC $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $721 $721 Y Preliminary Engineering $2,000 $1,211 VTA SR 237 Express Lanes-Phase II Extension $9,153 $3,075 $7,550 $2,539 $3,802 N Preliminary Engineering $2,475 $52 $800 $787 VTA Route 85 Express Lanes $1,000 $1,000 $972 N Preliminary Engineering $200 $185 $925 $633 VTA US 101 Express Lanes $8,130 $8,130 $7,830 N Environmental $7,205 $7,198 VTA/SBCOG SR-152 New Alignment $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $3,865 $3,865 N Pre-PA/ED Milpitas Tasman East LRT Landscaping $1,800 $1,800 $1,800 $0 $0 N Not initiated yet VTA Caltrans PID Work - US 101/De La Cruz/ Trimble $54 $54 $54 $40 $40 N Pre-PA/ED VTA Caltrans PID Work - El Camino Real/SR237 $46 $46 $46 $46 $46 Y Completed VTA SR87 South Landscaping $55 $105 $105 $27 $27 N Completed VTA US 101 SB Off-Ramp to SR-87 $200 $0 $0 $0 $0 N Pre-PA/ED VTA I- 280/Foothill Expressway Ramp Impr. $700 $700 $700 $700 $700 N Final Design Palo Alto California Ave Transit Hub $1,175 $1,175 $1,175 $1,175 $1,175 Y Design VTA/Caltrans Combined Landscape Maintenance $2,200 $2,200 $2,200 $1,238 $1,238 N Construction/Design VTA I-680 Corridor Study (Calaveras to US 101) $250 $250 $250 $229 $229 N Study VTA I- 280 Corridor Study (US101/I680 IC to Page Mill) $250 $250 $250 $26 $26 N Study VTA I-280/Winchester Off Ramp Environmental Phase $250 $250 $250 $9 $9 N Study VTA SV Express Lanes - US101/SR85 - PH 3 $5,100 $5,100 $5,100 $199 $199 N Preliminary Engineering VTA SV Express Lanes - US101/SR85 - PH 4 $2,855 $2,855 $2,855 $106 $106 N Preliminary Engineering VTA SV Express Lanes - Electronic Toll System (ETS) $3,700 $3,700 $3,700 $366 $366 N Preliminary Engineering VTA Noise Reduction Program on SR85 $285 $285 $285 $69 $69 N Preliminary Engineering VTA Innovative Transportation Technology Program $85 $85 $85 $47 $47 N Study ($6) $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A Unprogrammed LPR - TBD $232 $0 $0 $0 $0 N Unprogrammed $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTALS $122,480 $120,190 $120,190 $96,500 $0

B-1 12.a APPENDIX B – 2000 MEASURE A FUND SWAPS

Figure 1.3 Funds Incoming To Measure A: Projects Receiving STIP Funds

Programmed by Board Received to Date Sponsor (000s) (000s) Project Status Phase VTA $57,540 $24,340 Capitol Expressway LRT Extension ROW/ Construction

VTA $50,440 $50,440 BART Hayward Maintenance Complex ROW/Design

VTA $14,500 $0 VTA BART to Silicon Valley - Santa Clara Extension PA/ED

TOTAL $122,480 $74,780

B-1 12.b

2000 MEASURE A TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STATUS 1- Extend BART from Fremont through Milpitas to Downtown San Jose and the Santa Clara Caltrain Station 1-1 BART SV Program Development, Implementation & Warm Springs BART - Silicon Valley Program Development & Implementation Ongoing Warm Springs Extension (WSX) - VTA Share Construction 1-2 BART SV Corridor Establishment and Maintenance (CEM) Silicon Valley Corridor Establishment and Maintenance Ongoing 1-3 BART Silicon Valley Extension Berryessa Extension Project (SVBX Phase I) Construction Future Extension to Santa Clara (SVSX Phase II) Under Development -Awaiting Funding Newhall Maintenance Facility Under Development BART Core Systems Modifications Construction 1-4 BART Other Supporting Projects King Road Bus Rapid Transit Ongoing Northern Light Rail Express Completed Santa Clara Pocket Track Completed BART Transit Integration Analysis & Improvements Ongoing N. First St. Speed Improvements & First St./Tasman Ave. Modidifications Ongoing

2 - Provide Connection from Mineta San Jose International Airport to BART, Caltrain and VTA Light Rail Mineta San Jose Airport People Mover Inactive - PRT technology not ready

3 - Extend Light Rail from Downtown San Jose to The East Valley Downtown East Valley Planning & Conceptual Engineering Completed Downtown East Valley Environmental & 90% CELR Ongoing Capitol Expressway Light Rail - Pedestrian Improvements Completed Capitol Expressway Light Rail - Eastridge Transit Center Completed Capitol Expressway Light Rail Phase II: Light Rail to Eastridge Awaiting Funding

4 - Low Floor Light Rail Vehicles Low Floor Light Rail Vehicles Completed

5 - Improve Caltrain: Double Track to Gilroy & Electrify from Palo Alto to Gilroy Caltrain South County Capacity Improvements Pending CA High Speed Rail Caltrain Electrification/High Speed Rail Ongoing Caltrain Electrification Early Investment Program (VTA Share) Ongoing

6 - Caltrain Service Upgrades Caltrain Service Upgrades Ongoing Caltrain Improvement Plan Completed Bike Sharing Pilot Project Ongoing Caltrain Mountain View Parking Structure Pending CA High Speed Rail Caltrain/Union Pacific Blossom Hill Pedestrian Grade Separation Completed Caltrain Safety Enhancements Next Phase Pending CA High Speed Rail Santa Clara Station Pedestrian Underpass Extension Ongoing Santa Clara & San Jose Diridon Station Upgrades Completed

7 - Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center Pending CA High Speed Rail

8 - Improve Bus Service in Major Corridors Bus Rapid Transit Strategic Plan Ongoing Highway-Based Bus Rapid Transit Alternatives Analysis Completed Alum Rock/Santa Clara Bus Rapid Transit Construction Stevens Creek Bus Rapid Transit Planning - Awaiting Funding El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Environmental - Awaiting Funding Procurement of 40 Bus Rapid Transit Buses Ongoing Bus Rapid Transit Modifications - Chaboya & North Divisions Ongoing Money Counting Facility Replacement Closed - Not needed DeAnza College Transit Center Improvements Ongoing

9 - Upgrade Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Included in Santa Clara and San Jose Diridon Station Upgrade Completed

10 -Improve Highway 17 Express Bus Service Improve Highway 17 Express Bus Service Completed

11 - Connect Caltrain with Dumbarton Rail Corridor Dumbarton Rail Corridor Inactive

12 - Purchase Zero-Emission Buses & Construct Service Facilities 3 Zero-Emission Bus Procurement Completed Zero-Emission Bus Facility Improvements Completed

13 - Develop New LR Corridors New Rail Corridors Study Ongoing Light Rail System Analysis Completed Southern Light Rail Express Completed Light Rail Transit Extension to Vasona Junction Awaiting Funding Winchester Light Rail Double Track & Platform Extension Awaiting Funding

14 - Fund Operating & Maintenance Costs for Increased Bus, Rail & Paratransit Service - Ongoing 12.c 2000 MEASURE A TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Expenditures through December 31, 2015

Project Total ¹ Planned Funding (in $M) Incurred through Dec 2015 (in $M) Estimate Others Measure A TBD Others Measure A Total 1-Extend BART from Fremont through Milpitas to Downtown San Jose and the Santa Clara Caltrain Station 1-1 BART SV Program Development, Implementation & Warm Springs $ 398.6 $ 243.9²$ 154.7 $ - $ 243.8²$ 148.7 $ 392.5 1-2 BART SV Corridor Establishment and Maintenance (CEM) $ 468.8 $ 156.9 $ 311.9 $ - $ 122.1 $ 299.6 $ 421.7 1-3 BART Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension $ 2,421.3 $ 1,342.3 $ 1,079.0 $ - $ 828.7 $ 531.3 $ 1,360.0 1-4 BART Silicon Valley Santa Clara Extension ³ $ 4,692.7 $ 160.5 $ 1,063.1⁴ $ 3,469.0 $ 160.5 $ 7.5 $ 168.1 1-5 BART Core System Modifications (BCS) $ 269.4 $ 69.8 $ 199.6 -$ $ 56.4 $ 63.7 $ 120.1 1-6 BART Other Supporting Projects $ 105.6 $ 9.1 $ 91.5 $ 5.0 $ 8.0 $ 69.5 $ 77.5 Total $ 8,356.4 $ 1,982.5 $ 2,899.9 $ 3,474.0 $ 1,419.5 $ 1,120.3 $ 2,539.9 2 - Provide Connections from Mineta San Jose International Airport to BART, Caltrain and VTA Light Rail Mineta San Jose Airport People Mover (APM) ⁵ $ 2.0 -$ $ 2.0 -$ $ - $ 2.0 $ 2.0 3- Extend Light Rail From Downtown San Jose to the East Valley Capitol Exp. Way Eastridge Light Rail Extn (CELR) Environmental/Eng $ 64.0 $ 5.9 $ 58.1 -$ $ 5.9 $ 58.1 $ 64.0 CELR Phase I - Pedestrian Improvements $ 19.0 $ 16.0 $ 3.0 -$ $ 16.0 $ 3.0 $ 19.0 CELR Phase I - Eastridge Transit Center $ 61.9 $ 26.9 $ 35.0 -$ $ 26.3 $ 29.5 $ 55.8 CELR Phase II - LRT to Eastridge ⁶ $ 376.9 -$ $ - $ 376.9 $ - $ - $ - Total $ 521.8 $ 48.8 $ 96.1 $ 376.9 $ 48.2 $ 90.6 $ 138.8 4 - Purchase Low-Floor Light Rail Vehicles 70 Low-Floor Light Rail Vehicles $ 200.6 $ 200.6 $ - ⁷ $ - $ 200.6 $ - ⁷ $ 200.6 5 - Improve Caltrain: Double Track to Gilroy and Electrify from Palo Alto to Gilroy Caltrain South County Capacity Improvements ⁸ $ 17.2 $ 14.9 $ 2.3 -$ $ 14.9 $ 2.3 $ 17.2 Caltrain Electrification (VTA Share) $ 87.9 $ 26.4⁹ $ 61.4 -$ $ 26.4⁹ $ 13.5 $ 39.9 Total $ 105.1 $ 41.3 $ 63.8 $ - $ 41.3 $ 15.8 $ 57.1 6- Increase Caltrain Service Caltrain Service Upgrades/Caltrain Improvement Plan $ 16.0 -$ $ 16.0 -$ $ - $ 16.0 $ 16.0 Caltrain Mountain View Parking Structure 10 $ 0.3 $ 0.1 $ 0.2 -$ $ 0.1 $ 0.2 $ 0.3 Blossom Hill Pedestrian Grade Separation $ 12.1 $ 9.9 $ 1.6 $ 0.5 $ 9.6 $ 1.2 $ 10.8 Caltrain Safety Enhancements $ 15.8 $ 0.1 $ 15.7 -$ $ 0.1 $ 15.6 $ 15.7 Santa Clara Station Pedestrian Underpass Extension $ 13.7 $ 13.0 $ 0.7 -$ $ 1.5 $ 0.7 $ 2.2 Santa Clara and San Jose Diridon Station Upgrade $ 12.2 -$ $ 12.2 -$ $ - $ 12.2 $ 12.2 Bike Sharing Pilot Project $ 0.9 $ 0.7 $ 0.3 -$ $ 0.6 $ 0.2 $ 0.8 Total $ 71.0 $ 23.8 $ 46.7 $ 0.5 $ 11.9 $ 46.1 $ 58.0 7 - Construct a New Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center ¹¹ $ 0.2 $ 0.2 $ 0.0 -$ $ 0.2 $ 0.0 $ 0.2 8 - Improve Bus Service in Major Bus Corridors BRT Alternative Analysis/ BRT Strategic Plan $ 2.5 $ 0.7 $ 1.7 -$ $ 0.7 $ 1.5 $ 2.2 Alum Rock - Santa Clara Bus Rapid Transit $ 141.6 $ 90.7 $ 51.0 -$ $ 58.6 $ 22.2 $ 80.9 Stevens Creek Bus Rapid Transit $ 151.0 $ 1.4 $ 6.9 $ 142.7 $ 0.4 $ 2.8 $ 3.2 El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit ¹² $ 229.0 -$ $ 15.0 $ 214.0 $ - $ 10.3 $ 10.3 Procure BRT Articulated Buses $ 57.7 $ 19.2 $ 38.5 -$ $ 19.1 $ 13.0 $ 32.1 Modifications to Chaboya and North Division for BRT Buses $ 14.4 -$ $ 14.4 -$ $ - $ 1.7 $ 1.7 Money Counting Facility Replacement $ 0.1 -$ $ 0.1 -$ $ - $ 0.1 $ 0.1 De Anza College Transit Center Improvement $ 10.0 -$ $ 10.0 -$ $ - $ 0.0 $ 0.0 Total $ 606.3 $ 111.9 $ 137.6 $ 356.7 $ 78.8 $ 51.7 $ 130.5 9 - Upgrade Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Included in Santa Clara and San Jose Diridon Station Upgrade $ - -$ $ - ¹³ -$ $ - $ - ¹³ $ - 10 - Improve Highway 17 Express Bus Service Highway 17 Bus Service Improvements $ 2.5 -$ $ 2.5 -$ $ - $ 2.5 $ 2.5 11 - Connect Caltrain with Dumbarton Rail Corridor Dumbarton Rail Corridor ¹⁴ $ 2.3 -$ $ 2.3 -$ $ - $ 2.3 $ 2.3 12 - Purchase Zero-Emission Buses and Construct Service Facilities 3 Zero Emission Buses (Pilot Program) $ 14.7 $ 11.4 $ 3.2 -$ $ 11.4 $ 3.2 $ 14.7 Zero Emission Buses Facility Improvements $ 4.8 $ 2.4 $ 2.4 -$ $ 2.4 $ 2.4 $ 4.8 Total $ 19.4 $ 13.9 $ 5.6 $ - $ 13.9 $ 5.6 $ 19.4 13 - Develop New Light Rail Corridors New Rail Corridors Study $ 1.5 -$ $ 1.5 -$ $ - $ 0.8 $ 0.8 Light Rail Systems Analysis $ 1.7 -$ $ 1.7 -$ $ - $ 1.7 $ 1.7 Southern Light Rail Express $ 1.1 -$ $ 1.1 -$ $ - $ 1.1 $ 1.1 LRT Extension to Vasona Junction $ 174.1 -$ $ 0.9 $ 173.2 $ - $ 0.9 $ 0.9 Winchester LR Double Track & Platform Extension $ 172.8 -$ $ 2.0 $ 170.8 $ - $ - $ - Total $ 351.1 $ - $ 7.1 $ 344.0 $ - $ 4.4 $ 4.4 14 - Fund Operating and Maintenance Cost for Increased Bus, Rail and Paratransit Service Fund Operating and Maintenance Costs $ 1,365.8 $ - $ 1,365.8 -$ $ - $ 300.1 $ 300.1 Other Expenditures Debt Service on Current Bonds (includes principal, interest & other bond costs) $ 1,859.5 $ - $ 1,859.5 -$ $ - $ 283.6 $ 283.6 Fund Exchange Payments ¹⁵ $ 122.5 $ - $ 122.5 -$ $ - $ 97.1 $ 97.1 Miscellaneous Operating Expenses $ 34.5 -$ $ 34.5 -$ $ - $ 7.9 $ 7.9 Total $ 2,016.5 $ - $ 2,016.5 $ - $ - $ 388.6 $ 388.6 GRAND TOTAL $ 13,621.1 $ 2,423.0 $ 6,646.0 $ 4,552.1 $ 1,814.4 $ 2,030.2 $ 3,844.6

Measure A Estimate$ 6,646.0 A Projected Total 2000 Measure A Sales Tax Receipts Through 2036 $ 7,400.0 B SUBTOTAL$ 754.0 C=B-A Less: BART Phase II Projected Debt Service $ 426.8 D Total Available for Programing Through 2036$ 327.2 E=C-D

1 Current estimate as of December 2015. 9 Includes $26.4M in Prop 1A CTC grant funds designated directly to Caltrain. 2 Includes $8M in State-Local Partnership Program (SLPP) and $111.4M in Traffic Congestion 10 Completed conceptual design. Relief Program (TCRP) grant funds designated directly to BART. 11 Completed project studies. 3 Estimated costs includes a 4-station, 6 mile project. 12 Planned funding reflects current project definition and scope which is subject to 4 Includes $1.0B of projected debt issuance. policy decisions. 5 Completed studies of Automated Transit Guideway system. 13 Included in Santa Clara and San Jose Diridion Station Upgrade. 6 Construction Phase Cost Estimate. 14 Completed preliminary design, ridership studies and conceptual estimates. 7 Project funded through a Board approved fund exchange between Santa Clara County, VTA 15 Payments related to exchange of State Transportation Improvement Program(STIP) and Measure A. Measure A costs incurred for this item reflected as a portion of Debt Service. and Measure A funding approved by the Board in June 2007, December 2007 and 8 Completed fiber optic cable relocation of the northern segment (5.3 miles). November 2013. 13

Date: March 1, 2016 Current Meeting: March 9, 2016 Board Meeting: April 7, 2016

BOARD MEMORANDUM

TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Citizens Advisory Committee

THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez

FROM: Director of Planning and Program Development, John Ristow

SUBJECT: Development Review Annual Report for 2015

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

BACKGROUND:

Since the late 1990’s, VTA has reviewed and commented on development and transportation projects in and adjacent to Santa Clara County. The Development Review Program includes the review of environmental documents and development proposals submitted by local agencies as well as the review of Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) reports for proposed projects meeting the Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements. VTA also monitors the approval of projects reviewed, and typically summarizes these VTA review and local agency approval activities on a quarterly basis for VTA Committees and the Board.

In this report, staff is expanding on the typical scope of the Quarterly Report to present the Development Review Program Annual Report for 2015. Besides summarizing VTA’s Development Review activities over the entire calendar year, this report also draws upon the full range of VTA land use activities, including the tracking of land use approvals through the CMP Monitoring and Conformance Report and the tracking of projects under construction to support VTA’s Travel Forecasting Model. Integrating all of this knowledge of development activity over the year, the Annual Report identifies five Key Themes of importance to VTA and local agencies.

DISCUSSION:

The following discussion provides a summary of VTA Development Review activities for the entire calendar year of 2015.

 VTA commented on a total of 92 projects through the Development Review Program for the calendar year of 2015. The city with the largest number of projects was San José with 35 projects, followed by Sunnyvale with fourteen projects, Santa Clara with nine projects, and

3331 North First Street ∙ San Jose, CA 95134-1927 ∙ Administration 408.321.5555 ∙ Customer Service 408.321.2300 13

Milpitas with eight projects.

 Seventy-two of the 92 items that VTA commented on were private development projects. The remainder consisted of agency-led planning efforts such as Precise Plans, General Plan updates, and Area/Specific Plans.

Thirty-four projects which VTA previously commented on were approved by local agencies during the calendar year of 2015. The City of San José saw the greatest number of approvals with eight approvals, followed by Santa Clara with six approvals and Sunnyvale with four approvals.

The Summary Report of VTA’s Development Review activities for the fourth quarter of 2015 is included for informational purposes as Attachment B.

Key Themes of Land Use Development in Santa Clara County in 2015

Through all of VTA’s activities reviewing and gathering data on land use and development in Santa Clara County in 2015, the following Key Themes have emerged:

1. Major Projects and Plans: Development Boom Continues Around the County

In tandem with the continuing strength of Silicon Valley’s economy, 2015 saw the advancement of major projects and plans throughout the county. The proposed City Place Santa Clara Project, at approximately 9.2 million square feet of office, retail, entertainment, hotel, and residential uses, was the largest single development project VTA has ever reviewed. Similarly, the proposed North Gilroy Neighborhoods Urban Service Area Amendment, which would include up to 3,996 residential units, was the largest residential proposal VTA has reviewed since the 2008 recession and would potentially increase the City of Gilroy’s total housing stock by more than 25%. Other major plans and projects that advanced in 2015 include the Hills at Vallco in Cupertino, the Peery Park Specific Plan and Moffett Towers II development in Sunnyvale, the Dell Avenue Area Plan in Campbell, two concurrent Lawrence Station Area Plans in Sunnyvale and Santa Clara, and the North Forty Specific Plan in Los Gatos.

2. Transit Oriented Development and Transit Operations: Prioritizing the ‘T’ in TOD

In 2015, VTA continued to see a large number of proposals near Light Rail and frequent bus lines. VTA welcomes and supports such developments, while also working with local agencies to ensure that transit travel time and reliability are not adversely affected by development. For example, VTA initiated meetings with the City of San José on two proposed developments with driveways across Light Rail tracks in downtown San José, and provided detailed comments on the City Place Santa Clara Project in relation to a proposed new intersection and potential changes to signal timing affecting Light Rail operations. VTA has also provided comments requesting that local agencies analyze the impacts of increasing congestion on transit operations in key bus corridors such as Stevens Creek Boulevard and El Camino Real, and lessen or offset impacts that are found. VTA will continue to closely monitor this emerging issue as more TODs are proposed and developed throughout the county.

Page 2 of 3 13

3. Emerging Mixed-Use Districts: Single-Use Areas Get a Make-Over

In 2015, there was a notable trend of project proposals that would provide a more varied and balanced mix of land uses in various areas of the county. For example, the Santana Row/Valley Fair district and Vallco Shopping Center areas, both currently dominated by retail and housing, saw significant proposals for office development which would bring daytime employees to these areas. Conversely, the Santa Clara Square Residential development near the intersection of Bowers Avenue and Scott Boulevard, along with the Mountain View City Council’s direction to study up to 9,100 residential units in the North Bayshore Precise Plan, were two examples of proposals to add significant amounts of housing to locations dominated by office/R&D uses.

4. Transportation Demand Management: Cities Get Serious About Reducing Car Trips

2015 saw the adoption or implementation of several ambitious Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs throughout the county, often including vehicle trip reduction targets of 20-35% or higher, annual monitoring, enforcement mechanisms, and/or the establishment of a Transportation Management Association (TMA). For example, Sunnyvale included such requirements in the Conceptual Policy Framework for the Peery Park Specific Plan and also began implementing a requirement for third-party monitoring of trip generation for projects in the Moffett Park Specific Plan area; the City of Mountain View accepted the first annual Trip Monitoring Memo for the North Bayshore Precise Plan; Palo Alto formed a TMA in response to concerns about parking and quality of life in the downtown area; and the Santana Row Expansion Project approval in the City of San José included a developer commitment to provide a shuttle to Diridon Station as part of a comprehensive TDM program.

5. Ensuring Safe and Comfortable Sidewalks: Getting the Details Right

In 2015, VTA provided comments on 67 projects related to pedestrian accommodations, of which 40 comments recommended that sidewalks be separated from roadways by street trees or a landscaped buffer. New development and redevelopments offer critical opportunities to rebalance and modernize streets from a conventional design of prioritizing vehicle movement to accommodating the multimodal demands of today. VTA will continue to work with local agencies to improve the pedestrian network by emphasizing the details, to ensure that high- quality project frontages and streets provide safe and comfortable accommodations for pedestrians.

Attachment A: VTA Development Review Annual Report for 2015

Attachment B: VTA Development Review Program Quarterly Report for October to December 2015

Prepared By: Rob Cunningham Memo No. 5268

Page 3 of 3

VTA Development Review Program

Quarterly Report October, November and December of 2015

13.a Development Review Projects Summary October to December 2015

Map CMP ID Lead Agency Project Name/Location Project Description Document Type VTA Comment Topics No. quarter? quarter? quarter? Approved this Comments this

Land Use; Proposed Transit Center; Potential Congestion Impacts on Transit Travel Times; Relationship to North Wolfe The Hills at Vallco - Redevelopment of 58-acre Road/I-280 Interchange; Pedestrian and Both sides of South site with up to 2 million s.f. Bicycle Accommodations; Transportation Wolfe Road between I- office, 625,000 s.f. Demand Management; TIA Report; Trip City of 280 and Stevens Creek retail/entertainment, and 800 Generation Assumptions; Freeway 1 CU1501 Cupertino Blvd residential units NOP y Analysis A 122-room hotel and two mixed use buildings with 21,041 s.f. commercial space Marina Plaza - 10122 and 205 apartments, Land Use; TIA Report; Pedestrian City of Brandley Dr and 10145 replacing 44,000 s.f. Accommodations and Access to Transit; 2 CU1504 Cupertino De Anza Blvd commercial on a 5.1-acre site Site Plans y Transit Incentives 3,996 residential units (3,464 low/medium density single Consistency with Congestion Management Norh Gilroy family, and 532 high density Program; Project Phasing; Trip Neighborhoods - townhome/apartments), Distribution; Freeway Analysis; Analysis Generally bounded by 337,940 square feet of Scenarios; Vehicle Miles Traveled Monterey Highway, neighborhood commercial, a Analysis; Freeway Ramp Analysis; Fitzgerald Avenue, 15-acre middle school and an Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities; Transit Santa Teresa Boulevard, 8.5-acre elementary school Analysis; Transportation Demand 3 GI1403 City of Gilroy and Lions Creek on a 704-acre site DEIR, FEIR y y Management 318 residential units and Pedestrian and Bicycle Accomodations; Town of Los 58,000 s.f. retail on a 20-acre Revised Site Site Design; Bus Service and Bus Stop 4 LG1302 Gatos North Forty Phase 1 site Plan y Improvements; Priority Development Area 1,169 residential units, 83,842 s.f. ground floor Land Use and BART Ridership Potential; City of retail/office, and 175 hotel Transportation Impact Fee Revenue 5 ML0808 Milpitas The District at Milpitas rooms on a 26.65-acre site Tentative Map y Generation; Land Use Mix & Density

Development Review Quarterly Report Page 1 of 8 October, November and December of 2015

13.a Map CMP ID Lead Agency Project Name/Location Project Description Document Type VTA Comment Topics No. quarter? quarter? quarter? Approved this Comments this

Hanson Court Storage - City of 1 Hanson Court, near 97,621 s.f self storage facility 6 ML1404 Milpitas Milpitas Boulevard on 4.27 acres Initial Study y Crossing of VTA Property McCandless Elementary School - Bounded by Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity; McCandless Drive, Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations Montague Expressway, on McCandless Drive; Transportation City of and Penitencia Creek New elementary school for Demand Management; Bicycle Parking; 7 ML1502 Milpitas East Channel up to 800 students DEIR, TIA y Bus Service Five-story mixed use Land Use; Transit Incentives; Parking building with 216 residential Management; Pedestrian and Bicycle City of 720 Montague units and 5,690 s.f. Accommodations; Coordination with 8 ML1503 Milpitas Expressway Mixed Use groundfloor retail Site Plans y BART Silicon Valley Extension Centre Point Resdential - Bounded by Centre Point Dr, Montague Land Use; Pedestrian Accommodations; City of Expressway and Great 694 residential units on a Transit Incentives; TIA Report; Trip 9 ML1504 Milpitas Mall Parkway 9.84-acre site Site Plans y Generation Assumptions Stratford School - Northeast corner of Renovation of former Heald Montague Expressway College building for a 716- City of and Great Mall Parkway, student school (pre-K to TIA Report; Pedestrian Accommodations; 10 ML1505 Milpitas 341 Great Mall Parkway High School) TIA y Bicycle Accommodations 62,443 s.f. office on two sites totaling approximately 2.8 Pedestrian Accommodations and Access to 2747 & 3045 Park acres, replacing 18,000 s.f. Transit; Transportation Demand City of Palo Boulevard Office office and 4,800 s.f. storage Management; Significant Impacts to CMP 11 PA1501 Alto Projects facility NOP y Facilities 18,537 s.f. Mercedes Trip Generation and Transportation City of Palo Mercedes Dealership- dealership replacing a vacant Analysis; Transit Analysis; Auto Trip 12 PA1504 Alto 1700 Embarcadero Road restaurant TIA y Reduction Statement

Development Review Quarterly Report Page 2 of 8 October, November and December of 2015

13.a Map CMP ID Lead Agency Project Name/Location Project Description Document Type VTA Comment Topics No. quarter? quarter? quarter? Approved this Comments this

Project Location and Land Use/Transportation Integration; Consistency with VTA Congestion Management Program; Trip Generation and Trip Reduction Assumptions; Transportation Demand Management Program; Intersection Mitigation Measures and Secondary Impacts; CMP Intersection Impacts and Multimodal Improvement Plan; Freeway Impacts and Voluntary Contributions to Regional Improvements; Two scenarios analyzed for ACE/Capitol Corridor Great America up to 9.1 million s.f. total Station Integration with Project; Existing development on a 240-acre Conditions for Light Rail and Bus; Impacts site. Scheme A: 1,360 to Transit Travel Times; Proposed New residential units, 1.5 million Intersection/Light Rail Crossing; Proposed City Place Santa Clara s.f. retail/entertainment, 5.7 Bus and Shuttle Service; Pedestrian Project - City owned million s.f. office and 700 Facilities & Access to Transit; Pedestrian golf course and BMX hotel rooms; Scheme B: 200 and Bicycle Accommodations Within track generally bounded residential units, 1.7 million Project Site; Slip Ramp from Tasman by Tasman, Guadalupe s.f. retail/entertainment, 6.7 Drive to Stars & Stripes; Vehicular Access City of Santa River, SR 237, and Great million s.f. office and 700 and Connectivity; Construction Impacts 13 SC1403 Clara America Parkway hotel rooms. DEIR, TIA y and Roadway Design Lawrence Station Area Plan - Bounded by Central Expwy, Kifer Comprehensive area plan for City of Santa Rd, Calabazas Creek, 3,500 housing units and 14 SC1501 Clara and Lawrence Expwy 104,000 s.f.retail on 70 acres Revised NOP y Land Use Land Use; Freeway Impacts and Santa Clara Square - Mitigation Measures; Transportation Northeast of the Bowers 1,800 residential units and Demand Management; Pedestrian City of Santa Dr/Scott Blvd 40,000 s.f. commercial on Accommodations; Multimodal Analysis; 15 SC1502 Clara intersection 33.4-acre site DEIR, TIA y y Auto Trip Reduction Statement

Development Review Quarterly Report Page 3 of 8 October, November and December of 2015

13.a Map CMP ID Lead Agency Project Name/Location Project Description Document Type VTA Comment Topics No. quarter? quarter? quarter? Approved this Comments this

Alviso Village Townhomes - Northeast City of Santa corner of El Camino 40 attached townhomes on a Pedestrian Accommodations and Access to 16 SC1506 Clara Real and Alviso Street 2.01-acre site Initial Study y y Transit Santana Terrace Senior Apartments - 100 N Winchester Boulevard, 92 senior apartments City of Santa approx. 600 feet north of replacing 65,000 s.f. office Land Use; Pedestrian Accommodations; 17 SC1507 Clara Forest Avenue on a 1.86-acre site Initial Study y y Transit Incentives 3535 Garrett Drive Office Project - Eight-story, 310,540 s.f. Northwest of office building replacing TIA Report; Trip Generation Assumptions; City of Santa Bowers/Scott 118,800 s.f. office building Initial Study, Pedestrian Accommodations; 18 SC1508 Clara intersection on a 5.69-acre site TIA y y Transportation Demand Management City of San Earthquakes Stadium Bus Stop 19 SJ0823 Jose Bus Stop 18,000 seat soccer stadium Improvements y Bus Service Cannery Park Village - Northwest corner of E. Land Use; Transportation Impacts and City of San Taylor Street and N. 403 residential units and Initial Study, Mitigation Measures; Pedestrian 20 SJ1420 Jose 10th Street 5,000 square feet of retail TIA y Accommodations; Transit Incentives Land Use; TIA Report; Trip Generation Assumptions; I-280/Winchester/Moorpark Transportation Development Policy; Potential Congestion Impacts on Transit Santana West Office 969,051 s.f. office and Travel Times; Pedestrian and Bicycle Project - NW corner of 29,000 s.f. retail replacing Additional Accommodations; Transportation Demand City of San Olsen Dr and two existing movie theater Comments on Management; Freeway Analysis; Roadway 21 SJ1421 Jose Winchester Blvd buildings NOP y Connectivity; Cumulative Transit Analysis

Development Review Quarterly Report Page 4 of 8 October, November and December of 2015

13.a Map CMP ID Lead Agency Project Name/Location Project Description Document Type VTA Comment Topics No. quarter? quarter? quarter? Approved this Comments this

Reevaluation of the significance of projected greenhouse gas emissions associated with existing and planned land uses in San Jose (no modifications proposed City of San Envision 2040 General to land use and development 22 SJ1515 Jose Plan Update assumptions) SEIR y Transportation Demand Management General Plan Amendment to allow up to 72 residential 950 St Elizabeth Drive units and 13,800 s.f. Mixed Use - West of the commercial/retail space on a City of San Los Gatos Creek Trail at 3.6-acre site (no specific Initial Study, Land Use; Transit Incentives; Pedestrian 23 SJ1518 Jose Meridian Avenue project proposed at this time) TIA y and Bicycle Accommodations Increase in residential Downtown Strategy Plan capacity in the Downtown - Approximately 3 area by 4,000 units by square miles bounded by transferring capacity from Taylor/Coleman/Julian, other Urban Villages and Land Use Density & Mix; Land Use City of San 4th St, I-280 and the Growth Areas identified in Reallocation; Transportation Analysis; 24 SJ1519 Jose Diridon Station Area the General Plan NOP y Transportation Demand Management Amending the adopted land Long-Range Traffic uses in Envision 2040 on Impact Analysis for seven parcels and amending City of San 2015 General Plan the land uses of the 25 SJ1520 Jose Amendments Downtown Strategy Plan Long-Range TIA y Transportation Analysis 1005 Saratoga Ave - New gas station and 3,200 Northwest Corner of s.f. convenience store City of San Saratoga Ave and replacing an existing gas 26 SJ1521 Jose Williams Rd station Site Plans y Bus Service

Development Review Quarterly Report Page 5 of 8 October, November and December of 2015

13.a Map CMP ID Lead Agency Project Name/Location Project Description Document Type VTA Comment Topics No. quarter? quarter? quarter? Approved this Comments this

America Center II, Building 5 - NE of America Center Drive City of San and Gold Street TIA Report; CMP Facilities; 27 SJ1525 Jose Connector 160,112 s.f. office space TIA Notification y Transportation Demand Management 330 residential units, 29,488 s.f. office, 14,309 s.f. retail, Land Use; TIA Report; Cumulative 6,715 s.f. restaurant replacing Analysis of Congestion Impacts on Transit City of San Volar Mixed Use Project a 26,774 s.f. commercial Travel Times; Transportation Demand 28 SJ1526 Jose - 350 Winchester Blvd building TIA Notification y Management; Kaiser - Southeast City of San corner of Skyport Dive 153,112 s.f. medical office Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations; 29 SJ1527 Jose and Technology Drive building Traffic Op Study y Transportation Demand Management Cilker Orchard TIA Report; Pedestrian and Bicycle Development - 0 Alviso- Accommodations; Roadway Connectivity; Milpitas Road, Transportation Demand Management; City of San northwest of SR 1.2 million s.f. light Intersection and Freeway Analysis and 30 SJ1528 Jose 237/Coyote Creek industrial TIA Notification y Mitigation Measures TIA Report; Pedestrian and Bicycle Replacing an existing golf Accommodations and Access to Transit; Top Golf driving range with a 200- CMP Facilities Analysis and Mitigation City of San Redevelopment - 4701 room hotel, 100,000 s.f. retail Measures; Transportation Demand 31 SJ1529 Jose North First Street and 125 hitting bay facility TIA Notification y Management Replace 483,000 s.f. industrial uses with either DeGuigne Residential - 451 townhomes and a park or City of 915 DeGuigne Ave and 470 townhomes and 70,000 TIA Report; Pedestrian and Bicycle 32 SU1404 Sunnyvale 936 Duane Ave s.f. retail on a 25.2-acre site DEIR, TIA y Accommodations; Bus Service City of AC Hotel – 725 S Fair 187 room 5-story hotel on 33 SU1503 Sunnyvale Oaks Ave 1.25 acres Site Plans, TIA y Pedestrian Accommodations; Bus Service Stratford Middle School City of - 1500 Partridge Avenue Pedestrian Accommodations; Transit 34 SU1506 Sunnyvale at Dunford Way 520-student middle school DEIR y Analysis; Auto Trip Reduction Statement

Development Review Quarterly Report Page 6 of 8 October, November and December of 2015

13.a Map CMP ID Lead Agency Project Name/Location Project Description Document Type VTA Comment Topics No. quarter? quarter? quarter? Approved this Comments this

284,000 s.f. office expansion on parking lot of existing City of 1184 Mathilda Ave building (currently under Land use; Pedestrian Accommodations; 35 SU1511 Sunnyvale Office Project renovation by Google) TIA y Transportation Demand Management AC Hotel and Residence City of Inn - 1235 Bordeaux Two hotels totaling 320 Land Use Mix; Pedestrian 36 SU1513 Sunnyvale Ave rooms TIA Notification y Accommodations City of 1250 Lakeside Drive 250 multifamily residential 37 SU1516 Sunnyvale Hotel/Residential units and 263 hotel rooms TIA Notification y Pedestrian Accommodations

Development Review Quarterly Report Page 7 of 8 October, November and December of 2015

13.a

Development Review Quarterly Report Page 8 of 8 October, November and December of 2015

13.a 13.a DEVELOPMENT REVIEW QUARTERLY REPORT GLOSSARY

ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission ABC Across Barrier Connections ND Negative Declaration AC Acre(s) NOI Notice of Intent ACE Altamont Corridor Express NOP Notice of Preparation ATRS Auto Trip Reduction Statement PCC Portland Concrete Cement BART Bay Area Rapid Transit PDA Priority Development Area BMPs Best Management Practices PDP Planned Development Permit BRT Bus Rapid Transit PDR Planned Development Rezoning BTG Bicycle Technical Guidelines PE Preliminary Engineering CDT Community Design & Transportation PTG Pedestrian Technical Guidelines CMP Congestion Management Program PUD Planned Urban Development CSA Construction Staging Area QOS Quality of Service CUP Conditional Use Permit R&D Research & Development CWC Citizen Watchdog Committee RES Residential DASH Downtown Area Shuttle ROW Right-Of-Way DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report SAR Site and Architectural Review DU/AC Dwelling Units Per Acre SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District EIR Environmental Impact Report SDP Site Development Permit ER Environmental Review SF Square Foot FAR Floor Area Ratio SF RES Single-Family Residential FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report SOV Single-Occupant Vehicle GHG Greenhouse Gas SPA Specific Plan Amendment GPA General Plan Amendment SPRR Southern Pacific Railroad HCM Highway Capacity Manual SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program HOV High-Occupancy Vehicle TCE Temporary Construction Easement HSR High-Speed Rail TDM Transportation Demand Management IS Initial Study TIA Transportation Impact Analysis ITS Intelligent Transportation System TIA NF Transportation Impact Analysis Notification Form LOS Level of Service TM Tentative Map LRT Light Rail Transit TMA Transportation Management Association LU/TD Land Use/Transportation Diagram TOD Transit-Oriented Development MF RES Multi-Family Residential TPA Transit Priority Area MM Mitigation Measure UPRR Union Pacific Railroad MMRP Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled MND Mitigated Negative Declaration VTP Valley Transportation Plan

VTA Development Review Program Annual Report for 2015

VTA Advisory Committees

March 2016 13.b Presentation Outline

I. Background II. Data Snapshot a. Development Review Activity for 2015 b. Select Projects Under Construction in 2015 III. Key Themes for 2015

http://www.relatedsantaclara.com/renderings/

http://www.skyscrapercity.org http://www.cupertino.org/vallco 1 13.b Background

VTA reviews, analyzes, and tracks land use developments within and near Santa Clara County to improve land use/transportation coordination, promote alternative travel modes, and encourage a balanced approach to addressing congestion.

• Development Review Program – Comment on development and plan applications, track and report project approvals.

• Major Development Construction – Track significant development projects.

• Congestion Management Program (CMP) Monitoring Report – Track and analyze land use approval data submitted by Member Agencies (15 cities plus County of Santa Clara)

2 13.b Development Review Activity for 2015

Countywide/Citywide Plans

• Campbell Housing Element

• County Health Element

• Cupertino Community Vision 2040 & Housing Element

• Gilroy General Plan Update

• Morgan Hill Horizon 2035

• Menlo Park General Plan Update

• San Jose Envision 2040 SEIR

• San Jose General Plan Amendments

• Sunnyvale Land Use & Transportation Element (LUTE)

3 13.b Select Projects Under Construction or Completed in 2015

Map shows major projects (greater than 100 units residential or 50,000 sq. ft. non-

residential) known to VTA staff to be under construction or completed in 2015. 13.b 4 Key Themes of 2015 Annual Report

1. Major Projects and Plans: Development Boom Continues Around the County

2. Transit-Oriented Development and Transit Operations: Prioritizing the ‘T’ in TOD

3. Emerging Mixed-Use Districts: Single-Use Areas Get a Make-Over

4. Transportation Demand Management: Cities Get Serious About Reducing Car Trips

5. Ensuring Safe and Comfortable Sidewalks: Getting the Details Right

5 13.b Major Projects and Plans: Development Boom Continues Throughout the County

• Major Projects and Plans that were reviewed by VTA or approved by Member Agencies in 2015:

• Commercial/Employment-Focused: 8 Projects • Projects > 1 million gross square feet of office • Project with significant retail

• Residential-Focused: 5 Projects • Projects > 1,000 housing units

6 13.b Major Projects and Plans: Development Boom Continues Throughout the County Commercial/Employment-Focused Projects

Related Santa Clara Public Presentation October 2015 Dell Avenue Area Plan, City of Campbell, June 2015 1. City Place, Santa Clara 3. Dell Avenue Area Plan, Campbell • Up to 6.7 M g.s.f office • Proposed • 2.3 M net new s.f. office • Proposed • 1.5 M g.s.f retail/entertainment • 20K net new s.f. retail • 700 hotel rooms • 300 residential units • Up to 1,360 residential units

http://thehillsatvallco.com/?page_id=213 Peery Park Specific Plan Initial Study, City of Campbell, June 2015 2. The Hills at Vallco, Cupertino 4. Peery Park Specific Plan, Sunnyvale • 2 M g.s.f. office • Proposed • 2 M net new s.f. office • Proposed • 625K g.s.f. retail/entertainment • 200K net new s.f. retail • 800 residential units • 215 residential units

• Replacing 1.3 M s.f. existing retail 7 13.b Major Projects and Plans: Development Boom Continues Throughout the County Commercial/Employment-Focused Projects

http://www.moffett-towers.com/index.htm http://news.theregistrysf.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Federa-Realty-Santana-Row-San-Jose-real-estate-The-Registry.png 5. Moffett Towers II, Sunnyvale 7. Santana West, San Jose • 1.65 M g.s.f. office • Proposed • 1 M g.s.f. office • Proposed • Replacing 924,500 s.f. existing office • 29K g.s.f. retail

http://www.lawrencestationinsunnyvale.org/#!Mixed-use land use alternative/zoom/c1fs9/imageij4 North 40 Specific Plan, Town of Los Gatos, June 2015 6. Lawrence Station Area Plan, Sunnyvale 8. North 40 Specific Plan, Los Gatos • 1.2 M net new s.f. office • Proposed • 125K g.s.f. office • Approved • 2,323 residential units • 400K g.s.f. retail • 364 residential units • Up to 150 hotel rooms 8 13.b Major Projects and Plans: Development Boom Continues Throughout the County Residential-Focused Projects

San Jose Greater Downtown Strategy for Development, SJDA, January 2001 North Gilroy Neighborhoods Districts Urban Service Area DEIR, EMC Planning, Aug 2015 1. Downtown Strategy EIR Update, San Jose 2. N. Gilroy Neighborhoods Plan • 4,000 residential units • Proposed • 3.996 residential units • Approved Dec. 2015 • 337K s.f. office (rescinded Jan. 2016)

Lawnrence Station Area Plan NOP, City of Santa Clara, September 2015 https://www.irvinecompany.com/santa-clara-square http://news.theregistrysf.com/milpitas-on-track-with-its-great-mall-district-redevelopment/ 3. Lawrence Station Plan, SC 4. Santa Clara Sq, Santa Clara 5. The District, Milpitas • 3.500 residential units • Proposed • 1,800 residential units • Approved • 1,169 residential units • Approved • 104K s.f. retail • 40K s.f. retail • 84K s.f. retail

9 13.b Transit Oriented Development & Transit Operations: Prioritizing the ‘T’ in TOD

• Safety and operational efficiency are VTA priorities; travel time competitiveness is important for VTA and its customers. • VTA supports TOD projects next to rail stations and frequent bus lines. • VTA works with local agencies to consider potential impacts to safety, travel time and reliability on VTA services.

Related Santa Clara Public Presentation October 2015

http://goo.gl/maps/7AJjgqaw6Bn City Place, Santa Clara • Project proposes new signalized intersection Tasman Drive crossing light rail tracks. • VTA requests Transit Signal Pre-emption for light rail vehicles.

10 13.b Transit Oriented Development & Transit Operations: Prioritizing the ‘T’ in TOD

ST. JAMES PARK LRT STATION PARK VIEW TOWERS MARSHALL SQUARES

http://s3-media1.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/BynUbzE3d5v6IUE http://media.bizj.us/view/img/6276691/20150424park-view-towers-dan-yvonneview11* http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItem r0dxBPw/o.jpg 1200xx4000-2250-0-226.jpg RelationshipId=6610171 Park View Towers and Marshall Squares, San Jose • Project will increase utilization of existing driveways/crossings at LRT tracks. • VTA recommended protected crossings and ongoing coordination.

SANTANA WEST PORTION OF TRI-VILLAGE AREA VOLAR

STEVENS CREEK BLVD

http://binged.it/1n1bWAZ http://news.theregistrysf.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Federa http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2015/11/30/ -Realty-Santana-Row-San-Jose-real-estate-The-Registry.png exclusive-25-story-mixed-use-tower-proposed-for.html Projects within Santana Row / Valley Fair / Winchester Urban Village Area • Projects will increase congestion on Stevens Creek/Winchester, affecting core VTA bus service. • VTA recommended measures/contributions to prioritize bus movement. 11 13.b Emerging Mixed Use Districts: Single Use Areas Get a Make-Over

Santana Row/Valley Fair Area

• Volar Mixed Use (Pictured) – 330 residential units, 30,000 s.f. office and 20,000 s.f. retail (proposed) • Santana West – 970,000 s.f. office and 29,000 s.f. retail (proposed) • Santana Row Expansion – 510,000 s.f. office, 55,000 s.f. retail (approved) • 500 Santana Row – 234,000 s.f. office (under construction) • Valley Fair Expansion – 650,000 s.f. additional retail (approved) • 2850 Stevens Creek Hotel – 138 rooms, 12-story (pending approval) http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2015/11/30/exclusive-25-story-mixed-use-tower-proposed-for.html

Santa Clara Square

• Adding residential & retail to Bowers/Scott office district

• Residential/mixed use project (1,800 units and 40k s.f. retail) approved December 2015

• Retail center (125k s.f., includes Whole Foods) approved 2014, under construction

https://www.irvinecompany.com/santa-clara-square 12 13.b Emerging Mixed Use Districts: Single Use Areas Get a Make-Over

North Bayshore Precise Plan

• Council directed staff to study up to 9,100 residential units in employment-dominated area (November 2015) • Precise Plan Update expected to take approximately 2 years

City of Mountain View 11-10-2015 City Council Study Session Memo

The Hills at Vallco

• Proposal to redevelop existing retail center with office, residential, retail, and recreational uses • NOP circulated October 2015

Project Renderings posted to Cupertino website, September 2015 13.b 13 Transportation Demand Management: Cities Get Serious About Reducing Car Trips

Sunnyvale began requiring third-party monitoring of project trip generation for projects in the Moffett Park Specific Plan; and included 20-35% trip reductions with annual monitoring in the Peery Park Specific Plan.

Peery Park Specific Plan Initial Study, June 2015

Palo Alto initiated Transportation Management Association (TMA) to balance Downtown parking needs and neighborhood quality of life.

http://www.paloaltotma.org/

Mountain View included 45% single occupant vehicle (SOV) mode share goal, trip caps and annual monitoring in the North Bayshore Precise Plan; first Trip Monitoring Report accepted by Council in June 2015

North Bayshore Precise Plan Trip Monitoring Report, June 2015

14 13.b Ensuring Safe & Comfortable Sidewalks: Getting the Details Right

• Pedestrian safety and comfort on a roadway is influenced by the width and quality of the buffer between the sidewalk and the roadway. Supported by nationally recognized standards, e.g. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010, and National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO).

• VTA reviewed 92 total projects in 2015

• Provided pedestrian accommodation comments on 67 projects, of which VTA recommended that 40 projects provide detached, buffered sidewalks.

15 13.b Ensuring Safe & Comfortable Sidewalks: Getting the Details Right

2011 Condition -Attached sidewalks

2011 Condition – Attached sidewalks 2015 As-Built Condition – Attached sidewalks http://goo.gl/maps/h3zBLwibp6o

16 13.b Google Earh Imagery 10/2011 Google Earth Imagery 3/2015 Ensuring Safe & Comfortable Sidewalks: Getting the Details Right

Existing Condition -Attached sidewalks

Proposed Street Section –

Detached and buffered sidewalks https://goo.gl/maps/KpWSaBYZfjM2

Building Façade Existing Street View Proposed Site Plan – Detached and buffered sidewalks Butcher’s Corner Drawing Butcher’s Set Jan. 2015, Sunnyvale

Proposed Site Plan

17 Butcher’s Corner Drawing Set Jan. 2015, Sunnyvale 13.b Development Review Program Annual Report for 2015

Questions and Discussion

18 13.b 14

Date: February 29, 2016 Current Meeting: March 9, 2016 Board Meeting: April 7, 2016

BOARD MEMORANDUM

TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Citizens Advisory Committee

THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez

FROM: Director of Planning and Program Development, John Ristow

SUBJECT: Transit Ridership Improvement Program Choices Report

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

BACKGROUND:

The Transit Ridership Improvement Program (TRIP) is a two-year policy and planning effort to redesign VTA’s transit service network. The Program seeks to accomplish the goals of increasing transit ridership, improving VTA’s farebox recovery rate, and integrating VTA’s transit network with BART service to Milpitas and San Jose. The program’s four major components are an assessment of VTA’s current service, development of transit service policies, partner education and involvement, and the development of VTA’s next transit network. These efforts will culminate in a redesigned transit network for implementation coincident with the extension of BART service in 2017. Development of that network will rely on policy guidance from VTA’s Board of Directors as well as input from VTA’s advisory committees, policy boards, municipal partners, and the community. Transit service design specialist Jarrett Walker + Associates has been hired to assist with this effort.

The VTA Board of Directors was introduced to the TRIP in late 2015 and was presented with a project update in February 2016.

DISCUSSION:

The first of TRIP’s four major components is an independent assessment of VTA’s current transit service, and this memorandum presents the culmination of this work in the form of a draft Transit Choices Report. The Report, written by Jarrett Walker + Associates, contains an analysis of VTA’s current transit service and presents a series of policy choices that will need to be navigated during the development of VTA’s Next Network. The executive summary of the

3331 North First Street ∙ San Jose, CA 95134-1927 ∙ Administration 408.321.5555 ∙ Customer Service 408.321.2300 14

Transit Choices Report is included in Attachment A with the full report included in Attachment B.

Purpose of the Program

The need for the TRIP arises from two converging factors - falling ridership and population growth, both illustrated in the draft Choices Report’s assessment of existing service. Highlighting a key challenge for VTA, the report illustrates the amount of transit service provided by VTA has declined 15% over the past 15 years, while the County’s population has increased more than 10% during the same period. This means that the quantity of service provided per capita has been shrinking, and presents a policy choice of what level of transit service should be provided into the future as the County continues to grow.

Increasing Ridership through Increased Productivity

The draft Choices Report details the factors that influence transit ridership and presents these factors as policy choices for the VTA Board and community to consider. Because the principal goal of the TRIP is to increase transit ridership, it will be important to understand how policy choices influence transit ridership.

The most obvious way to increase transit ridership is to simply devote more resources to transit and increase the level of service provided. Less obvious is how to increase ridership given a fixed budget; the only way to increase ridership given a fixed budget is to increase productivity, which is the subject of much of the report.

Roles of Transit Service

The Report describes transit productivity as a three-legged stool with three factors that work together to produce productive transit service - street design, land use, and transit service design. Because VTA has little or no control over two of the factors, a key theme of the program is the need for local governments to be aware of their extraordinary control over transit ridership through their role in planning land use and street design.

VTA’s role is to provide transit service that is useful. To this end, the program will utilize best practices in transit service design to develop VTA’s Next Network. One strategy would be to create an all-day frequent network that makes a wider array of transit trips possible.

Key Choices

The report outlines a number of key policy choices for the VTA Board and the community to navigate during development of the Next Network. Chief among these choices is the purpose of the public transit. Transit operators are tasked with achieving two competing goals: productivity (carry the maximum number of riders possible per dollar spent) and coverage (provide some level of transit service to everyone, regardless of productivity). Each transit operator must

Page 2 of 4 14

decide how much in terms of resources to devote to each goal. Therefore, a fundamental policy choice will be to decide the extent to which VTA allocates resources to the ridership goal as opposed to the competing coverage goal.

Assessment of Existing Service

The report details VTA’s current transit service performance. Most significantly, service is most productive where service is most frequent. For example, the high frequency of VTA's Core routes offers riders easy transfers and a diversity of trip purposes for which the network is useful. This explains why frequent routes tend to be more productive per hour of service, despite their higher cost. A number of other findings are detailed:

 VTA’s all-day frequent network (routes with a headway of 15-minutes or less) is comprised of 12 routes.

 The east side of VTA’s service area has a very rich network of frequent services, and correspondingly high productivity, which is possible only because of its transit- supportive street network and dense land uses.

 The lower service levels and lower productivity on the west side of VTA’s service network can be largely attributed to street design and land uses that are not transit supportive.

 VTA offers significantly more service during the weekday peak commute periods, though VTA’s ridership is only slightly higher during the peaks. Productivity is actually higher during the mid-day than during the PM peak.

Service Branding

To attract riders, transit service must be easy to understand and use. To that end, the Report discusses the role transit service branding plays in conveying information to the potential rider, because potential riders will need to understand what services are available and how to use them. The key to clear communication about a local bus network is a well-designed system of service classes, manifested across the information system and also in policy. These service classes become transit service brands, conveying key characteristics of the class such as frequency, span, speed, and stop spacing. VTA’s transit service types are branded with names such as local, rapid, limited, community and express, though some of these classes do not necessarily convey key service characteristics that are important to transit riders. The Report outlines opportunities for VTA to make its services easier to understand and use by strengthening the branding of its services.

Early Deliverables

The draft Transit Choices Report is the first product in the process to develop VTA’s Next

Page 3 of 4 14

Network. However, the TRIP encompasses a number of other efforts that will work concurrently to further the goals of TRIP. The program has identified two efforts that could be completed in the short term to deliver a meaningful improvement in transit information delivery:

 Real-Time Information. Urban transit riders today expect to be able to monitor the movement of transit vehicles in real time so that they can know when their bus or train is going to arrive. VTA is currently installing the necessary hardware and software to enable real-time information, which will provide significant benefits for riders.

 Redesigned Transit Map. VTA’s current system map is a professional piece of graphic design, but the principles on which it is designed are dated and inconsistent with VTA’s current goals. Accordingly, VTA has begun a process to redesign its system map to reflect the modern trend in transit map design. Most importantly, the new frequency- based system map will proudly highlight VTA’s core network of frequent services.

Next Steps

This memorandum presents the draft Transit Choices Report, which is the first deliverable in the process of developing VTA’s Next Network. The policy choices as presented in the Report will be instrumental as the VTA Board discusses the draft network concepts during its April 22 Board Workshop.

Prepared By: Jason Tyree Memo No. 5472

Page 4 of 4 14.a Transit Choices Report Attachment A FEBRUARY 3, 2016

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 14.a Executive Summary

What is TRIP? The Transit Ridership Improvement Program is a two-year study of Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) services designed to identify ways to improve ridership . A key output of this study, but not the only one, is the 2017 Next Network Plan, which will review the structure of the VTA network and propose improvements for implementation in 2017 . The planned changes will occur in time for the opening of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to Berryessa, including those required to integrate BART into the VTA network .

This report, the first of the study, analyzes the existing system and shows EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE how certain choices will need to be thought about at the policy level .

What is the need for this study? The need for this study arises from two converging factors—falling ridership and population growth—that pose important new questions for transportation in Santa Clara County . The County is projected to surpass 2 million residents by 2030 . Combined with a rapidly growing economy throughout all parts of the Bay Area, this means more people will be traveling to more places throughout the region .

Figure 1 shows a simplified graph of these trends since 2001. Population has grown steadily, but ridership is more than 20% below its year-2001 Figure 1: Santa Clara County population, VTA Ridership and Revenue Hours, cumulative change 2000 - 2013 level . Transit service quantity, measured in revenue hours, is nearly 15% VTA Operating Expenses by Mode, FY15 lower, despite an overall level of transit expenditure that has returned to its early-2000s level when adjusted for inflation. (A revenue hour is one Bus (Express) transit vehicle operating for one hour ). 4%

This means that the quantity of service, as the average resident would Light Rail perceive it, has been shrinking . The relevant measure here is revenue Bus (Non-Express) 23% hours /capita . A key question to be discussed is what this curve should 63% be doing . Should transit be growing with population, or faster, or slower?

Why focus on local transit? The main focus of this study is the local transit network and especially the bus network . This network, bus and rail, constitutes 86% VTA’s service costs . Other programs, including support for Caltrain/ACE, ADA Paratransit 5% shuttles to these services, special event services, express services, and intercounty programs, are comparatively small parts of the budget . Caltrain Paratransit costs, mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act, are 2% also quite low by industry standards . Special Events 1% Other ACE Figure 2: VTA Operating Expense by Mode, FY15 1% 1%

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 3 14.a Executive Summary

How to get more ridership for a fixed budget? Ridership means how many people use a transit service, while productivity is ridership divided by the amount of service provided . If you have a fixed budget for providing service, then the only way to increase ridership is to increase producitivity -- that is, growing ridership at a higher rate than the quantity of service grows .

Productivity is not the only purpose of transit, so it is not the only measure of transit’s success . Virtually all transit agencies run some

service for non-ridership purposes, fully aware that low productivity will SUMMARY EXECUTIVE result . These “coverage” services, and the arguments for them, are discussed later in this summary . However, increasing ridership is the focus of this study, so it is important to understand how high-ridership services work .

The next sections of this summary review the key elements of high-ridership service. These assertions are confirmed both by experience in other cities and by VTA’s own performance data, as Chapter 3, Transit Service and Performance, explores in more detail . The reliability of these insights is not surprising because they arise from simple geometric facts about what a transit line is and how it relates to the geometry of cities .

High productivity transit service has two elements: First, the service is useful for many purposes, and second, this service is focused on places where the geography is favorable for transit to succeed . Four features of the geography matter in particular .

• Density -- There are many residents, jobs, and activity destinations close to each transit stop . Note that because the valley is largely built out, most growth from now on will have the effect of increasing density .

• Walkability -- It is easy to walk between those places and the stop . Figure 3: The Ridership Recipe: Density, Walkability, Linearity, and Proximity

• Linearity -- Transit can operate in paths that feel straight and direct close link between ridership and these built environment features will be to the customer . apparent . All of these factors help explain, for example, why El Camino The Municipal Role Real, Stevens Creek and Alum Rock Ave are some of the most productive The key features of the built environment that govern transit demand are • Proximity -- Distances that transit needs to cover are relatively short . corridors at VTA . They have all of these features, to an adequate degree, obviously not in VTA’s control . They are the result of decisions by past generations, and to the extent that they can still be changed, the power Another term often mentioned in the literature is the mixture of land including a mixture of land uses . to do so lies with the municipal governments within the County . uses along a line. Transit is more efficient if jobs, housing, and retail Other areas like these will arise as the County continues to grow, and are interspersed, rather than having, say, only jobs at one end and only grow more dense, especially if there is a conscious desire for land use These local governments -- along with Caltrans -- also control the street residents at the other . This diverse mix generates a more even two-way to evolve to forms that are more favorable to transit . (This also means environment in which VTA operates, largely determining the travel time demand pattern that uses transit capacity more efficiently. fahvorable to cycling and walking . Linearity is the only transit need that and reliability of transit service . As we look look closely at ridership patterns throughout this report, the does not also benefit cyclists and pedestrians.) In short, VTA service is only one leg of a three-legged stool that

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 4 14.a Executive Summary

determines transit ridership . The other two are land use and street design, both of which are largely under the control of the cities and employment is mosty in a business park towns . A key theme of this study is the need for local governments to be format with abundant free parking . aware of their extraordinary control over transit ridership through their However, express service is a tiny share role in planning land use and street design . of what VTA does, and is therefore not a major focus of this study . Express service is VTA’s Role: Service also a small part of the commuter market; most commuting is over shorter distances Much is known about how service determines ridership . While many and happens on local services . This is why people focus on subjective features such as comfort and aesthetics, the overwhelming majority of VTA’s invest- these only become relevant if the service is useful . So an understanding ment -- including all of its most productive of usefulness is critical to deploying transit service productively . SUMMARY EXECUTIVE investments, arises from more locally- Across the transit industry, when we look at the most productive services serving routes, some peak-only but mostly in any network, we usually find they are one of two kinds: running all day .

• Commuter express service over long distances, bypassing severe congestion and operating into a dense employment center where parking is difficult and expensive.

• High frequency service -- usually every 15 minutes all day -- running in places where all the built environment conditions are favorable, yielding an intense, two-way, all-day market . VTA’s services of this type are called the Core Network, and include major corridors like El Camino Real, Stevens Creek, and Alum Rock Avenue . Figure 4: Route Frequency and Productivity (Data from VTA and 16 agencies)

The first group is specialized around “nine to five” commuters, but of course the second group serves many such commuters too . The difference between the two is that the second group serves a greater diversity of trip purposes, while the first group is only for commuters traveling at rush hour . BART, for example, belongs to the second group, because its availability and frequency at any time of day is a crucial part of its offering, while Caltrain and ACE, with their low frequency and limited off-peak service, belong to the first group..

Peak Commute Service The most successful examples of commuter express service in the Bay Area are express buses into San Francisco across the Bay Bridge . Another is Caltrain, especially for travel into San Francisco . Because these services appeal mostly to people who have a car readily available, a very strong disincentive to driving is needed to make these services succeed .

For that reason, VTA express service is less productive than expresses into dense cities like San Francisco or Seattle, as shown in Figure 5 . This is because although the levels of congestion are similar, the disincentives to driving into the employment center are not . Santa Clara County’s Figure 5: High Productivity Express Routes

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 5 14.a Executive Summary

Frequent Service: The Core Network Because of the geographic limitations on the ridership potential of express service, VTA’s most productive services tend to be frequent and all-day . Like most agencies, VTA shows a correlation between frequency and ridership . Where the correlation is weak, it is because of the effects of land use patterns and street design . The same land use factors (density, walkability, linearity, proximity) matter here too .

Frequency is an expensive investment, but the payoff is usually high if land use and street design are sufficiently favor-

able . Service that is always coming soon -- usually every 15 SUMMARY EXECUTIVE minutes or better, has not only higher ridership but higher productivity . How can this be? After all, high frequency means a large quantity of service . Productivity is ridership divided by quantity of service, so intense levels of service should pull the ratio down . In fact, though, the correlation between high frequency and high productivity is well established in virtually all of the transit agencies we have studied and it’s geometrically obvious why:

• Waiting is the most onerous part of a transit trip, and frequency reduces waiting . (Note that waiting is not just time spent at a bus stop, but more generally time spent not where you want to be . For example, if an hourly bus gets you to work at 7:05 or 8:05, and you must be there at 8:00, then you will wait 55 minutes at your destination ).

• High frequency is the foundation of easy connections . From a ridership perspective, easy connections between lines vastly increase the potential market for each individual transit line, by making it useful to go many more places . Figure 6: Radial and Grid Network Structure Figure 7: VTA Route Productivity by Frequency • Frequent service is more reliable, because you are less likely to be stranded during a disruption . an especially high level of usefulness because it is easy to travel between any two points with an L-shaped trip and a single trans- Again, the unusual power of frequency is apparent from VTA’s own fer, so a huge range of potential trips are served . VTA operates this kind performance data, as this report explores . This does not mean that of network very successfully in eastern San Jose but it is not clear that it any route would be productive if it ran frequently . Rather, it’s the com- should be confined to there. While east San Jose is certainly extremely bination of high frequency and the built environment factors (density, favorable transit territory, there may be other areas in the Valley that walkability, etc ). that really gives us the “recipe” for the most productive could support high frequency grid services, especially those where transit services . urban-style nodes of density and walkability are emerging . An important thing that frequent services can do is form a high-frequency grid . This pattern, routine in cities like San Francisco, Chicago, and Portland and recently installed successfully in Houston, achieves

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 6 14.a Executive Summary

The planning of VTA services, and the evaluation of outcomes, will be Resource Level Key Choices much clearer if VTA could adopt a policy about the split of its resources As we observed above, VTA service quantity per capita has been In the face of these trends and geometric facts, and with some under- between the two goals . To take one example, Houston’s recent “System shrinking for some time, as the agency’s resources fail to keep up with standing of possible solutions from a network design perspective, Reimagining,” which led to a productive redesign of service imple- population growth . A key question is what this trend should be . Transit several key choices for VTA become apparent . This report is called a mented in August 2015, began with a Board decision to devote about demand tends to grow rapidly with density, so as the Valley becomes Choices Report because its ultimate goal is to help citizens and leaders 80% of the budget to high-ridership services and only 20% to cover- denser, a transit system that is growing only with population is likely to think about these choices . age services, a big shift from a previous split of around 60-40 . At VTA, fail to meet demands . the current ratio is about 70% ridership, 30% coverage . This should be Ridership or Coverage? reviewed to determine if it still reflects the balance of priorities desired As we’ve seen, some places are better for transit productivity than by the community . While the allocation of existing service could be adjusted to increase rid- others, because of their built form . This means that a transit agency that ership, this will mostly take the form of shifting resources from coverage EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE was “thinking like a business,” focused on maximizing the number of Peak or All Day? service to ridership service, with negative impacts on the people who customers, would focus on the highest ridership places and not serve Another signficant trade-off at VTA is the high expectation that the depend on coverage service . Expanding resources, of course, can make other places, just as an airline feels no obligation to fly into towns that agency focus intensely on the “rush hour” commute, combined with the this trade-off less painful, by allowing ridership service to grow even as are too small to fill its planes. fact that this is not always the cost-effective thing to do . basic coverage is maintained .

This helps to clarify the critical difference between transit agencies and While ridership is certainly much higher during the peak, service that The later phases of this study will consider options for both the current businesses. Transit is expected to both maximize its riderhip and be runs only during the peak is much more expensive for VTA to operate, budget and possible quantitative growth, understanding that the latter available everywhere, but these are conflicting goals. If transit runs into for three reasons: would require new funding sources . areas where the development pattern implies low ridership potential, then it is doing so for a non-ridership purpose . Let’s call this purpose • The high cost of buying, storing and maintaining vehicles that are coverage . Coverage encompasses all the reasons that people expect used only briefly each day. Overview of this Report transit to go everywhere in the county, even though the maximum rider- • The higher cost of driver time due to short shifts . (VTA’s labor con- This Transit Choices report covers the topics of a typical existing condi- ship would result from a narrower focus on higher-demand areas . tract has no provision for part time drivers, who are the most efficient tions report, in that it reviews the network in the context of patterns of development and demographics to determine if it is still a good fit. Most goals for transit imply either a ridership focus or a coverage focus . way to staff peak-only service ). Goals arising from high ridership include: • The tendency of peak-only service to be busy in only one direction, As we have observed, however, the correct design of a network is not just a technical judgment, as it is often necessary to weigh competing • Maximum fare revenue / minimum subsidy . which requires all the vehicles and drivers to return empty in the other direction . goals of transit service. These “key choices,” summarized above, become • All environmental benefits, including vehicle trip reduction, reduced apparent in the course of this report and are explored in more detail in emissions, reduced pollution, reduced parking needs . Another way of saying this is that all-day, evening, and weekend service Chapter 5 . The most important choice is the need to balance ridership is relatively cheap to operate compared to peak service, which is why goals with coverage goals, where “coverage” refers to services designed • Support for high-density urban styles of development . focusing on all-day markets is often the better path to high ridership to provide access to all parts of the County regardless of low ridership . • Other important goals arise from coverage services: overall . The key to the all-day market is that it’s so diverse . It includes most commuting by lower-income people, whose work and training com- Chapter 1 provides an overview of VTA service over the last 15 years . »»Lifeline access to all residents in need, for reasons of income, mitments rarely require them to travel only at rush hour . It also includes a It shows that ridership tracks closely with the quantity of service pro- age, disability, etc . wide array of trip purposes which tend to use capacity more evenly . vided . Both fell steeply during 2001-05, remaining relatively stable since, moving in parallel and rising slightly in recent years . Growth in the quan- »»upport for lower-density suburban styles of development . In general, then, we expect the study to feature a robust discussion tity of service has been limited partly by a lack of growth in the resource about the relatively importance of peak-only services for the “rush hour” base, and by a 15% increase in the average cost per revenue hour of VTA » »The ability to say that every municipality or electoral district is commute as opposed to all-day, all-direction service . (Note, of course, service over the period 2001-2015 . served . that all-day service is used at rush hour too) . While the rush hour is the time of highest demand, that does not necessarily make it the time of Chapter 2 explores the features of the Santa Clara Valley that indicate This is the most fundamental question a transit agency seeking to transit need or transit demand . In addition to the common barriers of improve ridership must face: to what extent should we allocate resources highest productivity, because of the high marginal cost of peak-only service . walkability and linearity noted above, we note the primary problem pre- towards that ridership goal, as opposed to the competing coverage sented by the Valley’s development pattern: the centroid of population goal?

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 7 14.a Executive Summary

is well south of the centroid of jobs, requiring a general pattern of south to north commuting that uses both road space and transit capacity inef- ficiently. There is also a general pattern of east to west commuting for lower income persons . While there are low-income areas in many parts of the county, the greatest concentration is in east San Jose where there are relatively few jobs or activity destinations .

Other barriers to high transit ridership include the absence of disincentives to driving other than congestion and the costs of car ownership and operation . Parking is free at most destinations . Urban centers dense and walkable enough to trigger high transit demand are in relatively early

stages, though they are now emerging in the form of major projects like SUMMARY EXECUTIVE Santana Row, and also in the rapidly densifying historic centers such as downtown Sunnyvale .

Chapter 3 explores the fit of current service to the pattern of demand and how this generates ridership or fails to do so . VTA generates its highest productivities (ridership per unit of cost to VTA) when it runs frequent service following existing favorable development patterns (density, walkability, linearity, proximity) .

Chapter 4 reviews VTA’s system of service categories, which are an important tool for both public information and for policymaking . Existing categories are logical but could benefit from more precise definition. In other agencies, branding of frequent services (generally every 15 minutes or better all day) has been an effective means of calling atten- tion to the most attractive and liberating part of a transit network . Thus, service branding builds ridership around the high level of investment in service . VTA’s Core Network category roughly corresponds to this . The growth and refinement of this Core Network will be a key strategy for expanding transit’s usefulness and thus its ridership .

Finally, Chapter 5 expands on the key trade-offs outlined above, which are likely to be key points of discussion during the project .

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 8 14.b Transit Choices Report Attachment B FEBRUARY 3, 2016

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 14.b Table of Contents

Contents Executive Summary ...... 3 Branding Service Categories ...... 55

Recent Historical Trends ...... 9 Conclusion and Recommendation ...... 56

Recent Historic Context ...... 10 Key Chapter Findings ...... 57

Key Chapter Findings ...... 14 Key Questions ...... 58

Market Assessment ...... 15 The Ridership / Coverage Tradeoff ...... 59

Population and Employment Growth ...... 17 How to Serve the Peak? ...... 60

Residential Density ...... 18 Network Design ...... 60

Employment Density ...... 19 Service Hierarchy ...... 60

Zero-Vehicle Households ...... 22 Resource Level ...... 60

Poverty ...... 23 Appendix A: Ridership / Coverage Analysis ...... 62

Transit Commuting ...... 25

Market Factor Comparison ...... 26

Key Chapter Findings ...... 29

Transit Service and Performance ...... 30

Service Overview ...... 31

Transit Productivity ...... 36

Current Plans ...... 46

Capital vs Operating Priorities ...... 47

Key Chapter Findings ...... 49

Service Branding ...... 50

VTA’s Existing Service Categories ...... 51

Overview of Useful Branding Distinctions ...... 51

Frequent Network Branding and VTA’s Core Network ...... 53 14.b Executive Summary

This report, the first of the study, analyzes the existing system and shows EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE how certain choices will need to be thought about at the policy level .

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 3 14.b Executive Summary

Productivity is not the only purpose of transit, so it is not the only measure of transit’s success . Virtually all transit agencies run some

• Walkability -- It is easy to walk between those places and the stop . Figure 3: The Ridership Recipe: Density, Walkability, Linearity, and Proximity

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 4 14.b Executive Summary

• Commuter express service over long distances, bypassing severe congestion and operating into a dense employment center where parking is difficult and expensive.

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 5 14.b Executive Summary

Frequency is an expensive investment, but the payoff is usually high if land use and street design are sufficiently favor-

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 6 14.b Executive Summary

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 7 14.b Executive Summary

stages, though they are now emerging in the form of major projects like SUMMARY EXECUTIVE Santana Row, and also in the rapidly densifying historic centers such as downtown Sunnyvale .

Finally, Chapter 5 expands on the key trade-offs outlined above, which are likely to be key points of discussion during the project .

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 8 14.b

Recent Historical 1 Trends

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 9 14.b Recent Trends

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is a large transit VTA Annual Revenue Hours -‐ Bus Cumula&ve Change in Total Annual Revenue Hours (Bus and Rail agency serving San Jose, Silicon Valley, and the other valley commu- only) nities of Santa Clara County . This Transit Choices Report reviews the and Light Rail 2000-‐2015 50% transit network’s existing performance, market, and potential in order to 1,800,000 develop a set of key policy-level questions that VTA may wish to consider 40% in the design and evaluation of its service in the future . 1,600,000

This section provides a brief overview of the broad trends in VTA’s 30% TRENDS RECENT 1,400,000 service and ridership over the past 15 years . It then dives into a more Light Rail detailed assessment of VTA’s ridership, productivity, and reliability data, 20% including route-level analysis . A market assessment follows in section 1,200,000 two, connecting today’s existing service and outcomes to the people and places being served . 1,000,000 10%

800,000 Bus 0% Recent Historic Context 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 To get a sense of VTA’s current condition, it is instructive to examine 600,000 -‐10% past service trends . We examined key indicators of service quantity, productivity, and cost to assess how the agency’s service offering has 400,000 -‐20% performed since 2000 . 200,000 -‐30% Service Quantity – Vehicle Revenue Hours Annual revenue hours are the basic measure of how much service a -‐ King County Department of Transporta@on -‐ Metro Transit Division(King County Metro) transit agency provides . One revenue hour is one bus or train operating 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Santa Clara Valley Transporta@on Authority(VTA) and available to customers for one hour . It puts the two requirements Data Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority of the definition right next to each other. Because a revenue hour is a Figure 8: VTA Annual Revenue Hours (Bus and LRT) 2000 - 2015 San Francisco Municipal Railway(MUNI) unit whose object does not change in value year-to-year, it is a useful Utah Transit Authority(UTA) bellwether to understand the total quantity of service VTA has provided . population and employment centers . Ultimately, this results Simply put, how many hours each year do VTA services spend in service in a limited ability to target high-potential markets and useful Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transporta@on Authority dba: Metro(LACMTA) on the road picking up passengers? coverage services . Alameda-‐Contra Costa Transit District(AC Transit)

Fluctuation in total service quantity is not uncommon among Denver Regional Transporta@on District(RTD) large city transit agencies . They must contend with variable VTA operated fewer total revenue hours of service in 2015 than in Tri-‐County Metropolitan Transporta@on District of Oregon(TriMet) returns from funding sources as they attempt to maintain or 2000. grow service year-to-year . Figure 9 compares the cumulative Data Source: National Transit Database 2013 change in annual revenue hours across a range of western and Figure 9: Peer Comparison, change in Revenue Hours 2000 - 2013 Over the past 15 years, VTA’s total quantity of service has declined sub- west coast agencies during the same period, using National Transit stantially, from a high of 1 65. million revenue hours in 2001 of combined Database (NTD) data . Currently, this dataset covers only the period up to bus and light rail (LRT) to a low of 1 .32 million in 2012—a 20% overall 2013 . While many of these peer agencies exhibit a similar trend, experi- decline . Since 2012, service quantity has steadily increased, and as of encing a major decline in the 2009-2011 period related to the recession, 2015 stands at 1 4. million revenue hours, 13% below 2001, but substan- only VTA and AC Transit operated fewer total revenue hours by 2013 tially higher than the level coming out of the most recent recession . than in 2000 .

Fewer revenue hours means that fewer resources are available for things like frequency, longer hours, or new lines responding to growth of

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 10 14.b Recent Trends

VTA Opera*ng Expenses (2015 VTA Annual Ridership -‐ Bus and VTA Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour, dollars), Bus and Light Rail Rail, 2000-‐2015 Bus and Light Rail 2000-‐2015 2001-‐2015 60,000,000 $400,000,000 Light Rail 81 50,000,000 $350,000,000 TRENDS RECENT 71 $300,000,000 40,000,000 Light Rail $250,000,000

30,000,000 $200,000,000

20,000,000 Bus $150,000,000 32 Bus 25 $100,000,000 10,000,000

$50,000,000 -‐ $-‐ 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Data Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Data Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Data Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Figure 10: VTA Total Annual Boardings (Bus and Rail) 2000 - 2015 Figure 11: VTA Annual Ridership per Revenue Hour (Bus and Rail) 2000 Figure 12: VTA Total Operating Expense by Mode 2000 - 2015 - 2015 Ridership Despite the decline in total network ridership, total annual ridership Productivity We generally count ridership by counting boardings : the event of on VTA’s light rail lines increased 22% 2000-2015 as the rail system Productivity is a measure of ridership per quantity of service provided . one person getting on a transit vehicles . This roughly indicates total expanded to new corridors: The usual measure of service quantity is the revenue hour, which is one utilization of the network, though it double counts trips that require transit vehicle operating in service for one hour . Productivity is an impor- • Guadalupe: Opened 1987-1991 transferring . Unfortunately, the ideal measure, total individual journeys, is tant metric to gauge how efficiently a transit service generates ridership; still too difficult to measure reliably without near-total smartcard adop- • Almaden: Opened 1991 simply put, it indicates how many people boarded a bus for every hour a tion . bus was on the road . • Tasman West: Opened 1999 Total boardings have declined substantially from a high in 2001 of over The productivity of the bus system displays a similar trend to that of 57 million annual passenger trips . While the lowest year during this • Tasman East/Capitol: Opened 2001, 2004 ridership and revenue hours—a decline in the first half of the 2000s, and period was 2006, ridership has not fully recovered to its early 2000s then a flat line in the period since (for a 21% decline overall). If ridership • Vasona: Opened 2005 level . With a total of 44 1. million trips in 2015, annual passenger trips and revenue hours had declined at the same rate, productivity would have dropped 23% from 2001 . Since 2011, steady growth in ridership is be constant from year to year . Declining productivity in the face of apparent . declining ridership and service quantity indicates that not only has the overall amount of service dropped, but that the service that remains has

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 11 14.b Recent Trends

VTA Costs, Ridership, and Service Quan8ty since 2000 VTA Cost per Revenue Hour (2015 dollars), Bus and 30% Light Rail, 2001-‐2015

20%

15% RECENT TRENDS RECENT $577.60 Cost per Revenue Hour 10% Light Rail (2015 dollars)

0% 0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 $387.99

-‐10% Total OperaAng Annual Revenue Hours $194.25 Average $222.70 Expense (2015 dollars) -‐13%

-‐20% Bus $184.16 Total Annual Ridership $177.62 -‐23%

-‐30%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -‐40%

Data Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Data Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Figure 14: VTA Hours, Costs and Ridership since 2000 Figure 13: VTA Cost per Revenue Hour by Mode 2000 - 2015 generated ridership less efficiently. LRT productivity, by contrast, has 15%; for the bus network, costs were relatively stable, increasing only 4% slower (adding vehicles to routes) in order to maintain schedule increased (by 14%) . over this span, but light rail costs per revenue hour increased substan- headway . tially, by nearly 50% . • Changes in labor costs for operation and maintenance personnel, Operating Costs and Expenses Without a more in-depth forensic accounting, it is impossible to say con- largely as required by the labor contract . So far, we have examined service outcomes and quantity . But in dollar clusively what increased costs, but we can discuss some possible related terms, what is the agency spending to deliver that service and produce factors . • Expansion of more expensive light rail service . those outcomes? Figure 12 on page 11 tracks total operating expenditure from 2000 to 2015 for VTA bus and rail services, adjusted for The chart shown above shows total operating expenditure based on • Increases in types of service that use labor less efficiently, especially inflation to 2015-equivalent dollars. Over this span, VTA’s total dollar four components: vehicle operations, vehicle maintenance, non-vehicle services requiring short driver shifts . spending has increased, but when adjusted for inflation, the spend- maintenance (including LRT track and station upkeep), and general ing level has been relatively stable, dropping through the 2000s before administration . recovering in the period from 2011 onward . The biggest pieces of the cost per hour, and those that have increased Trend Comparison Figure 13 shows VTA’s cost per revenue hour, the cost of each unit of the most over this span, are vehicle operations and vehicle maintenance . When we plot service quantity (annual revenue hours), cost per revenue service it provides, for bus, rail, and the systemwide average . Again, Some possible related factors that might be worth further investigation hour, total annual ridership, and total expenses together, a relation- these numbers have been adjusted to 2015 dollars for better compara- are: ship between these indicators begins to emerge . VTA’s average cost bility . During this period, the average cost per revenue hour increased by per revenue hour increased, and while total operating expenses have • Changes in traffic speeds which require schedules to be written

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 12 14.b Recent Trends

recovered to their early-2000s level, the combination of increased cost per revenue hour and a greater fraction of those resources put towards VTA and Peer Agency Farebox Recovery Rates, 2002 -‐ 2015 more expensive light rail service have been accompanied by an overall decline in the total quantity of service . 45.0% King County Department of Transporta@on -‐ Metro An even greater decline in ridership accompanied the service decline, Transit Division(King County Metro) despite a growing population and employment base . In short, though 40.0% Santa Clara Valley Transporta@on Authority(VTA) VTA’s operating expenses have been stable when adjusted for inflation, RECENT TRENDS RECENT and are now growing, this funding base is buying fewer revenue hours . San Francisco Municipal Railway(MUNI) In turn, it is less able to address the changing travel needs of people in 35.0% Santa Clara County as the population and economy continue to grow . Utah Transit Authority(UTA) In some regards, this tracks with the performance of the economy gen- 30.0% erally . Tax-funded transit operators typically encounter a need to cut Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transporta@on service in difficult economic circumstances. The initial drop in expendi- Authority dba: Metro(LACMTA) 25.0% tures, revenue hours, and ridership took place in 2002-2004, lagging the early 2000s recession, before climbing through the mid-decade as the Alameda-‐Contra Costa Transit District(AC Transit) economy strengthened . 20.0% Denver Regional Transporta@on District(RTD) While VTA’s financial situation (in terms of the resources available to it and the cost to provide those services) has been mostly stable in the 15.0% Tri-‐County Metropolitan Transporta@on District of recent period, the fact remains that the level of service hasn’t kept up Oregon(TriMet) with population growth, and that ridership has suffered as a result . 10.0% Farebox Recovery Data sources: Na@onal Transit Database VTA’s total farebox recovery rate (the percentage of costs that are recov- 5.0% 2013 (peer data), VTA ered through fares paid by passengers) has hovered between 14% - 15% in recent years, though it has dropped to 12 .2% since 2013 . Farebox Farebox Recovery Rate (as percent of Total Opera6ng Expenses) (as percent of Total Farebox Recovery Rate ComprehensiveComprehensive peer peer data unavailable data for unavailable years for recovery is an important measure of the overall level of subsidy required more recent than 2013. 0.0% years more recent than 2003. to operate a transit system . 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Figure 15 shows farebox recovery rates for VTA and western and west Figure 15: VTA and Peer Agency Farebox Recovery coast peers since 2002, the first year for which data is available for all peers . While VTA’s farebox rate has been more stable than that of many strategies to do so may increase cost, unless a concerted effort is made of the other agencies examined, it is also the lowest by far . Several of to redirect resources away from less efficient low-ridership services. the peer agencies have succeeded in increasing their farebox recovery rates over time; for example, Salt Lake City’s UTA reported fares equal to Over the long term, sustained ridership growth in the context of rela- nearly 25% of operating expenses in 2013, up from just 15% in 2002 . tively stable costs will produce a higher farebox ratio, as long as the fare is not substantially outstripped by the growth of costs . This is an Two main variables control a transit agency’s farebox rate: the cost of outcome of services that are designed to generate ridership as efficiently each fare, and the quantity of fares sold (ridership) . There is a compli- as possible . However, services operated for purposes other than rider- cated relationship between these variables; for example, an agency ship, such as coverage routes providing lifeline access to low-density may wish to grow its fare revenue by raising the fare, but a higher fare areas, typically produce ridership less efficiently. The degree to which a may create a disincentive that leads some riders to choose other travel transit agency orients its budget towards either goal can have a major options, reducing the number of fares collected . On the other hand, impact on its farebox rate . an agency may wish to grow ridership (increasing fare revenue), but

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 13 14.b Recent Trends

Key Chapter Findings • Over the past 15 years, VTA’s total quantity of service declined 20%, from 1.65 million revenue hours in 2001 to a low of 1.32 million in 2011. Because the population has grown during this period, the level of VTA transit service per capita in Santa Clara County has fallen as well. However, the level of service has begun to grow since 2011. TRENDS RECENT • During this same period, ridership on VTA bus and rail routes dropped substantially as well, with 2015 annual ridership down 23% from 2000 levels, despite a growing population and a similar level of total expenditure. • When compared to 7 western peer transit agencies, including Portland’s TriMet, Oakland’s AC Transit and Denver’s RTD, VTA has consistently had the lowest level of farebox recovery, hovering between 14% and 15% for most of the past 15 years. • The average cost per revenue hour for VTA service (bus and rail, adjusted for inflation to 2015 dollars) has increased moderately since 2000, and as of 2015 stood at approximately 15% above the year-2000 level.

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 14 14.b

Market 2 Assessment

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 15 14.b Market Assessment

Why Development Patterns Matter Transit service, ridership, and performance are overwhelmingly governed by the pattern of urban development . This pattern largely determines how many people will be near a stop, whether they can walk to it, and whether transit can follow a path that will be useful to many customers . When designing for high ridership, transit agencies will naturally focus service on places where these conditions are favorable .

The image in Figure 16 offers a simple distillation of the key ways that the built environment governs transit ridership . Four facts about the

environment are critical: MARKET ASSESSMENT

• Density: how large is the market for transit within a given distance of each stop? This is the first-order measure of transit potential. The more people or jobs are located in the fixed area around a stop, the larger is transit’s potential market .

• Walkability: how easy is it for people near each stop to actually reach it? If there are physical barriers to this access, including poorly connected street patterns or difficulties crossing a major street, the market of people who can reach a stop is smaller .

• Linearity: can transit serve an area in straight, efficient paths, or is time-consuming deviation required to reach destinations? Wherever destinations are set far back from the street, or accessed only from circuitous roadways, it is harder to combine its market with other markets to build strong and durable transit lines .

• Proximity: are there long gaps between destinations and strong markets that transit must traverse? For example, linking Gilroy to San Jose is a less productive market than it would be if Gilroy were closer since the distance determines the cost of providing the service .

In some cases, the diversity of land uses can also matter . This helps to determine whether demand is evenly distributed in both directions and throughout the day, both of which use service more efficiently. Mixtures Figure 16: The Ridership Recipe: Density, Walkability, Linearity, and Proximity of housing, retail and jobs are generally much better on this score than large areas that are all residential or all employment . longer paths? characteristics of urban form; the transit agency can seek to provide a level of service that can be useful and competitive with other modes, but These factors determine both the costs of providing transit in a par- Transit agencies can influence the level of ridership their services gener- ultimately without a development context that produces transit-oriented ticular place and how many people are likely to find the service useful. ate, and the efficiency at which they do so, by targeting these sorts of places of all types, the ceiling for transit ridership is constrained . Density and walkability tell us about the overall potential of the market: favorable land uses appropriately . However, they cannot directly control are there are a lot of people around, and can they get to the place where the urban form of the places they serve . Without dense, walkable places the product is available? Linearity and proximity tell us about cost: are along linear street patterns, where density is continuous along efficient we going to be able to serve the market with short, fast, direct line or transit paths, transit service alone is unlikely to support a high ridership will our costs be higher as we must design service that uses indirect or outcome . Only local governments have the ability to directly effect these

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 16 14.b Market Assessment

Population and Employment Growth 2,500,000 Santa Clara County Popula.on Santa Clara County Labor Force Santa Clara County is the heart of one of the 1,100,000 country’s most dynamic regions . It is California’s 2,000,000 fastest growing county with an average popula- 1,000,000 tion growth rate of 1 1%. annually since 2010 . Figure 17 shows total population estimates from 1,500,000 900,000 the American Community Survey and projected 800,000 population from California’s Department of 1,000,000 Finance indicating continued growth into the 700,000 MARKET ASSESSMENT future (at a slower rates than has been observed 500,000 over the past five years). 600,000 0 500,000 Transit Abundance and Relevance 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 By comparing ridership and population, we can 400,000 get an idea of how relevant transit is to the daily Total Popula0on Projected Popula0on lives of people in the region as it has grown . 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Data Source: ACS 2013, California Dept of Finance Data Source: California Dept of Finance We can examine how much service there is per person and how many trips per resident of Santa Figure 17: Santa Clara County Population 2000 - 2015 Figure 18: Santa Clara County Labor Force 2000 - 2015 Clara County were made on transit each year .

Figure 19 shows per capita transit ridership (based on Census and American Community VTA Ridership per Capita VTA Revenue Hours per Capita Survey annual population estimates) for the same 13 year period . In 2015, this number sat 33.8 at 23 4—about. 2 transit trips per month per 31.5 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.89 person—on average . Figure 20 shows transit 27.0 0.82 25.7 0.81 0.79 0.81 0.81 0.80 abundance as how much service (in terms of 24.4 24.9 0.77 0.76 22.9 23.3 23.5 23.2 23.5 23.6 23.2 23.4 0.73 0.73 0.73 revenue hours) there was per resident in the 22.1 County each year . Based on these indicators, the relevance and abundance of VTA’s service has declined from its dot-com-era highs, but mostly held steady at around its current rate since 2010 .

Note, however, than when revenue hours per capita are constant, it means that on average 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 people are not seeing significant improvement 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 in their transit service . It means only that the Data Source: ACS 2013, Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority agency is not falling behind the needs of popu- Data Source: ACS 2013, Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority lation growth, at least in terms of the quantity of Figure 19: Transit Relevance Figure 20: Transit Abundance service offered .

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 17 14.b Market Assessment

Residential Density As mentioned earlier, density is one of the most critical indicators for transit’s ability to generate high ridership . Where there are more people of all sorts, there are more people who may choose to use transit for their travel needs .

Residential density is the simplest measure of this . While not all trips start or end at home, nearly everybody makes at least one trip starting or ending at MARKET ASSESSMENT their place of residence every day .

Residential density in the VTA service area is concentrated in central and near eastern San Jose along the Santa Clara Street / Alum Rock corridor . Important secondary pockets of density exist west of downtown San Jose along the Stevens Creek corridor and generally throughout the eastern portion of the service area . Densities are lower across the southwest area than on the east side, but there are pockets of more concentrated development along Bascom, east of Saratoga between Campbell and Stevens Creek, and in central Cupertino .

Figure 21: Population Density

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 18 14.b Market Assessment

Employment Density While most people will travel to and from a place of residence in a given day, employment density provides an indicator for other trips to destinations such as workplaces, stores, and restaurants . The more people who work in a place, the more work trips must be made to and from that location each day . Likewise, commercial areas will generate trips

made by their employees and their cus- MARKET ASSESSMENT tomers . This is part of why employment density tends to be slightly more powerful than residential density in predicting ridership .

Employment concentrates more than population, as businesses tend to agglomerate into downtown cores, commercial strips, industrial parks, or large campuses . The development pattern of Santa Clara County includes a traditional dense downtown core in San Jose . Apart from that location, considerable concentrations of employment exist all along the El Camino Real and 1st St corridors, as well as throughout north San Jose .

Comparing this map to the previous one reveals a basic transportation challenge created by the pattern of development . The centroid of jobs in the County is further north than the centroid of residences, generating a heavy south-to- north commuting pattern often involving considerable distances . This pattern is a key limiting factor on transit productivity. People flow mostly one direction at a time . Buses and trains tend to be empty when moving in the reverse-peak direction, as they must to return to base or begin another trip. Where demand flows two-way, as along the Caltrain line and El Camino Real, ridership is easier to gener- Figure 22: Employment Density ate efficiently.

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 19 14.b Market Assessment

Total Employment Total Employment looks at current job distribution without taking density into consideration . This view shows us the total distribution of jobs, particularly in places where density is low but overall quantity is high. However, because zone sizes vary (typically based on population), larger zones sometimes have many jobs within them, but which are distributed across a larger area . MARKET ASSESSMENT

Where many jobs are dispersed across a large area, fewer people will be near to any given stop than if they were more concentrated . Additionally, low pedestrian connectivity within these zones reduces their overall walkability, while superblocks and lack of traditional street grids extends the distance transit must travel to provide services, often requiring less direct and more circuitous paths .

Many of these transit challenges are unin- tentionally created by land-use choices and can be addressed through foresight in design . For example, by orienting office campuses around central nodes, a single transit stop can serve multiple buildings. Additionally, locating office parks in a more traditional street grid can increase walkability and allow transit more direct access .

Transit supportive employment land-uses such as mixed use areas, and traditional main streets allow for higher quality service at lower costs . In turn businesses gain access to larger transit access for employees and customers .

Figure 23: Total Employment

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 20 14.b Market Assessment

Activity Density Activity density maps help us see residential and employment density all at once, and calls out places where there’s a high degree of mixture .

Figure 24 combines them together to provide an indication of total activity . Higher population density is shown in red and employment density in blue .

Shades of purple identify areas of MARKET ASSESSMENT mixture . The highest mixed densities are highlighted in yellow, and appear only in very small zones in downtowns. (As always, small zones make it easier for a small high density area to stand out ).

Places with a high density of both population and employment are likely to be some of the strongest markets for transit, since they combine residential, employment, commercial, and service destinations . These areas are also more likely to have large shares of people commuting by walking or cycling .

Figure 24: Activity Density

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 21 14.b Market Assessment

Zero-Vehicle Households While the sheer quantity of people and jobs, as well as their physical configuration, tend to be the biggest determinants of transit demand, some demographic factors are also of interest .

One of these is the number of people

with little or no access to a personal MARKET ASSESSMENT motor vehicle (car or motorcycle) . Since the census produces estimates of the number of households in each area with access to no vehicles, we can use this information to make maps of the density of these households . Obviously people with limited access to personal vehicles must find alternative methods of traveling, be they ridesharing, cycling, or transit . Which of these they choose has everything to do with availability and convenience . Obviously, if transit is of limited use for the trips a person needs to make, they are less likely to use it, even if they don’t have access to an automobile in their household . This person is not transit-dependent; we might say that they have a greater propensity towards transit use by virtue of their constrained set of options .

The VTA area displays large areas of persons without access to cars concentrated in downtown San Jose and in Mountain View, apart from the expected concentrations at universities . Scattered concentrations in east and southeast San Jose, where walking and cycling are not as easy, indicate some extreme needs for transit .

Figure 25: Zero-Vehicle Household Density

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 22 14.b Market Assessment

Poverty One goal that transit is often tasked with serving is the provision of affordable transportation for lower-income people . As such, we want to understand where lower-income people are located . One way to do this is by mapping the density of people in poverty . (Some reports show what percentage of each zone’s residents are

in poverty, but this can be misleading MARKET ASSESSMENT because it calls out large percentages of tiny populations ).

The largest concentration of people in poverty is found on San Jose’s east side, with secondary concentrations along the Monterey and Senter corridors to the south, and between Stevens Creek and Hamilton west of downtown . In addition, small pockets of high concentrations of people in poverty are located further west especially in Campbell, Mountain View, and northern Sunnyvale . Poverty is often a feature of relatively isolated zones.

It is also important to note the degree to which poverty is not concentrated . Apart from the most affluent communities such as Saratoga, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills, all parts of the service area have people who may come to rely on transit for reasons of income .

Figure 26: Density of People in Poverty

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 23 14.b Market Assessment

Median Household Income While mapping the density of people in poverty can inform the process of ensuring that the most urgent needs are met, transit is competitive across a range of incomes based on a range of choices that people may make .

A common misconception is that transit, especially all-day transit, is just MARKET ASSESSMENT for very low income people who cannot afford a car . This is a simplistic take on a complex matter . People at many points on the income spectrum make choices about how to travel . They may have disincentives to driving depend- ing on their situations and tastes .

What is true is that people with fewer resources on the whole have fewer resources to devote to each of life’s costs: housing, food, and transportation . The more carefully a person must manage money, the more attractive transit’s value proposition will be .

This doesn’t mean that lower-income people will automatically choose transit because it’s the cheapest option . The service available to them must be useful and reliable for the kinds of trips they need to make . Nor does it mean that a person further up the income spectrum is impossible to attract to transit . Not everyone likes driving, and increasing numbers of people are choosing to own fewer cars, creating voluntary transit dependence .

Figure 27: Median Household Income

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 24 14.b Market Assessment

Transit Commuting Despite the fact that only about 3% of people in Santa Clara use transit as their primary means of transportation to work, in small areas where transit is available and useful, usage rates are much higher as shown in Figure 28 . This is true across the inner eastern area of San Jose where the bulk of VTA’s frequent services are located, as

well as along the El Camino Real cor- MARKET ASSESSMENT ridor in Sunnyvale and Mountain View .

It is important to remember that the work commute is only one type of trip, albeit the one that is most measured . But this data source can’t tell us any- thing about the other trips people are making using transit to go shopping, visit friends, see a movie, and all the other possible reasons that exist that someone might have to make a trip .

On the other hand, for many people, the work trip is the most important, time-sensitive trip they make each day, and the one that must be the most reliable . In select areas of the County, especially those near VTA’s most frequent, most reliable services, transit is a realistic choice for more than 5%, and in more limited cases 10%, of commuters .

More information on commute share by mode is available in Figure 29 on page 26 .

Figure 28: Transit Commute Rate

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 25 14.b Market Assessment

Market Factor Comparison Mode Santa Clara Cupertino Milpitas Mountain Palo Alto San Jose Sunnyvale County View How do these market indicators relate to each other and to transit demand? By comparing plots of each factor, we can start to tease out Drove alone 76% 79% 79% 71% 65% 77% 77% ways in which different factors relate, and improve our overall understanding of the market for transit in Santa Clara County . Each of the Carpool 10% 9% 13% 10% 6% 11% 10% factors we have discussed previously has an important relationship to transit; for instance, density of people and jobs signals the size of the Public Transportation 3% 2% 3% 5% 5% 4% 4% total travel market around any given transit stop, while poverty, median income and zero-vehicle households tell us about additional motivations Bicycle 2% 1% 0% 5% 9% 1% 2% to use transit that certain people may have . Of course, these choice- Walked 2% 1% 1% 3% 6% 2% 1%

driving features (poverty, low vehicle ownership) do not indicate transit MARKET ASSESSMENT markets by themselves, but only when they appear together with favor- Other means 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% able development patterns (density, assessed here, but also walkability and linearity) . Worked at home 5% 6% 4% 5% 9% 4% 4%

Figure 29: Means of Transportation to Work by Mode (ACS 5-Year Summary File, 2008-2013) Transit Commuting and Density While no single land use factor is solely responsible for people’s travel choices, we can begin to observe a connection between transit commuting and population density .

Figure 30 shows population density and transit commute rate (from the 2013 American Community Survey (ACS)) for block groups within 1/4 mile of a local transit stop . We’ve selected only places where the opportunity to commute by transit actually exists . Here, we can see a clear, moderate correlation between population density and transit . Despite the fact that across the County, only 3% of commuters are using transit to get to work according to 2013 ACS data1, limited areas have much higher rates, something we observed when examining the map on the last page . These areas of higher transit commute rates also tend to be denser; for example, among block groups with greater than 10% transit commute share, the average population density is slightly greater than 14,000 people per square mile .

The match is not stronger in part because of varying levels of walkability and different types of development patterns, as well as the level and usefulness of transit service in each place . For instance, a very dense block group that is only served by 1 trip per hour isn’t going to have a Figure 30: Transit Commuting and Population Density (ACS 5-Year Figure 31: Boarding Density and Employment Density (ACS 5-Year Summary very high level of transit commuting as long as its transit options are so Summary File, 2008-2013) File, 2008-2013, VTA 2015) limited . employment are often not places where many people live, and if a location, based on the fraction of the area of the walk radius within each We can also examine transit use in terms of employment density, strong mixture of uses is present, there is a good chance that walking block group . A stop entirely within one block group would be assigned although this requires the use of a slightly different measure . The and cycling will be attractive options as well . 100% of its ridership, while if it were 50% within one group, it would census measures transit commuting rates, and attaches this information receive half of the ridership . to the location of a respondent’s home . However, places with dense Instead, we compare the density of boardings in each block group to the density of jobs . Density of boardings is measured by assigning each Figure 31 plots these factors together . A moderate correlation similar 1 ACS commuting data includes only work trips, and does not include school trips . stop’s boardings to nearby block groups within 1/4 mile of the stop to that between transit commute rate and population density is visible . Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 26 14.b Market Assessment

Furthermore, among the top 25% of block groups by boarding density, the average density of employment is 12,000 jobs per square mile . Median Income and Popula0on Density $250,000 Population Density and Income A common misconception about transit held by many people with less experience riding or thinking about it is that transit is a service for and $200,000 primarily used by low-income people . This is tied to a social-service understanding of transit, in that its purpose is to provide a basic travel $150,000 option for people who can’t afford a private automobile, and to a con- ception about where people live that assumes that people with higher $100,000 incomes don’t live at transit-supportive densities . Median Income MARKET ASSESSMENT

Density, however, is a better predictor of ridership than income, because $50,000 people who choose to live at high densities are choosing places where driving is more of a nuisance and more alternatives to it exist . So it is $-‐ important to note, first of all, that density and income are less strongly 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 correlated than many people would assume . This is shown in Figure 32 . Popula0on Density While very high income people mostly live at low densities, there are relatively high density places (i e. ,. greater than 10,000 people per Figure 32: Median Income & Population Density (ACS 5-Year Summary File, 2008-2013) square mile) with median incomes well over $100,000/year, an indicator that some relatively wealthy people are looking for urban lifestyles that require less car dependence . For average incomes below that level, Median Income and Zero-‐Vehicle Household % there appears to be no correlation between income and density at all, indicating that for a large spectrum of the population, people are choos- $300,000 ing to live at high or low density for many reasons that may or may not $250,000 be directly connected to their income level . $200,000 For a large spectrum of the population, people are choosing to live at $150,000 high or low density for many reasons that may or may not be directly $100,000 connected to their income level. Median Family Income $50,000 Correspondingly, the lower left of this plot shows numerous zones where very poor people live at very low density. These are the most difficult $-‐ markets for transit, places where ridership potential is low but social- 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% service expectations for transit may be high . Percentage of Households with Zero Vehicles

Figure 33: Median Income & Zero-Vehicle Household Percentage (ACS 5-Year Summary File, 2008-2013) Zero-Vehicle Households and Income Choosing not to own a car tends to make you more likely to use transit . Once the car isn’t available, you will consider other options for every trip . It is helpful to note how this is or is not related to income, as shown in Figure 33 .

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 27 14.b Market Assessment

Zero vehicle households are generally low in Santa Clara County, amounting to less than 10% of the overwhelming majority of block groups . Extremely high rates of carlessness (over 25% of households) seem to correlate with relative low income, but rates of 10% are found at incomes up to approximately $150,000 .

It is worth noting that zero vehicle households, a measure provided by the census, is not an ideal metric; a better one would be “cars per person of driving age” in a household . Many people rely on transit and other non-car modes not because their household has no cars but because it has fewer cars than people who could potentially drive them . MARKET ASSESSMENT Zero-Vehicle Households and Density The strongest correlation of all is between zero-vehicle households and density, shown in Figure 34 . Density predicts carlessness much better than income does, which makes sense because people at many incomes live at many densities . You must live at high density for a no-car lifestyle to be practical, since high density means both (a) that good transit is probably viable and (b) that many other destinations of interest are likely to be in walking or cycling distance .

The Bottom Line People choose transit as a result of other choices they’ve made, notably the choice of whether to live near good transit (usually at higher density) and whether to own a car (or own enough cars for everyone in the household) . These choices have many motivations other than income, as Figure 34: Population and Zero-Vehicle Household Density (ACS 5-Year Summary File, 2008-2013) the broad spread of these scatter plots indicates .

Rather than thinking of transit as being for low income people, it is more precise to say that it’s for people who have made certain choices within and cars less necessary; thus low vehicle ownership naturally correlates the framework of their economic circumstances . These choices, notably with it . This further enhances transit’s potential in those places . the interlocking choices of location and vehicle ownership, are the real The next chapter explores these relationships further, using VTA’s drivers of transit demand . This can help to counter the misleading notion ridership data . Note again that this data is only about VTA and thus that only more affluent riders are “choice” riders. Lower income people under-counts ridership where other transit agencies are present . also make choices about car dependence that are very consequential for both transit ridership and congestion, as well as for their own economic prospects .

As we outlined at the beginning of this chapter, the location of a residence or job governs how viable transit can be, with the four critical variables being density, walkability, linearity, and proximity . Density is the only one of these that’s easy to describe demographically, but it’s also the most important of the four. High density zones are usually (though not always) favorable for the other conditions and thus places where high quality transit is viable . High density also makes parking more of a hassle

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 28 14.b Market Assessment

Key Chapter Findings • Key land use factors governing transit are density, walkability, linearity and proximity. • Density and walkability tell us about the overall potential of the market: are there are a lot of people around, and can they get to the place where the product is available? • Linearity and proximity tell us about cost: are we going to be able to serve the market with short, fast, direct line or will our costs be higher as we must design service that uses MARKET ASSESSMENT indirect or longer paths? • Santa Clara County is California’s fastest growing county with an average population growth rate of 1.1% annually since 2010. • Most growth in the county will increase density, as there is little room for horizontal growth. This density will increase traffic and also increase transit needs. • The county’s job/housing distribution is unbalanced, with a majority of housing located to the south and east while the majority of jobs are to the north and west. By contrast, transit is most cost-effective and productive where jobs and housing are more mixed, e.g. along El Camino Real and Stevens Creek. • While transit is used as a commute mode by only 3% of commuters countywide, the rate is much higher in some locations, typically those served by highly useful transit. • Density is a better predictor of ridership than income, because people living at high densities are more apt to seek alternatives to driving. For the same reason, car ownership is lower in high density places, to a degree not fully explained by income alone.

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 29 14.b

Transit Service and 3 Performance

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 30 14.b Transit Service and Performance

Service Overview Weekday Vehicle Hours by Weekday Average Daily VTA operates 3 light rail lines and 77 bus lines of various types, across a service area of 346 square miles inhabited by 1,889,638 people. In fiscal Route Type RidershipExpress by Route Type Express Community year 2015, more than 32 million trips were made on VTA bus routes, and Community 5% Limited 8% 8% 6% more than 11 million on light rail . On an average weekday, over 140,000 Limited 1% boardings occur on VTA services . <1%0% Local 14% VTA classifies its bus services into one of five categories: Core, Local, Community, Express, and Limited Stop . Chapter 4 explores these cat- Local 17% egories in greater detail .

Core routes are generally higher-ridership, more frequent routes in the central part of Santa Clara County . The Local and Community routes are often less frequent lines serving areas where densities are lower . The Express and Limited routes offer long-distance, limited-stop connections often using freeways and expresswaysh between regional destinations .

The two charts shown in Figure 35 display daily weekday vehicle hours2 and ridership by route type . Core services, the most productive, make up 2/3 of VTA’s bus service but account for 3/4 of daily boardings on the bus system . All of the other service types represent a smaller share of boardings than of service quantity . This helps to illustrate the higher rid- TRANSIT SERVICE ANDTRANSIT PERFORMANCE SERVICE ership potential of Core services, which arises from their high frequency, easy connections, and the diversity of purposes for which they are useful . Core Core 66% 75% Frequency Data Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Data Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Figure 35: VTA Bus Service Quantity (Vehicle Hours) and Ridership by Route Type Figure 36 on page 32 displays VTA’s network categorized by the pre- vailing midday frequency of each route . Frequency is critical to focus on From this map, we can make a few key observations: frequent network and its fit with density. because it is an expensive investment that should pay off in much higher • VTA operates a frequent network of 12 major all-day routes (includ- ridership, because frequency makes service so much more useful . ing segments where multiple routes are overlaid to produce a higher We define frequent service as any transit service operating at 15-minute frequency) . or better headways . Industry experience has shown that this is a thresh- • The east side of the service area, particularly within San Jose, boasts old at which riders start to trust the service to arrive within a reasonable a very rich network of frequent services . Many of these routes waiting time without consulting a schedule . Frequency reveals where connect to light rail as well, creating a frequent network grid through a transit system is focusing its resources . Showing midday frequency the area that enables multidirectional travel with short waiting times . points to where those resources and level of convenience are available all day long—places where people can choose to rely on it for all kinds • The low frequency across the western 2/3 of the county is very of trips . striking, especially given the known pockets of density, low car ownership, and low income that can be found here near El Camino Real 2 We use vehicle hours rather than revenue hours to understand the total resource split, because and Caltrain . (Caltrain, it must be remembered, is not frequent at all, vehicle hours include deadhead, which is the time spent running empty to and from the ends of the run . It is important to use vehicle hours whenever doing comparisons that involve Express rarely coming more than once an hour at most stations ). Only two service, because these long one-way runs have dramatically higher deadhead than other services, major frequent corridors extend far west of downtown San Jose -- El since the bus and driver must deadhead the entire way in the reverse-peak direction before or after each one-way trip . When dealing with local services the difference between vehicle hours Camino Real and Stevens Creek . and revenue hours matters less, because deadhead does not differ so much across different service types . There are two separate issues here, the coherence or connectivity of the Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 31 14.b Transit Service and Performance

Coherence or Connectivity A basic question about transit networks is not just where they go but where you can get to along them . Transit is useless unless it connects you to many possible destinations, and we use the terms coherence or connectivity to describe how well it does that .

Whatever transit line you live on, you need to get to places that are not on that line . This requires that connections be easy . That is only possible where frequencies are high -- i e. . where red lines intersect on this map -- or where connections can be timed, as is done between some feeders and the commuter rail schedules . Timing of connections, however, only works with relatively short and specialized routes. Most VTA network are too long, and too hard to run reliably, for precise timing of TRANSIT SERVICE ANDTRANSIT PERFORMANCE SERVICE connections to be viable .

This is why a frequent grid pattern of services, such as east San Jose has, is so powerful . Where red lines cross on this map, you can connect in any direction, so you can travel from many possible origins to many possible destinations .

By contrast, where less frequent blue or green lines cross on this map, the connection is very difficult, and may introduce substantial delay .

Across the western half of the county there are three frequent lines (counting LRT to Mountain View) but they do not touch each other, so no frequent connections are possible .

Figure 36: VTA Frequent Network Map After Planned 2016 Changes

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 32 14.b Transit Service and Performance

Fit of Frequency with Density The map in Figure 37 shows the Frequent Network (those routes operating at 15-minute headway or better for the peak and midday) overlaid on the map of activity density presented in Chapter 2 .

VTA’s present network aims to concentrate frequency in its strongest markets, an appropriate design strategy given its imperative from the 2010 Transit Sustainability Policy to “increase transit mode share by focusing resources to target markets where transit can compete effectively”3 . However, apart from the issues of connectivity outlined above, the fit of the network to density is also not ideal .

If we compare this map to the map of poverty density, (see Figure 26 on page 23), we can observe that the current ANDTRANSIT PERFORMANCE SERVICE pattern of frequent service seems to be tracking poverty more closely than density . This matters to ridership, because density is a better predictor of ridership than poverty, but it also matters to meeting the needs of low income riders .

Frequent services currently concentrate where poverty is highest, in eastern San Jose, but this is an area with many residences but few jobs or activity destinations . The frequent network does not appear adequate to connect East San Jose residents to a sufficiently wide range of opportunities such as jobs, school, retail, and other activity centers . (Note that lower income people are more likely to need to travel at all times of day, so peak-only services have little relevance to them ). Figure 37: VTA Frequent Transit Network and 2017 Land Use after Planned 2016 Changes

3 VTA Transit Sustainability Policy, 2010, p . 3 . Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 33 14.b Transit Service and Performance

Peak Frequency Map Does the issues with the frequent network improve much during rush hour? While the peak service level is substantially higher, the availability of frequent service doesn’t expand dramatically .

Figure 38 shows the frequency of service during the AM peak period, when several routes’ and segments of routes’ frequencies increase for the rush hour .

Comparing this map to the previous one, peak frequency increases consist mostly of 20-minute services rising to every 15 minutes, (orange lines turning red) . Most of these are in San Jose, though they include the line to Gilroy and some service in Milpitas .

Meanwhile, in the west half of the ANDTRANSIT PERFORMANCE SERVICE county, only a small area of northern Sunnyvale gains high frequency service during the peak period . All of the issues of connectivity and fit with density addressed above continue to exist .

Again, this map does not show the full picture of peak-only service, especially in the main employment areas, because other operators provide significant peak service there. These include the Caltrain and ACE shuttles, Stanford’s shuttle system, and extensive private sector services for specific employers .

Figure 38: VTA Peak Frequency Map After Planned 2016 Changes

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 34 14.b Transit Service and Performance

Geographic Pattern of Ridership Figure 39 displays VTA’s weekday ridership pattern by stop . Each stop in the network is shown, sized by the total cumulative number of average daily boardings that happen at that stop across all routes that provide service there . The data on this map was collected in March 2015 .

Note that major transfer points, iden- tifiable on the previous map as places where frequent lines (including rail) intersect, will show high boardings that may not reflect local area demand.

Note how strongly ridership follows frequency by comparing this map to the previous one .

Each of the light rail lines exhibits quite ANDTRANSIT PERFORMANCE SERVICE high average daily ridership, with nearly 2/3 of light rail stations seeing over 250 average daily boardings per day . Since light rail investments typically target strong target markets, and generally feature high frequency service, a high quantity of total ridership is to be expected on those corridors .

The areas with the most high ridership stops are in downtown and the eastern side of San Jose, west along El Camino Real, and west along Stevens Creek . These areas, which together make up the bulk of the area served by VTA’s frequent network, have the greatest number of stops with over 100 and over 250 average daily boardings . This holds true along the length of both west side corridors and along Alum Rock, King, McKee, and Story in the east . Figure 39: Average Weekday Ridership by Stop There are also several secondary

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 35 14.b Transit Service and Performance corridors not presently part of the all-day frequent network (though they do have 15-minute service during peak periods) but which have numerous stops in the 10-50 and 50-100 average daily boardings ranges:

• Winchester, particularly the segment south of Stevens Creek

• Bascom between Stevens Creek and Curtner

• Monterey St .

• Senter Rd .

• Oakland Rd . from central Milpitas south to downtown San Jose

Apart from the major frequent network corridors, other important nodes pop out as more isolated locations of high-ridership stops, including:

• Bus stops near the airport, connecting to El Camino Real services and LRT served by route 10 .

• Transit centers where many routes connect, such as Great Mall and Winchester .

• Historic downtowns with dense mixed use, such as Sunnyvale, which also include Caltrain connections . TRANSIT SERVICE ANDTRANSIT PERFORMANCE SERVICE

• Light rail stops connecting to bus routes, such as Lockheed Martin, Capitol Ave, and Santa Teresa .

• Shopping centers, including Westgate at Saratoga and Prospect .

• Community colleges that attract commuter students from a distance, such as De Anza College, Evergreen Valley Community College, Mission College, and Foothill College . Figure 40: Route Productivity and Frequency- Data from VTA and 16 transit agencies Also of note are areas where we don’t see many high ridership stops on Further sections of this report will discuss VTA’s performance relative to this map, but there are sources of transit demand . Transit Productivity other goals . • Palo Alto, Stanford, and the Shoreline area of Mountain View show Productivity, or boardings per revenue hour, is essentially ridership per low boardings, but this partly reflects the abundance of local transit unit of service cost, i e. . “bang for the buck ”. We discussed this measure briefly for the entire network in Chapter 1. For every hour a transit Productivity by Frequency not directly provided by VTA . Stanford has its own extensive shuttle What do routes that generate ridership efficiently have in common? In vehicle is in service, how many people board the bus? Productivity system . Palo Alto and Shoreline are also served by Caltrain shuttles examining transit systems in cities around the country, we have found a reveals how effective a revenue hour is at generating ridership when and by SamTrans, apart from frequent services on El Camino Real . general correlation between transit route frequency and productivity, as invested in one service relative to another . shown in Figure 40 . (Note that this chart excludes peak-only routes and • Infrequent corridors (like Sunnyvale-Saratoga, Wolfe, or Curtner), typ- extremely infrequent routes) . ically do not have the sustained pattern of high-ridership (50 average Productivity is strictly about the goal of ridership . Services that are designed for other goals, like coverage or congestion mitigation, may daily boardings or above) stops found on the frequent network, and The chart in Figure 41 displays the productivity (boardings per revenue not perform well on the productivity metric . This does not mean that their highest-ridership points are likely to be transfer points or major hour) of each VTA route on the y axis, with frequency on the x axis . Each these services are failing or that the transit agency should cut them . It nodes, rather than long segments where a strong market is matched point is colored based on which of VTA’s route categories it falls within . with a high level of service . just means that they are not serving a ridership goal . Since this displays productivity data based on ridership and revenue

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 36 14.b Transit Service and Performance hour numbers from 2015, the 181 is shown in the 30-minute group here . In addition split frequency routes, such as route 25, are grouped into their highest frequency segment . Note that high frequency, which is described as a low number of minutes between consecutive trips, is to the left on the x axis . Services that operate only during limited periods of the day are grouped together in the peak-only pane of the chart .

Frequent services tend to produce more ridership per revenue hour, even though they also have the highest cost.

As observed before, more frequent services tend to produce more productivity (ridership per revenue hour), even though, on the surface, high frequency means more revenue hours which should pull the ratio down . This happens because frequent service is the most useful and convenient service for riders and transit agencies target this most expensive service towards their strongest markets . Most of the highest-productivity services fall into VTA’s Core Network, which includes the majority of its high -frequency routes . TRANSIT SERVICE ANDTRANSIT PERFORMANCE SERVICE It is important to note that no fare is charged on routes 201 (downtown San Jose shuttle) and 10 (serving the airport), two of the higher productivity routes .

There are other high productivity services that do not operate at high frequency . Among the 30-minute routes, six operate at better than 30 boardings per revenue hour, and three 60-minute routes meet this standard . These routes, which may support higher frequency, are investigated more closely in the next section .

Where are VTA’s most productive services? Figure 42 shows VTA’s most and least productive local routes broken out by productivity quartile (the same number of routes in each category) . The upper quartile are VTA’s most productive routes . The lower quartile are VTA’s lowest-productivity routes . Routes are colored based on which of VTA’s service categories they fall into .

The match between VTA’s frequent network and its most productive services is immediately evident, as the major frequent corridors (22,23,72) all show up in the top quartile, as do several Figure 42: VTA Route Productivity Chart routes which are either near-frequent (as in the case of the 66 and Figure 41: VTA Route Productivity Chart

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 37 14.b Transit Service and Performance TRANSIT SERVICE ANDTRANSIT PERFORMANCE SERVICE

Data Source: ACS 2013, Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Data Source: ACS 2013, Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Figure 43: 73-Snell & Capitol - Downtown San Jose Route Profile Figure 44: 42- Kaiser-Evergreen Valley College Route Profile 73) or have shorter frequent segments (as in the case of the 64 and 25) . with pockets of high density housing and employment at both ends and Several of the westside crosstown corridors also appear in the upper Productivity Outliers along the route . The southern portion of the route along Senter passes quartile, particularly those flowing through Sunnyvale and Cupertino. through zones with population densities in excess of 15,000-20,000 20-minute routes people per square mile . Further northwest along Senter, the route serves In the third and lower quartiles, the absolute lowest performers tend Among the four 20-minute routes, the 73 along Senter Road in a dense employment area at Tully before proceeding into downtown San to be highly duplicative infrequent routes or circuitous local cover- southern San Jose stands apart, achieving better that 40 board- Jose . age routes like the 88, 34, and 35 . Note how these routes, or the areas ings per revenue hour—the second highest productivity among all served, tend to be unfavorable on two or more of the key built environ- routes in the network . A detailed map of the 73 is shown above . The 73 provides a useful example of how routes serving the same area ment factors: density, walkability, or linearity . Even setting aside the can generate very different ridership outcomes . Compare the map of the issue of frequency, a long, straight route is more likely to be useful for Route 73 offers a relatively high level of service (20 minute during 73 to route 42 in Figure 44 . In terms of the ridership recipe: a wide range of purposes, compared to a small and squiggly one . No the midday, with 15 minute peak service) to a short direct corridor • The 73 and 42 both serve some of the same relatively dense terrain long, straight routes are in the bottom quartile . of southeast San Jose .

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 38 14.b Transit Service and Performance

• While the 73 operates in a straight line on Monterey for nearly its entire length, the 42 turns east towards its eastern terminus at Evergreen Valley Community College, an important destination and the busiest stop on its route . To get there, it traverses a long stretch of very low density along Yerba Buena Road with only a single-digit number of boardings .

• The 73 stays with Monterey, while the 42 makes two long (one-to- two mile) deviations in this segment . Deviations add time to the route, making it more expensive, but it also means that it can provide direct service to destinations like the Edenview Community Center on Branham (the northeast corner of the northern deviation off Monterey) .

Simply put, the 73 is a highly productive route, generating ridership in a way we would expect with the ridership recipe in mind: a decent level of service to dense locations in close proximity to one another, operating on a very linear path . On the other hand, the 42 serves a dense market for its southern half and is anchored by a strong destination (the college) at its northeast end, but it runs a serpentine path in order to serve some destinations away from the straightest route . It must also traverse a gap in development to get to the college . The lack of linearity means a weak market with weak ridership . ANDTRANSIT PERFORMANCE SERVICE

Infrequent Crosstown Routes Earlier, in our initial examination of the network frequency map, we noted that an interesting characteristic of VTA’s network is the lack of frequent north-south crosstown service in the western portion of the service area. Of note, nearly all of the crosstown services fitting this role in the network are high-ridership, despite running only hourly or half-hourly and often being so close together that their service areas overlap .

Routes 26, 53, 54, 55, and 57 all generate over 30 boardings per revenue Figure 45: Westside crosstown corridors hour and fall within the highest quartile of local services operated by VTA . These routes are shown by their productivity in the productivity At first glance, the area between these corridors may not appear well are a key element of a multidirectional network, and a crucial link for chart in page 16 . suited to high-frequency transit . From the maps in the market analysis non-radial trips . section of this report, we can observe that residential and employment One of VTA’s most productive corridors is El Camino Real, consisting density along Hollenbeck, Sunnyvale-Saratoga/De Anza, Wolfe, and Imagine a person located between Wolfe and Saratoga along Stevens of Local route 22 and its Rapid overlay, the 522 . The routes serving this Saratoga/Kelly (as well as Winchester or Bascom) is generally lower than Creek who needs to travel to somewhere around Reed and Wolfe . corridor record more than 21,000 boardings on an average weekday, in important regional centers like downtown, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, The first stage of their trip would be simple and reliable - wait just a operating at high frequencies very productively . The agency’s ongoing or Mountain View, or along the two existing radial westside corridors . few minutes (never more than 12) for a 323 or 23, and ride to Wolfe . work towards BRT on the street further indicates its vital importance for Some of these street segments, like De Anza, are designed like freeways, However, the transfer to the 26 means changing to an infrequent route, travel in the region . Yet despite this, no all-day frequent connections to hostile to pedestrians, thus difficult to serve with transit. and the average wait will be 15 minutes, maybe even longer if you just the 22 or 522 are available across the entire region west of downtown San Jose other than route 10, which is of limited use for all-direction In isolation from the rest of the network, none of these corridors would travel given its focus on the airport . seem an ideal choice for frequent transit . However, crosstown segments

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 39 14.b Transit Service and Performance missed the last bus .

No frequent all-day routes operate north-south in the portion of the network west of Bascom.

Grid transit networks, like that in east San Jose, solve this problem by making sure a bus is always coming on both legs of the trip . While the unique market of some of the segments in question on the west side may not be as strong as in other locations already served by frequent transit, a frequent grid connection across the west side improves the connection to all sorts of destinations along the dense El Camino Real and Stevens Creek corridors .

Catching an infrequent bus from home, you can wait until the last minute before you leave to go to the stop, but with a transfer, it is difficult for to be sure that you are not going to be left out on the street . This uncertainty is a major detriment to the sense of spontaneity transit can provide .

None of the routes intersecting El Camino Real offer an all-day frequent

connection running north-south in the western potion of the service ANDTRANSIT PERFORMANCE SERVICE area . This means that any trips involving a transfer between the 22 or 23 and a intersecting route will involve at least one long wait, and two- seat trips across the area that don’t involve either corridor will definitely require long waits during each leg . If we take half the headway of a route as the average wait before arrival, we can see how frequency improves the speed of trips:

• Trip 1: two 15-minute frequent routes: 15 minute total average wait (7 5. + 7 5).

• Trip 2: one 15-minute frequent route, one 30-minute route: 22 5. minute total average wait (7 5. + 15)

• Trip 3: two 30-minute routes: 30 minute total average wait (15 + 15)

Regardless of how far we are going, trips involving a transfer will always Figure 46: 55-De Anza College - Great America Route Profile be faster, more convenient, and more reliable the more frequent each connection is . Let’s examine one of these routes, the 55 (shown in Figure 46) . The 55 This suggests that the bulk of northward ridership is collected south of El runs every 30 minutes throughout the day with a peak frequent segment Camino Real, despite the lower level of service in that segment . The high productivity of several routes may indicate a potential market north of El Camino Real . Looking at the map in Figure 47, we see that for such frequent service in future. However, it is difficult to say at this the ridership at stops north of the Caltrain station and El Camino Real is time which route or corridor would be the obvious choice for a new not substantially greater than the southern segment . Boardings on the frequent grid element, as many of the routes overlap or run quite close northern segment are largely in the southbound (red) direction, while together, cannibalizing each other’s markets. boardings on the southern segment are generally northbound (blue) .

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 40 14.b Transit Service and Performance

Peaking VTA’s bus network serves people making all sorts of trips all day long . While a common assumption is that transit ridership is much higher during morning and evening peaks, VTA’s ridership shows a predomi- nantly all-day pattern with only slight increases during the peaks (even when ridership on peak-only express services is included), as shown in Figure 47 . Average hourly ridership during the morning peak is only 3% higher than midday, and ridership during the afternoon peak is only 10% higher than midday .

VTA’s bus ridership is barely peaked, with average afternoon peak ridership only 10% higher than midday ridership.

Many of VTA’s routes operate at higher frequencies during the peak periods . Many 20- and 30-minute routes run every 15 minutes during the peaks . On average, this increase in service levels does not attract a proportionate increase in ridership . As a result, average productivity is higher in the midday and lower on the p m. . peak .

The lack of big a m. . and p m. . peaks in ridership in a place with so much ANDTRANSIT PERFORMANCE SERVICE peak congestion likely arises from the demographics of current VTA bus riders . People go all sorts of places (work, school, home, shopping) throughout the day, no matter their income . Yet low income people have a particularly strong motivation to use transit for these trips, and low- wage jobs are more likely to begin and end at non-peak hours .

Ridership from one hour to the next on any particular route has much to do with the mix of land uses it serves, the types of jobs it provides access to, its midday level of service, and whether it connects with highly peaked services such as Caltrain or ACE . When we look at individual routes, we are able to make specific observations about commonalities among the most heavily- and lightly-peaked routes . Two examples are examined on the following pages .

Data Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Figure 47: VTA Weekday Bus Ridership by Hour

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 41 14.b Transit Service and Performance

300

200

100 Average Boardings Average

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour Data Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Figure 48: 64-Almaden LRT - McKee & White Ridership by Hour

Consider the 64-Almaden LRT - McKee & White, shown in Figure 48 . This is a highly productive route operating at 15-minute headways in its northern segment on McKee and 30 minute headways south of San Jose on Lincoln . Its ridership displays essentially no peaking . In fact, during

the afternoon commute, ridership drops from the high levels sustained ANDTRANSIT PERFORMANCE SERVICE throughout the midday .

The 64 serves relatively few places where peak commutes dominate the market . Downtown San Jose certainly holds some peaked jobs, but it also has the all-day demand of its mixed use and university . Most of the 64 serves areas where all kinds of demand occurs . It makes many connections with other routes to create an even more diverse range of trips possible . This adds up to a route that performs very well despite its small role in rush hour commuting .

Additionally, the northern end of the 64 has a high concentration of people in poverty and low-to-median family incomes . Transit is a more competitive option for all sorts of trips for people with less income to devote to transportation . Many lower-paying jobs start and end at times throughout the day other than the traditional 9-to-5 shift, and many low-income workers have multiple jobs, which they must commute to at different times throughout the day . This relatively dense area has frequent service and all the network effects that entails (easy transfers with Data Source: ACS 2013, Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority short waits to access destinations in all directions), ensuring that transit is Figure 49: 64- Almaden LRT - McKee & White Map a more attractive choice for trips throughout the day .

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 42 14.b Transit Service and Performance

32 120

30 Average Boardings Average

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour Data Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority

Figure 50: San Antonio Shopping Center - Santa Clara TC Ridership by Hour

On the other hand, the graph for route 32 (San Antonio Shopping Center in Mountain View to downtown San Jose, mainly serving Monroe and Middlefield) reveals a very highly peaked pattern. This route’s busiest

hours are 7:00 a m. ,. 8:00 a m. ,. 4:00 p m. . and 5:00 p m. ,. during the peak ANDTRANSIT PERFORMANCE SERVICE periods when its frequency increases from every 45 minutes to every 30 minutes . The 32 serves less dense, and much less mixed, land uses for most of its extent . Given its poor frequency during the midday and limited span (operating only between 5:00 a m. . and 7:00 p m. ),. the route is most useful for people whose commutes fall within those traditional peak commute hours .

Data Source: ACS 2013, Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Figure 51: 32-San Antonio Shopping Center - Santa Clara TC Route Profile

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 43 14.b Transit Service and Performance

Service / Ridership Match The chart at right shows two lines: Mismatch between service quan9ty and ridership by hour of day • The quantity of service (bus trips, shown in red) provided during each hour of the day, relative to the average service level across all 24 100% hours of the day . For example, in the hour starting at 12:00 p m. . VTA provides about 45% more bus service than the average across all Ridership (Boardings) hours, and in the hour starting at 4:00 p m. . VTA provides about 95% more bus service than the average . 80%

• Ridership (boardings, shown in blue) during each hour of the day, relative to average ridership across all 24 hours of the day . For 60% example, in the hour starting at 12:00 p m. . boardings are about 65% higher than the average across all hours, and in the hour starting at 4:00 p m. . boardings are about 90% higher than the average . 40% Service Quan9ty (Bus Trips) Comparing service levels and boardings for each hour to a daily average allows us to observe each factor’s relative level of peaking, across 24 hours of operations . We can make a few observations about the shapes of these peaks, and their relationship to one another: 20%

• During the a m. . peak period, the ridership line tracks with the service line, instead of rising higher above it . This means that, on average, 0% ANDTRANSIT PERFORMANCE SERVICE peak buses are not much more crowded than midday buses . 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 • Another way of describing this phenomenon is that higher demand AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM during the peaks doesn’t result in higher productivity, as it does in -‐20% most agencies, because VTA adds so much service on the peaks . This suggests that VTA could achieve higher overall productivity by

reducing the quantity of peak service . In addition, peak bus trips Hour compared to average of all hours are more expensive for an agency to provide than midday bus trips, -‐40% so even if peak bus trips were to achieve the same productivity as midday bus trips, their cost-per-rider would be higher . -‐60% • In the mid-afternoon, ridership rises hours before service quantity rises . This is the time of the day when buses are most crowded, as indicated by the blue line being higher than the red line . Some early-afternoon ridership is surely related to school schedules, but -‐80% ridership grows out of proportion to service quantity starting at 12:00 p m,. long before students get out of school .

This analysis suggests that VTA is offering more service during peaks -‐100% than it would if maximizing productivity or minimizing cost per rider were Figure 52: Hourly Data (trips and boardings per trip) compared to average the agency’s primary goals . In other words, there may be more ridership Data Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority growth potential in all-day service than in peak service .

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 44 14.b Transit Service and Performance

Coverage & Frequent Network Reach We use the productivity metric to assess how well a transit route suc- VTA Network Coverage and Frequent Network Reach (within 1/4 mile of a stop) ceeds at the goal of generating high ridership per unit of cost . Transit Frequent Network Non-Frequent Service No Service can be asked to pursue other goals . One of the most common is referred to as the coverage goal: how many people across the agency’s service area are able to access the transit system? VTA’s Transit Sustainability Policy asks the agency to “balance service productivity and service coverage ”. 4

Coverage is the number of people and jobs near transit stops served by No Frequent Network Non-Frequent Service VTA . For this analysis, we considered an area to be served if it is within Jobs Service 1/4 mile of all-day service, a typical industry-standard walk distance . This is a relatively tight standard; some analyses use a longer distance up to 1/2 mile, and others include peak-only services . There is some evidence that people walk further to better service, so being over 1/4 mile from frequent service might still count as being served though this analysis treats such a situation as “no service ”. We also do not include peak-only services (or peak service levels), because they are only available for a limited number of hours per day and thus do not represent the most Population Frequent Network Non-Frequent Service No Service

How Coverage is calculated for each zone, block group ANDTRANSIT PERFORMANCE SERVICE or other enumeration area

Data enumeration zone with population = 100 and Total Area = 1000 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 2,000,000

Walk radius around transit stop Figure 54: VTA Coverage of Population and Employment (ACS and LEHD, 2013) Transit Stop Community Survey (ACS) and Longitudinal Employer-Household most useful and competitive service . Covered Area of zone Dynamics (LEHD) program, we performed a coverage analysis using (within walk radius) spatial interpolation to estimate the number of people within a 1/4 mile Figure 54 shows the results of this analysis . Of the 1 8. million people with area = 300 buffer around each stop, weighted by the portion of each block group in Santa Clara County, 1 .2 million (66%) are within 1/4 mile of a transit 5 within that area . Figure 53 shows how the proportion of the population stop served by VTA . Only 470,000 (26%) people have access to high- Population × ((Covered Area)/(Total Area)) = Population of Zone Covered or jobs of each block group within walking distance to transit is calcu- frequency all-day service . Figure 53: Coverage Analysis methodology diagram lated based on the fraction of those areas within each transit stop’s walk Of the 874,000 jobs in Santa Clara County, 760,000 (87%) have some radius. The population of each zone is multiplied by the fraction of the degree of transit access, with 320,000 (37%) near the frequent network . zone within the walk radius of each stop (shown in green) to estimate the common condition of the network, or the period in which the majority of covered population . A network designed to maximize ridership will seek to expand the fre- boardings per day happen (from approximately 10 a m. . until 4 p m. ). . quent network to more people and jobs, so that the most competitive We also measured the number of people within 1/4 mile of a stop with Using 2013 population and employment data from the American frequent service using this same methodology, but selecting only stops 5 95% of people in Santa Clara County (1 7. million) live in block groups where at least some part of the area is within 1/4 mile of a transit stop . However, whether their location within that block is with frequent service . This provides an indicator about the reach of VTA’s at all close to that stop is unknown, which is why the spatial interpolation method is used as the 4 VTA Transit Sustainability Policy, 2010 . p . 3 . primary tool for gauging the level of network coverage . Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 45 14.b Transit Service and Performance service type is in more suitable markets . On the other hand, a network designed to maximize coverage will measure its success in part by seeking to grow the total number of people and jobs near service of any kind . If VTA shifted more of its resources to focus on either one, the other would experience a negative shift . This is one way of gauging the impacts of a choice within the ridership/coverage trade off .

Current Plans 2016-2017 Transit Service Plan VTA’s short range plan includes a range of changes to be implemented over the next two years . VTA is also preparing a BART Integration Plan (BTIP) that would ANDTRANSIT PERFORMANCE SERVICE be implemented in conjunction with Berryessa service . The TSP includes changes to routes to accommodate the Spring 2016 opening of the Warm Springs station, but does not include any planning related to BART extension to SCC . Our review of this plan focuses on the most important near-term service changes that effect the structure of the network as a whole, particularly changes to weekday service .

CHANGES RELATED TO WARM SPRINGS BART

VTA operates few routes in the vicinity of Warm Springs station, so changes required to serve this station are minor in the context of the network as a whole . Changes to VTA routes operating in the vicinity of Warm Springs BART are as Figure 55: 2016-2017 TSP Network Changes

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 46 14.b Transit Service and Performance follows: When examining frequency changes, we are most focused on changes • In the El Camino Real corridor, the introduction of Alum Rock BRT that effect qualitatively different experience for the rider, rather than and accompanying frequency changes will increase the overall level • 180 (Great Mall TC - Warm Springs BART) . The 180’s north end ter- minor tweaks that may improve reliability or precisely match demand of service in VTA’s premier transit corridor . The BRT improvements minus would be moved from Fremont BART to Warm Springs BART . patterns—essentially, changes that move routes between the frequency and added frequency on the limited-stop 522 will reduce wait times Service between Great Mall and Eastridge and Aborn (currently three classes we have already established in this report . and increase convenience, particularly for longer trips, but the reduc- trips per day) would be discontinued . Additionally, midday frequency tion of the frequency of the 22 from 12 to 15 minutes will slightly would be reduced from 30 minute headway to 60 minutes . The following major frequency changes are planned: reduce its usefulness for short trips .

• 181 (San Jose Diridon - Fremont BART) . The 181 would operate at • Line 181 - upgrade to 15 minute headway from current 30 . • Since Warm Springs BART is far from most VTA services, the changes 15 minute frequency through the midday, an improvement from its required to address it are quite minor, simply adding deviations to current midday headway of 30 minutes . No changes to the route in • Line 22 - reduce to 15 minute headway from current 12 to accompany new 10 minute 522 BRT service . the 180, 120, and 140 to serve the station . These changes are tem- order to serve Warm Springs are planned at this time . porary until the BART extension to San Jose is opened . These do not • 120 (Fremont BART - Lockheed Martin TC) . The 120 would now • Line 522 - increased to every 10 minutes . substantially impact the portions of the network where most of VTA’s ridership is located—east San Jose, and the major westside radial deviate to serve Warm Springs before continuing on to Fremont • Line 32 - increase frequency from 60 to 45 minute . station . Additionally, service west of Lockheed Martin to the corridors . • Line 57 - increase peak frequency to 30 minute from current 60 . Shoreline area would be discontinued, and an additional daily round • No major changes are proposed to east side service apart from the trip added . • Lines 61 and 62 - Combine on Bascom between Curtner and down- two canceled 180 trips between Great Mall and Eastridge . town to achieve combined 15 minute frequency . These routes are • 140 (Fremont BART - Mission College) . The 140 would deviate to • Linking the 51 and 81 together into a new route 81 has the positive currently scheduled in a manner that aspires to this . The July 2016 serve Warm Springs in the same way as the 120 . aspect of closing a coverage gap on Homestead between Wolfe and service change would add sufficient vehicles to restore the combined Hollenbeck, and adds weekend service to the 51 segment . These OTHER MAJOR ROUTING OR FREQUENCY CHANGES headway as reliable .

Other than changes related to BART, most of the other changes in the are unlikely to be high-ridership changes, as the 51 serves a very low ANDTRANSIT PERFORMANCE SERVICE TSP are quite minor, effecting single or a small number of trips, or very Finally, several significant changes to route structure are proposed: density area, and the 81 offers a much longer path east and west short route segments . A number of more major changes to the network from Cupertino towards downtown San Jose than the 23/323 . are planned, which are reviewed in this section . We have created a • In Gilroy, current routes 14 and 17 would run as a loop, adding network map in the same style as the existing system map (which weekend service to the 17 segment . To offset this cost, weekend showed several changes from the TSP expected to be implemented service would be discontinued on the 18 . Capital vs Operating Priorities VTA’s Transit Capital Program comprises a package of transit investments imminently, such as the frequency change on the 180), showing the • The 51 and 81 would be merged into a new route 81, extending that include a variety of infrastructure projects currently in planning or network with all changes implemented . from downtown San Jose to De Anza College, then north through constructing, such as the Alum Rock and El Camino Real BRT corridors . Four new routes are proposed: Mountain View using the same routing as the 51 . This change would allow the segment currently run as the 51 to operate at 30-minute The purpose of this report is not to discuss the merits of any of these • Line 11, a 30-minute service connecting downtown and the airport . frequency during weekdays, and add Saturday service to the projects in detail . However, one of the major observations of this report segment . has been to note the substantial decline in total transit service per capita • Line 56, a new peak-only service running every 30 minutes between in Santa Clara County over the past 15 years . As we’ve explained, this Sunnyvale Caltrain and North San Jose via Scott and Trimble . • As previously mentioned, route 180’s trips south of Great Mall would issue impacts the overall viability of the transit system as a useful travel be discontinued . • Line 354, a 30-minute peak-only limited stop service duplicating option for all sorts of trips, as fewer resources are available for all the segments of the 54 and 55 between Lockheed Martin and De Anza CHANGE ASSESSMENT competing demands placed on transit, whether delivering frequent College via Sunnyvale Caltrain . Implementing this route would All in all, the changes proposed here are mostly quite minor, but several service to high-density places, extending late night hours or weekend require moving the 522 stop on at El Camino Real and Hollenbeck are very important improvements . service, or maintaining lifeline coverage service to lower-density places . one block east to Mathilda, and rerouting the 54 in this vicinity in • Changes to the 181 and 61/62 will add two extensive frequent If voters approve a transportation sales tax ballot measure in 2016, new order to maintain a transfer point between the 54 and 522 . network elements, adding a first all-day frequent north-south funds will be available which VTA could use for a variety of purposes, • BRT 522, an upgrade of the existing 522 using BRT vehicles and element on the inner west side of San Jose and greatly improving the including the construction of important regional capital projects . Some infrastructure treatments running every 10 minutes . connection to BART from San Jose and Great Mall . portion of these resources could also be invested into bus operations, beginning to reverse the recent trend of falling transit service per capita

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 47 14.b Transit Service and Performance in Santa Clara County . Future stages of this study may evaluate alternatives which address the decline in service per capita by allocating future VTA Fare Structure (Adult Age 19-64) sales tax revenue in different ways . • Single Ride - $2 (Regular & Limited Stop Buses, Light Rail) • Express Single Ride - $4 Fare Policy • Community Bus - $1 .25 Setting fares correctly is a complex issue that we do not address in this report . However, since this focus of this study is network design, it is • 8-Hour Light Rail Pass - $4 important to note how fare policy is affecting VTA’s ability to offer an • Day Pass - $6 (Clipper Only) efficient and attractive network. • Express Day Pass - $12 (Clipper Only) VTA’s fare includes three pricing tiers (Adult, Youth, and Senior), within which a range of fare types are available, including single ride, day, and • Monthly Pass - $70 monthly passes . Importantly, fares on Express routes are double that of local routes and light rail . The various VTA base fares are shown in Figure • Express Monthly Pass - $140 56 . • Annual Pass Subscription - $770 This structure imposes an extremely high transfer penalty (100%) on people who have not purchased a monthly or day pass . This means that Figure 56: VTA Fare Structure a simple one-transfer round trip, perhaps within the convenient frequent grid in eastern San Jose, costs $8, or $6 if you have a Clipper card . One of the most important advantages of a grid network design is the ability

to make fast, reliable grid movements involving a transfer . While the ANDTRANSIT PERFORMANCE SERVICE service is in place to facilitate this, VTA’s fare structure is working at cross purposes with its network design .

VTA’s fare structure is working at cross purposes with its network design.

Free transfers used to be the rule in transit . Passengers would pay their fare and receive a transfer slip to be used on the next bus . Over the last several decades, concern about the way these slips were abused -- by giving or selling them to others, for example -- led to their elimination at many agencies . However, this reason for not offering free transfers does not apply to customers using the Clipper card . Many transfer-dependent transit systems -- including those of San Francisco and Portland -- have retained free transfers because they consider it essential to the efficient functioning of their network .

Further analysis would be required to gauge the ridership and financial impact of removing the fare penalty (by allowing transfers within a set time window), but this is an important step towards a transit system that allows truly multidirectional travel across Santa Clara County .

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 48 14.b Transit Service and Performance

Key Chapter Findings • Productivity (ridership/service provided) is strongest where frequency is highest. This matches a nationally-observed correlation between frequency and productivity. • VTA’s most productive routes tend be frequent routes serving dense, mixed-use places. • VTA’s frequent service is very concentrated in San Jose. There are some indications that a more extensive frequent network could succeed. • There is relatively little peaking in ridership. Average ridership in the morning and evenign peaks is only 10% higher than the average midday. • On average, VTA service does not get more crowded during commute peaks, because so much service is added at this time while ridership rises only moderately. This is unusual and suggests that peak service may be inefficient or excessive. TRANSIT SERVICE ANDTRANSIT PERFORMANCE SERVICE

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 49 14.b

Service 4 Branding

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 50 14.b Service Branding

To many people, all buses look alike . Bus routes tend to be numerous, The other three categories generally denote peak-only service: its purpose, and thus the logical measures of success, are so different . so they can also overwhelm people with complexity . It’s often hard to VTA measures the success of expresses using average load rather than find a service that might be useful to you out of a list of 77 bus routes, • Limited: Additional services overlaid on local or core lines, provid- productivity (boardings per revenue hour) . Whereas productivity speaks or on a map that shows them all on top of each other, and it’s easy to ing faster service with widely spaced stops only during the peak of ridership per unit of cost, average load does not . Average load is come away from that effort with the feeling that buses are intrinsically commute period . implicitly per bus trip, but the cost of a bus trip varies widely based on confusing . • Express: Nonstop links during peak hours, typically for long trips length and whether it runs one-way or two-way . Assessing Expresses in across the County . terms of productivity would yield very low scores, as these long routes But bus services are not all alike, and their differences can be made clear . carry few passengers but for relatively long distances . Different types of service have different purposes and are useful for dif- • Commuter Rail Feeders . Various shuttles that connect commuter rail ferent kinds of trips . Transit systems become clearer – to both potential stations to worksites, almost entirely in the peak commute period . All-day inter County express service (Dumbarton Bridge, Santa Cruz-San

riders and stakeholders – when those distinctions are obvious . Jose, Fremont-San Jose) is somewhat different because it is the only BRANDINGSERVICE transit linking its endpoints . For that reason it does have all-day service The key to clear communication about a local bus network is a A Spectrum from Diverse to Specialized in addition to intensive peak service, and is not as narrowly specialized as In this seven-level hierarchy, the higher categories -- especially Rapid well-designed system of service categories, manifested across the infor- most VTA expresses . mation system and also in policy . In this chapter, we review the principles and Core – achieve high ridership through the diversity of purposes and behind service categories, the outcomes that these systems are seeking, situations in which they are useful . All kinds of people doing all kinds and VTA’s current position . of things at all times of day can benefit from these lines. On these ser- Overview of Useful Branding Distinctions vices, a single bus serves many trip purposes at once, including trips to VTA already has service categories, and some of them are presented Are these the right categories? Are they defined in a way that helps both many origins and destinations. The lack of specialization is the key to the riders and policymakers understand what each one does and how they throughout the information system . Express services, for example, are success of these services . red on the system map, have their own range of line numbers, and have work together? To assess this, the next section considers the logic of a different fleet. “Community” service indicates lifeline services to low- At the lower end of the hierarchy, and especially among the Expresses service branding distinctions . density areas, usually infrequent and with low ridership expectations . and Commuter Rail Feeders, the service is very specialized, generally Figure 57 is a matrix showing how coherent brands can arise from two This is the essence of how categories are useful . Service categories help around rush hour commuters . These services must win a high share of kinds of distinctions: people (both customers and stakeholders) figure out quickly which parts this group, because they are not useful to any other trips by design . of the complexity matter to them . It may be appropriate to extend the • Frequency and span . This spectrum from diverse to specialized helps to explain why the same thinking to other categories . (Is it there when I need it?) . logical sequence of ridership-oriented network planning is to design This chapter reviews the VTA category system and points out ways services from the top of this list downward, starting with Rapid and • Speed vs . Stop Spacing that it could be clarified and made more useful to both customers and Core services and ending with the peak-only services . With their high (How far will I walk to a stop? How fast will it go?) stakeholders . frequencies and infrastructure needs, Rapid and Core services are big investments that expect big returns of ridership, so other routes can’t be To illustrate the distinctions, the matrix contains examples from VTA or allowed to compete with them. Once these major services are defined, from nearby transit services . VTA’s Existing Service Categories Local and Community service needs are evident from the gaps in the Frequency tends to vary with span; frequent lines have the biggest higher-order services, and can be filled in accordingly. Peak only ser- markets, so they usually also have the longest duration . The relationship The Seven Bus Categories vices, too, should only be introduced where the all-day network is not between speed and stop spacing, on the other hand, is inverse; wider VTA divides its bus service into seven main categories . Four of these adequate to the demand or need . denote all-day service: stop spacing delivers higher speed . In the figure, we identify four tiers of Frequency and Span: • Rapid: Frequent with widely spaced stops for faster travel . The Special Case of Expresses Express service exists in a different dimension from the others . Unlike • Core: Frequent but with local stops to cover all areas along the line . • Frequent . Every 15 minutes or better all day . This generally cor- the other four categories, Express service features a long nonstop responds to what VTA calls its Core Network, although VTA’s Core • Local: Less frequent local stop services . segment for use in travelling long distances . Most run in only one category includes routes that are less frequent but aspire to be . This direction and are useful only for rush hour commuting . Expresses help is a very distinct product for reasons outlined above . • Community: Especially infrequent services, focused on low-demand connect the geographically separate housing and employment land-use areas . patterns in Santa Clara County . • Candidate Frequent, also called Local or just Half-Hourly . These lines tend to run every 30 minutes or better all day and often have the Express service is difficult to compare to the rest of the network because

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 51 14.b Service Branding

potential to grow into Frequent lines in the future . Relationship to Trip Distance This table also reveals how a customer’s • Infrequent, running every hour or so . Local services in this category, intended trip distance relates to the key distinc- like VTA’s community routes, have low ridership expectations . Longer tions shown . The longer a customer’s trip is, lines, such as Caltrain or the Hwy 17 express, can do well despite low the more speed they need (which is upward in frequency because frequency expectations are lower for longer trips . the table) but the more patience they have for • Peak-Only . Many services run peak-only because they focus narrowly lower frequency (rightward in the table) . This on the “nine to five” commute market. happens for two reasons:

There are many ways to manifest and brand these distinctions . Houston, • In determining how long a total trip will for example, has taught its customers colors for these categories, calling take, frequency (waiting time) is the domi- BRANDINGSERVICE Frequent lines red, half-hourly lines blue, and hourly lines green . The nant factor for short trips but in-vehicle lines obviously appear in these colors on the system map, and the same travel time, governed by speed, is the domi- colors are on signs and throughout the information system . They help nant factor for longer trips . everyone remain aware of the critical distinctions that these categories • Demand is lower for longer trips, because represent . We will use the same color meanings on all network maps (all other things being equal) people try throughout this study . to arrange their lives to minimize trip In the same figure, we identify four tiers of Speed vs Stop Spacing: distances .

• Nonstop means “serving a long nonstop segment through which Both of these factors explain why Caltrain’s most riders pass ”. VTA’s commuter express buses, including the inter infrequent service is acceptable for very long County Dumbarton and Highway 17 services, meet this definition. trips, such as Silicon Valley to San Francisco, but not if you’re just going a couple of stations . • Limited or Rapid means “serving widely but regularly spaced stops ”. It also explains why you might wait an hour for There is obviously a wide range of stop spacing here, from several a flight to Los Angeles but a day for a flight to miles on BART to a half mile on parts of the Light Rail and BRT London . systems, but this range generally indicates faster speed than locals due to wider spacing, but still a regular pattern of stops along the That’s why the upper-leftmost corner of this line, unlike nonstop . table (frequent and nonstop) is empty in most cities: relatively few people are going very long • Local . This typically means stop spacing of 1/4 mile or less, the distances, so it’s hard to assemble the inten- typical historic behavior of bus routes intended to be continuously sity of demand to support very high frequency useful to all points along the line . service without making intermediate stops, unless – as with the BART transbay tube – • Flexible . This category includes all transit services where the route there is simply nothing to stop for . San Jose varies based on customer demand, including deviated fixed routes, - Fremont express service is in this cell now, but Dial-a-Rides, etc . it will be more efficient when replaced by BART, Figure 57: Transit Service Branding Distinctions No transit agency keeps track of all 12 cells in this matrix, nor should it . which makes more stops and is thus more of a lanes . If VTA had frequent local streetcars comparable to San Francisco’s A few are naturally empty . But the matrix helps us see how critical dis- Rapid service . F-Market & Wharves service, these would be in the same cell as frequent tinctions of speed, stop spacing, frequency and span interact to form local buses . In all these cases, rail and bus are two ways of implement meaningful categories . They also help show why most existing VTA A Better Frame than “Bus vs. Rail” a service that has a similar role in the network and a similar range of service categories already make sense, because the distinctions they The table also highlights all the ways that rail and bus services can be uses . What’s more, service branding helps make bus service clearer, thus make line up with these crucial distinctions . They may also be helpful in more similar than different . Caltrain and Commuter Express buses are in reducing one of the biggest negatives that people cite about buses as refining the exact definitions of these existing categories. the same cells—high speed but low frequency and span . Light rail and opposed to trains – that they are just too complicated and uncertain . Bus Rapid Transit are in the same area—especially if BRT has exclusive

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 52 14.b Service Branding

Defining vs Secondary Characteristics compensate employees for awkward shifts, and (c) The definitions of service categories often become confused over time the high cost of serving demand that goes in only one because too many features are cited as part of a category, and this direction at a time, as the driver must be paid to return creates confusion over how to categorize a service that has some of to their starting point, usually with their vehicle, at the these features but no others . The confusion is most obvious in conversa- end of each shift . tions about “Bus Rapid Transit” (BRT)6 where some people emphasize • Nonstop service (upward) is expensive because a long the speed and reliability that arises from the exclusive right of way, distance must be crossed to connect the endpoints . others emphasize what stations need to look like, while others emphasize Rapid service is not intrinsically expensive as service, the attractiveness of infrastructure or fleet. While all of these features are but usually comes with infrastructure that needs a rid- parts of the best Bus Rapid Transit systems, there is constant disagree- ership justification. BRANDINGSERVICE ment7 about the minimal definition: What features must a service have to be called BRT at all? As a result of these costs, ridership expectations tend to be higher in the cells marked red . Slightly lower expecta- For this reason, the definition of a category must not just be a long tions attach to the cells shaded in orange . pile of features. It should also clarify which features are definitive of the category. Definitive means that if a service does not have that feature, it Low ridership expectations attach to the cheapest ser- should not be in that category . vices – infrequent fixed routes, whose purpose (as we will explore in the next chapter) is not really ridership at all . For reasons outlined below, we recommend that the distinctions outlined in the last section (first, frequency and span; second, stop spacing vs speed) be the defining features of VTA’s service categories. We especially recommend clarifying, and branding even more strongly, the Frequent Network Branding and categories that promise frequent service (every 15 minutes or better) at VTA’s Core Network most times of day . Many transit agencies are finding value in identifying and branding all of their services that run frequently all day, where “frequently” almost always means “every 15 Relationship to Cost and Ridership Expectations As we explore the table of categories, it is helpful to note that certain minutes or better ”. This brand more or less corresponds services tend to be more expensive to provide than others, and there- to VTA’s “Core” category, but with more rigorous stan- fore tend to come with higher ridership expectations . These categories dards for inclusion . These “Frequent Networks” offer as shown by their ridership expectations in Figure 58 on page 53 . several kinds of value that make them worth identifying and marketing: In particular: • “Turn up and go ”. High frequency means that you • Frequency and Span (leftward on the chart) are expensive . The cost experience service as going when you’re going, of service doubles with a doubling of frequency, and also grows in instead of requiring you to plan you trip around a proportion to extensions of the service day . However: schedule . This is a major qualitative difference in the experience of transit, and vastly expands the range of • Peak-only service (far right in the chart) is also expensive, espe- situations in which people might find it useful. Figure 58: Ridership Expectations by Service Category cially long peak runs . The high cost of peak-only service arise from infrequent routes is not . (a) the need to own fleet that is used only briefly, (b) the need to • Easy Connections . Where two infrequent lines cross, the untrained eye may imagine that the lines connect with each other, but the • Reliability . High frequency is a backstop for reliability problems . 6 Partly to avoid this debate, VTA and other agencies often use the term “rapid bus” or “rapid” to experienced rider knows that they really do not . Low frequency Breakdowns and delays matter less if another bus is always coming denote “not in an exclusive right of way, and therefore not really Bus Rapid Transit, but definitely faster than a local bus . means long waits for connections, often prohibitively long . By con- soon . 7 See, for example, the Bus Rapid Transit Standard by the Institute for Transportation and trast, wherever high-frequency lines cross, the connection is easy . Development Policy (ITDP) for one attempt to argue for a strict set of definitions. https://www. Frequency thus makes lines work together readily, forming a network • High Ridership . In most transit networks, the Frequent services are itdp org/library/standards-and-guides/the-bus-rapid-transit-standard/. The ITDP BRT standard is that can be used for travel between any two points in the network . among the most productive . controversial in the US, partly because it excludes many projects that would be called BRT by the Federal Transit Administration, largely due to the lack of exclusive lanes . The Frequent Network is a network in a way that the collection of Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 53 14.b Service Branding

now, to the customer of today . The term Candidate Frequent can be helpful in identifying – to the public and to stakeholders – the intention to introduce Frequent service in the future . Frequent service can also be used to leverage desired outcomes from municipal partners . For example, it may make sense, as a VTA investment, to introduce Frequent service only if certain speed and reliability improvements are achieved, or if development reaches a certain level . SERVICE BRANDINGSERVICE

Figure 59: LA Metro branding distinguishing Metro Rapid service (Red) from Metro local (orange) • Permanence . Frequency is so expensive that the investment isn’t VTA has an emerging Frequent Network brand, called the “Core” made in corridors where ridership potential isn’t strong, due to built Network, which seeks to foster many of these values . It includes major environment features . As a result, the Frequent Network is generally lines that run every 15 minutes or better at least on weekdays . As such, the most permanent part of any transit system, apart from rail . Core is currently an aspirational term, not a term that strictly describes the existing system . • Land Use Synergies . Because of their high usefulness and permanence. Frequent Networks are excellent locations for densification, One question for VTA is whether the term “Core” is sufficiently self- lower parking ratios, etc . explanatory . The term has useful connotations such as “fundamental,” “at the center of things,” etc ,. but it does not tell a potential rider what • Affordability. Unlike rail, which tends to inflate property values the value proposition is for them . around its stations, Frequent Networks can be so extensive that land along them remains relatively available at many price points . They are This is why the emerging practice, in North America and to some extent therefore a key tool for getting useful transit to lower income resi- overseas, is to use the word “frequent” in some form as the name of dents, and connecting them to opportunities . the service . This is understood as “frequent most of the time,” including long evening and weekend spans, because the whole point is that • Full Employment . Transportation is one of the leading barriers to low service is coming soon, whenever you need it . income persons trying to hold jobs, and the Frequent Network is a particularly effective tool for that purpose . It runs long hours, comes A brand like “Frequent Network” is introduced to signal high frequency soon, and can be relied on, both critical for workers who punch time and a long span . The exact guarantee that the term will signify needs clocks and whose shifts are rarely “nine to five.” to be refined as the brand is developed, but it usually means service running every 15 minutes or better at least 14 hours a day, 7 days a • A Focus for Infrastructure and Priority . As Frequent Networks grow, week, with some service continuing in the evening or early morning for a and grow more permanent, they are obvious top-priority places for total service day of 18-20 hours. These definitions obviously vary based infrastructure investment and transit priority. Some cities recognize on the intensity of the transit market, so the guarantee will be higher in frequent network streets in their street classification systems, so that San Francisco than in most other parts of the region . appropriate priority can be given to transit there . Unlike aspirational brands, it must also signify a guarantee of service

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 54 14.b Service Branding

Branding Service Categories Service categories are most effective when they are presented both to the public and to stakeholders using the same language . While some agencies use one set of categories for policymaking and another for presenting service to the public, this yields a much weaker effect .

Once service categories are presented to the BRANDINGSERVICE public, they can be called brands . VTA currently has some strongly branded services, like the Expresses, but it also has many categories that it keeps track of internally but that are not presented to the public very forcefully, such as the Core Network .

Branding a product within the network is obvi- metro.net ously different from agency branding, but Every 15 Minutes (or Less) the plethora of two-word brands shows that everyone knows the difference . When we hear

PACOIMA FOOTHILL BL

GLENOAKS BL

LAUREL CANYON BL SAN FERNANDO RD ARLETA AV two-word brands like “Microsoft Excel,” or WOODMAN AV

VAN NUYS BL DEVONSHIRE ST DEVONSHIRE ST 233 94 761 ARLETA 794 TUXFORD ST CSUN SUN VALLEY “Google Maps” we immediately understand NORTHRIDGE Northridge Transit Center Fashion Center PLUMMER ST CORBIN AV PASADENA NORDHOFF ST NORDHOFF ST NORDHOFF ST NORTHRIDGE 240 PANORAMA CITY SIERRA MADRE PARTHENIA ST LDNOR 741 CHASE ST SUNLAND BL BURBANK MEMORIAL PARK LAKE ALLEN VILLA METRO GOLD LINE ROSCOE BL ROSCOE BL ROSCOE BL BUR WAY HOLLYWOOD

LINCOLN ST 94 VAN NUYS BOB HOPE AIRPORT 794 SATICOY ST KESWICK ST BURBANK BL RESEDA BL RESEDA EMPIRE AV two things: 1ST ST GLENDALE 180 180 180 LDNOR SHERMAN WY WILBUR AV SHERMAN WY SHERMAN WY BURBANK-BOB HOPE AIRPORT 181 181 780 180 181 780 180 181 780 780 BROADWAY 780 COLORADO BL VANOWEN ST VAN NUYS VANOWEN ST DOWNTOWN BURBANK MAGNOLIA BL COLORADO ST Van Nuys SAN FERNANDO RD EAGLE DEL MAR CANOGA DE SOTO VICTORY BL NUYS BL VAN VICTORY BL DEL MAR BL PIERCE Gov’t Ctr ROCK LAKE AV

METRO ORANGE LINE BRAND BL HARVEY DR COLLEGE OLIVE AV CENTRAL AV VERDUGO RD FIGUEROA ST FIGUEROA

SEPULVEDA AV OAKS FAIR VICTORY BL VAN NUYS WOODMAN AV GLENDALE

180 ROBLES AV LOS LA Pierce CHEVY CHASE DR ROCK BL EAGLE BALBOA WOODLEY LA Valley SIERRA VILLA DR WARNER NORTH SONORA AV 181 College College BL ORANGE GROVE CENTER LAUREL AV PACIFIC 780 TAMPA RESEDA 233 761 HOLLYWOOD CANYON LANKERSHIM BL CALIFORNIA BL BURBANK BL VALLEY GRANDVIEW AV COLLEGE NORTH HOLLYWOOD BROADWAY FILLMORE LOS FELIZ 260 MAGNOLIA BL 762 • The first word is the company, while the WINNETKA AV VALLEY 81 RESEDA BL RESEDA BALBOA BL BALBOA VILLAGE Universal TARZANA AV WOODLEY

HUSTON ST AV WOODMAN

WHITE OAK AV WHITE OAK GLENDALE 240 741 BL SEPULVEDA Studios GRIFFITH GLENARM ST ENCINO RIVERSIDE DR BRAND BL 150 150 PARK LOS FELIZ BL SOUTH 240 240 UNIVERSAL CITY 750 VENTURA BL 750 SAN FERNANDO RD PASADENA SHERMAN STUDIO 180 CITY LINE METRO RED FRANKLIN AV 181 SOUTH second is the product, and . OAKS 780 PASADENA COLDWATER CYN AV CYN COLDWATER LAUREL CYN BL LAUREL CYN HOLLYWOOD/ HOLLYWOOD/ HOLLYWOOD/ MISSION ST VINELAND AV HIGHLAND VINE WESTERN HIGHLAND 94 MONTEREY RD 212 217 603 PARK

180 181 ST FIGUEROA HOLLYWOOD BL 312 780 780 207 204 794 HIGHLAND PARK HOLLYWOOD 757 754 FLETCHER DR VERMONT/SUNSET 2 302 81 SUNSET BL SOUTHWEST WEST 2 302 MUSEUM 260 EAGLE ROCK BL EAGLE LA BREA AV VINE ST HOLLYWOOD HIGHLAND AV SILVER LAKE NORMANDIE AV WESTERN AV SWEETZER BL VERMONT AV GLASSELL 762 SAN VICENTE BL 4 704 4 704 90 91 PARK CYPRESS AV SANTA MONICA BL LA City VERMONT/ • This product is one of a series that are all BL GLENDALE 94 603 4 College SANTA MONICA SAN FERNANDO RD HUNTINGTON DR 704 794 MELROSE AV 210 MELROSE AV 705 200 81 HERITAGE SQUARE CANON DR RED METRO LINE SANBORN AV AV 28 AV 14 14 RAMPART BL PUEP IDELL ST BEVERLY BL BEVERLY BL HYPERION AV 751 251 751 VERMONT/ AV 28 ATLANTIC BL ATLANTIC 105 217 212 HANCOCK 207 204 MARENGO AV BEVERLY 14 SILVER LAKE BL ALVARADO2 ST SCOTT ST FIGUEROA ST 705 780 312 PARK 210 757 754 W SUNSET4 302 BL AV 26 designed to work together, as part of a RENO ST 16 316 16 316 16 316 704 ECHO MAIN ST 3RD ST 3RD ST ECHO PARK AV

UCLA 4 200 PARK AV 26 AV MAYCREST 704 WILSHIRE/ Dodger 81 BBB1BBB2 BEVERLY VERMONT 90 LINCOLN/CYPRESS WILSHIRE/ PUEP ELYSIAN Stadium 260 BBB8 BBB12 HILLS WESTERN PARK AV 91 762 C6 R6 WESTWOOD WESTLAKE/ UNION AV TEMPLE ST 94 ROBERTSON BL LA BREA AV AV ROSSMORE BEVERLY GLEN BEVERLY DR BEVERLY BL RIMPAU FAIRFAX AV FAIRFAX LA CIENEGA BL LA CIENEGA METRO PURPLE LINE 251 20 MACARTHUR PARK HUNTINGTON DR 20 14 110 794 751 20 720 710 20 720 78 larger whole . 720 SAN VICENTE BL WILSHIRE BL BEVERLY BL 16 316 BONSALL AV 720 WILSHIRE/ 51 52 METRO GOLD LINE

45 THOMAS ST NORMANDIE N BROADWAY 79 BARRINGTON AV CENTURY 210 204 352 18 83 378 AV OF THE STARSCITY 212 207 754 WITMER 84 76 76 BBB1BBB8 4 710 KOREATOWN 720 3RD ST VALLEY BL BBB12 312 R7 757 WESTLAKE AV ALHAMBRA 200 6TH ST ST DALY BUNDY DR 704 MAIN ST 70 71 78 RIMPAU BL 66 51 EL MONTE HAUSER BL REDONDO BL 79 378 CAL STATE LA WILSHIRE BL 28 52 El Monte Busway 28 728 28 728 WILSHIRE 10 METRO SILVER LINE EL MONTE BBB8 OLYMPIC BL 728 352 SANTA MONICA 14TH ST MARENGO SAN BERNARDINO FWY BBB12 R7 7TH ST LAC + USC CSULA 720 COTNER AV UNION AV FT SILVER STREAK FT SILVER STREAK BBB7 R7 BBB7 R7 8TH ST CESAR CHAVEZ MED CTR ROSEMEAD WESTWOOD BL PICO BL 30 330 30 330 MISSION ST 4TH ST BBB2 PICO BL SEPULVEDA BL PICO/RIMPAU SEE DOWNTOWN 70 770 70 770 2ND ST 105 217 PUEP 70 33 TRANSIT CENTER 33 PICO BL GARVEY AV 705 780 33 733 704 SANTA MONICA BL SAWTELLE BL 733 733 LOS ANGELES INSET METRO GOLD LINE Service categories work exactly like tech brands RANCHO VENICE BL 1ST ST PICO/ East LA MONTEREY PARK BBB1 200 ALISO 260 CITY NEW AV NATIONAL BL 3RD ST Community ARIZONA AV PARK 68 BBB8 ROBERTSON BL CADILLAC AV 35 35 TERRACE College 762

WASHINGTON BL 770 SOTO ST DEL MAR AV

770 AV GARFIELD 4TH ST BL ATLANTIC ROSEMEAD BL BBB12 204 BOYLE AV DOZIER ST

BBB7 AV ANITA SANTA BUNDY DR C6 BL SAN GABRIEL STEWART ST BAGLEY AV LA CIENEGA BLWASHINGTON/FAIRFAX 754 5TH ST 251 770 R7 R6 MARIACHI PLAZA M20 AV GROVE WALNUT PALMS BL WESTERN AV 68 OVERLANDMOTOR AV AV TRANSIT HUB 6TH ST 252 HOOVER ST HOOVER LA BREA AV BL CRENSHAW BBB12 NORMANDIE AV COLORADO AV18TH ST PICO BL 751 BBB1 LINCOLN BL LA CIENEGA/ 37 37 260 CULVER ADAMS BL ADAMS M40 SOTO BBB7 SEPULVEDA BL 200 M10 720 C1 JEFFERSON EXPO/ LEIMERT 210 81 4TH ST MEDNIK AV in this respect . Los Angeles Metro, for example, OCEAN PARK BL CITY 207 OLYMPIC BL 18 AV ROWAN R7 Santa LA BREA 710 JEFFERSON/ LDF 37 762 4TH ST PARK 757 BL EASTERN AV MARAVILLA OCEAN AV BBB8 INGLEWOOD BL USC 720 Monica OCEAN 105 JEFFERSON BL 110 60 WHITTIER BL INDIANA ATLANTIC EXPO/ EXPO/ MONTEBELLO BL College CENTINELA AV VENICE BL 705 40 45 53 760 M40 Santa Monica Pier PARK USC 4TH ST PICO M20 BEETHOVEN ST FARMDALE CRENSHAW WESTERN 745 EAST LA 3RD ST METRO EXPO LINE CIVIC CENTER RIVERA M40 M40 PIER AV WALGROVE AV WASHINGTON BL 37TH ST/USC EAST LA MAIN ST EXPOSITION BL BEVERLY BL BEVERLY BL EXPO/ EXPO WASHINGTON POPLAR AV PALMS CULVER RODEO RD 18 720 SUNSET AV 705 VERMONT PARK/USC WHITTIER M10 M10 BBB1 CITY 212 40 40 51 66 WHITTIER BL WHITTIER BL distinguishes between Metro Rapid and Metro 312 M L KING JR BL CENTRAL AV OLYMPIC 52 352 C6 105 VERNON PICO RIVERA BL PASSONS CULVER CITY LORENA TELEGRAPH RD R6 105 AV GREENWOOD WINDWARD AV COLISEUM ST 105 705 MONTEBELLO TRANSIT CENTER INDIANA ST 705 ARIZONA AV C1 108 358 VERNON AV VERNON AV 251 751 HERBERT ST MONTEBELLO SLAUSON AV 40 210 GOODRICH BL VERMONT AV 33 710 740 ST FIGUEROA FRUITLAND AV VENICE BL SLAUSON 60 760 AV GARFIELD MONTEBELLO/MONTEBELLO/ 733 LINCOLN BL COMMERCE ATLANTIC BL Dodger DOWNTOWN 108 358 108 358 108 358 18 COMMERCECOMMERCE BL PASSONS Stadium SLAUSON AV SLAUSON N SPRING ST GAGE AV N MAIN ST C1 INGLEWOOD CUDAHY FLOTILLAFLOTILLA ST ST STADIUM WAY CHINATOWN LOS ANGELES WASHINGTON BL LA BREA AV 81 GAGE AV Chinatown o 40 111 SAN PEDRO ST FLORENCE 81 90 45 83 LDB Local buses, a stop spacing distinction . BBB3 HARBOR FWY HUNTINGTON PARK 91 94 84 LDB VENICE JEFFERSON BL 311 740 111 311 111 311 111 311 794 LDB R3 FLORENCE AV FLORENCE AV COLLEGE ST 260 762 110 N BROADWAY VIGNES ST 53 LDB 68 70 71 207 757 DOWNEY N HILL ST METRO GOLD LINE MANCHESTER SANTA ANA ST SANTA ANA ST 78 79 378 SEPULVEDA BL SEPULVEDA FIRESTONE 770 ALAMEDA ST BBB3 MANCHESTER AV MANCHESTER AV FIRESTONE BL FIRESTONE BL ALPINE ST INGLEWOOD SUNSET BL LDB R3 81 90 TRANSIT CENTER 45 103RD ST/ 91 94 450 TWEEDY BL 794 101 HAWTHORNE/ AV WILCOX 605 605 FT SILVER STREAK METRO SILVER LINE METRO SILVER LAX CITY BL AVALON 704 CENTURY BL 745 WATTS BL BEACH LONG ORD ST Union Station EASTERN AV 2 4 45 728 733 ATLANTIC AV ATLANTIC 550 AV GARFIELD

LENNOX AV LAKEWOOD BUS CENTER 204 754 103RD ST TOWERS DOWNEY 302 704 83 84 83 745 770 ooon BBB3 51 60 760 ST STATE CESAR CHAVEZ AV 704 LDD BROADWAY 2 4 55 C C6 CENTRAL AV 60 302 355 2 302 704 745 PATSAOURAS METRO SILVER LINE IMPERIAL HWY 52 352 IMPERIAL HWY IMPERIAL HWY 704 TRANSIT LAX HAWTHORNEHAWTHORNE BL CRENSHAW R3 SOUTH GATE 101 PLAZA 68 LDB 40 COMMERCIAL ST LOS ANGELES R6 40 METRO GREEN LINE 733 CENTER ST 68 70 VIGNES ST INTERNATIONAL 740 GRAND AV ARCADIA ST 71 76 CRENSHAW 120TH ST VERMONT/ HARBOR FWY AVALON WILLOWBROOK LONG BEACH BL LAKEWOOD BL NORWALK NORWALK 78 79 AIRPORT C G G ATHENS 83 96 These brands do not represent competitors, 10 378 728 TEMPLE ST 2 4 733 770 METRO GREEN LINE 210 COMPTON 92 55 60 40 GARDENA BELLFLOWERBELLFLOWER ALISO ST Federal COMPTON BL ST FIGUEROA 302 355 LA Cathedral 710 110 Building LDD AVIATION/LAX 10 48 92 2 4 10 4 Little Tokyo/ METRO GOLD LINE METRO BLUE LINE BLUE METRO 48 302 LDB LDB MARIPOSA ARTESIA BL TEMPLE ST 2 4 45 TEMPLE ST

ROSECRANS 55 68 Arts District o SANTA FE AV METRO RED LINE RED METRO METRO PURPLE LINE PURPLE METRO 83 84 302 ARTESIA 60 LDB City 92 JANM 740 745 Hall 30 HAWTHORNE BL HAWTHORNE 355 733 LB51 LB61 Civic Center LDD 40 330 HEWITT ST1ST ST EL SEGUNDO DWP Music CIVIC MOCA LDA Center o o LDA EL SEGUNDO BL LINE SILVER METRO

EL SEGUNDO LINE SILVER METRO CENTER 70 71 30 40 1ST ST DEL AMO 14 14 37 LDA 30 40 76 78 68 330 330 LDA 2ND ST DOUGLAS ROSECRANS AV 1ST ST 55 Walt 79 378 but rather different and complementary tools Disney 770 LDA Japanese 60 770 LDA 355 Concert Village Plaza LDA 40 Harbor Transitway CARSON ST Hall 2 4 ARTESIA 10 48 740 WARDLOW 2ND ST 81 83 2 4 83 92 MAIN ST 2ND ST

STEARNS ST OLIVE ST REDONDO BEACH LB191 GRAND AV

55 ST FIGUEROA 90 91 30 40 728 733

TRANSIT CENTER SPRING ST LDA ATLANTIC AV ATLANTIC LONG BEACH BL BEACH LONG LB101 LB21 Pacific LITTLE 110 60 94 302 45 302 733 LDD LB192 WILLOW ST LB22 Stock 355 728 794 330 745 LDD

REDONDO HOPE ST TOKYO LB102 LB22 Exchange ANGELES ST LOS CARSON LDA 4TH PL MERRICK ST

MANHATTAN BEACH BL LINE SILVER METRO LONG 16 FLOWER ST LB103 BL BELLFLOWER LDF LDA M40 M40 LDA M40 BEACH WILLOW ST 316 14 70 3RD ST Angels 3RD ST M40 BEACH 37 70 71 76 Flight 83 92 LB104 LB91 LB92 LDF 60 60 71 76 78 79 728 733 LB171 LDA LDA 78 79 PACIFIC COAST HWY BL LAKEWOOD 96 378 733 LDD LB93 LB94 LDF 96 378 770 LDD LDWLM LB172 16 4TH ST BUNKER HILL 770 LDB 4TH ST BROADWAY all brought to you by a single organizing entity. 316 HILL ST PACIFIC COAST LB173 53 62 M40 M40 L ST 760 M40 REDONDO BEACH BL HIGHWAY LDF Pershing 4TH ST 53 16 18 53 Square o o TOY DISTRICT Cal State 62 55 62 316 18 53 LB45 LA Center 16 18 ANAHEIM ST BEAUDRY AV 760 355 720 LDB 62 720 LB45 Studios 53 55 ARTESIA BL Long Beach M40 Riordan M40 62 316 5TH ST LB46 WITMER ST 6TH ST BIXEL ST 60 SANTA FE AV SANTA FIGUEROA ST FIGUEROA 16 18 Central Library 355 720 ANAHEIM ST LB91 LB92 18 720 316 720 760 LDA LDB LDE LDF 7TH ST LDF LINE SILVER METRO JEWELRY DISTRICT LB93 LB94 LDA 16 18 53 LDB 16 18 South Bay WILMINGTON Good CITY WEST 18 53 55 62 316 53 55 ALAMEDA ST PACIFIC AV 5TH ST LDE Samaritan LDE 62 720 355 720 M40 62 355 CENTRAL AV Galleria Hospital 720 6TH ST WILSHIRE BL 7th St/Metro Center AVALON BL AVALON TRANSIT MALL 20 2 4 2 4 83 92 The key is that to use the tools together, it’s 1ST ST LB-A 20 LDA o o o o 10 28 30 40 728 733 2ND ST 81 83 45 302 733 LDD

CHERRY AV OCEAN BL METRO PURPLE LINE LB-D LB-A METRO RED LINE 90 91 330 745 LDD WILMINGTON BL WILMINGTON Queen LDA LDB 94 302 LB-C LONG BEACH LB21 LB-D LDE 728 794 SAN PEDRO ST Mary Catalina 51 52 51 52 60 LB22 352 LDA LDB LDE 352 760 Landing TRANSIT GALLERY LDE 7TH ST LDE 33 55 7TH ST 7TH ST LDF LDF 92 355 38 38 10 733 LDD 66 66 66 38 81 66 8TH ST 2 4 10 8TH ST 66 37 70 71 28 48 81 66 81 LDE LA LDF 76 78 79 83 90 91 96 378 770 91 94 302 Flower

Market 51 METRO SILVER LINE SILVER METRO METRO SILVER LINE SILVER METRO 728 794 10 best to be clear on how they’re different from 66 52 8TH ST 48 66 81 66 9TH ST 14 70 71 6666 9TH ST 352 Loyola 76 78 79 66 Law 96 378 770 School FASHION 28 28 728 28 728 DISTRICT 66 728 OLYMPIC BL LDD OLYMPIC BL L.A. LIVE 81 81 LDF LDF 51 83 2 4 10 33 Nokia 52 302 30 40 48 55 LDE 352 Theatre LDD 45 302 83 92 SOUTH 330 745 355 733 CHICK HEARN CT PARK STAPLES Center each other . Figure 60 shows a selection of maps 11TH ST 12TH ST 12TH ST Service every 81 110 LDD LDD 15 minutes (or less) Service every Municipal LDF Pico o o L.A. LIVE WAY on Metro Local and 15 minutes (or less) Bus Line 30 330 LDE Metro Rapid Line at Metro Rapid stops (Local and Rapid) PICO BL LA Convention 37 70 14 70 2 4 2 4 10 33 PICO BL PICO BL Center 71 76 71 76 83 90 40 45 48 55 740 M40 R7 78 79 78 79 91 94 302 745 83 355 51 40 96 378 96 378 302 2 733 52

352 METRO BLUE LINE BLUE METRO METRO EXPO LINE EXPO METRO 770 LDD 770 LDD 4 33 LDE HOPE ST 33 16TH ST 16TH ST 33 733 733 302 33 Metro Rail Line Metro Orange Line 733 733 VENICE BL 770 & Station & Station 70 17TH ST 17TH ST and other Frequent Network brand elements 33 71 733 Metro Silver Line 10 770 10 Transfers Metro& Station Silver Line Metro& Station Silver Line Street Stop 81 LDF San Pedro St o

Figure 60: Frequent AV FLOWER LOS ANGELES ST LOS MAPLE AV SAN PEDRO ST CENTRAL AV GRAND AV OLIVE ST HILL ST MAIN ST BROADWAY METRO BLUE LINE BBB Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus Metrolink Station ST FIGUEROA The service shown on this map 35 PUEP 35 C G LAX Shuttle Amtrak Station WASHINGTON BL PUEP Traffic WASHINGTON BL Grand o Court 21ST ST LDE from Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Portland, 10 110 LA Trade Tech PUEP LB Long Beach Transit Greyhound 22ND ST 21ST ST usually runs every 15 minutes M Montebello Bus Lines FlyAway LDD

603

METRO SILVER LINE SILVER METRO METRO EXPO LINE EXPO METRO Santa Monica & 110 Interstate Freeway 603 603 R 23RD ST Orthopaedic 23RD ST 23RD ST Culver CityBus Rapid Hospital 134 State Highway or Freeway Mt St Mary’s College 14 40 51 Network brand (Doheny Campus) 45 52 during daytime hours – and often 745 352 23rd Street o US Freeway ADAMS BL TRINITY ST 37 37 Automobile Club of ADAMS BL three cities whose transit agencies brand and more frequently. JULAUG 20122012 Subject to Change Subject12-2317 to ©2012 Change LACMTA Southern California

HOOVER ST VERMONT AV

elements Jefferson/USC o JEFFERSON BL

JEFFERSON BL

110

USC LINE EXPO METRO Expo Park/USC o Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 55 14.b Service Branding

promote a distinct Frequent Network .

Conclusion and Recommendation VTA’s system of service categories is already broadly logical . Our sug- gestions are largely matters of clarification and branding, namely:

1 . Be clear that the defining features of a brand are frequency, span, and stop spacing, and that other features – for example, levels of amenity or types of infrastructure – are secondary features that follow

from the defining features but never substitute for them. There is no BRANDINGSERVICE evidence that this has actually happened at VTA, but it is a perennial caution because there are many situations where the temptation to do this is high .

2 . Consider replacing the term Core with Frequent, which is more explicit about what the distinguishing feature of that service is and why people should care about it .

3 . Consistent with the previous point, move the downtown San Jose shuttle, Line 201, from the Community category to the Core or Frequent category . It was placed in the Community category because it is very short, but to customers and stakeholders, the frequency is the more important defining feature.

4 . Strengthen the relevance and public understanding of the categories by making them more explicit in branding and information . In particular, strongly brand the Frequent Network across the information system, including by making it one of the most prominent visual layer on the network map The. data reviewed in this report provides insights but is not sufficient to tell VTA what to do. Network planning decisions arise from the combination of facts and values . Value judg- ments—choices about how to balance different goals—will also be needed, and the next steps of the study will encourage discussion on these . This short chapter outlines the major ones .

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 56 14.b Service Branding

Key Chapter Findings • Transit services can be classified based on multiple attributes, but the most relevant to customers focus on usefulness. • Classification is reflected in customer information (maps, apps, schedules, infrastructure, vehicles), and in goals and outcomes. SERVICE BRANDINGSERVICE • The most important categories to communicating the usefulness of a transit service are frequency and span: when is the service available, and how long is the wait to access it likely to be? • Frequent Network Branding is focused on quickly communicating what level of service is available in which places, and where transit is most useful. • VTA’s current classification is already broadly logical, but the connection to frequency could be made more explicit by renaming the “Core” class to “Frequent,” and reclassifying a few routes based on this distinction.

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 57 14.b

5 Key Questions

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 58 14.b Key Questions

mean deploying all of the service in places where the The Ridership / Coverage Tradeoff greatest number of people are the most likely to use it . VTA’s performance data—like that of most agencies—reveals that not If VTA’s network were designed for maximum ridership, Imagine you are the transit planner for this all services are justified by ridership. Many services exist despite not fictional town. The dots scattered around the just low ridership, but despite any reasonable prospect of high rider- it would focus only on serving areas where the built map are people and jobs; the streets shown ship in the future . These services run in areas where the development environment meets the necessary conditions for high are ones on which transit can be operated. pattern—especially the transit-critical features of density, walkability, ridership, places where many people (and thus many The buses are the resources the town has to linearity, and proximity—largely ensure low ridership potential . All of potential transit customers) are present, and which run transit. VTA’s Community services are in this category, as are some segments of can be easily served by efficient transit paths linking KEY QUESTIONS Before you can plan transit routes, you must other lines . important destinations . The system would have far first decide what you want transit to do. fewer routes, but they would be much more frequent . Rather than judging such services as failing, it is more accurate to Large parts of the County’s area would have little or no describe them as having a non-ridership purpose . service at all, just as a private business feels no obliga- Every transit network is a mixture of services designed for high ridership tion to offer its product in places with low demand for Ridership Goal Coverage Goal it . and those designed for a competing goal, which can be called coverage . “Think like a business” “Access for all” This trade-off arises unavoidably from the nature of the transit product . B G This is not an either-or choice; no transit agency is at either extreme; Coverage Goal: “Access for Everyone” C H I every transit agency operates services geared towards either goal, and It’s very common to hear that the goal of our transit ser- identifying them clearly is necessary to translate policy-level direction on vices should be “access for everyone.” This goal reflects A the purpose of transit into service planning . desires such as: A F • Service to every city and every part of the service Ridership Goal: “Maximize Ridership” area . Do you want transit to be designed for maximum ridership for the F C budget? This goal serves several common intentions for transit, • Lifeline for people with severe mobility limitations, no matter where they live . E including: A B D B • Low subsidy, because more of the revenue comes from fares . • Support for suburban and rural styles of development . This transit network is designed to generate This network is designed to provide some • Vehicle trip reduction and emissions benefits. high ridership as efficiently as possible. The access to the transit system for all people. The When you say “for all,” you implicitly say “every last transit agency has thought like a business, in- transit agency has divided its resources among • Support for dense urban development, because a focus on ridership one, no matter how expensive it is to get to them ”. vesting its resources only into the best transit many routes throughout the town, none very markets. frequent. tends to serve these areas well . The resulting network would run less service in high The Ridership goal is often what is meant by “running transit like a busi- demand areas so that it can run more service in low- Figure 61: How Ridership and Coverage Goals Produce Opposite Kinds of Network ness ”. Unlike government services, businesses are motivated by the goal demand areas, to ensure that everyone has some The Two Goals in Practice of maximum profit. In the case of local transit, where the fare paid by access . Service is spread out, which also means that it is spread thin . The resulting frequencies are low, and service may not run long hours . Why does a Ridership goal cause service to be concentrated in the each customer is reasonably constant, this would mean maximizing the highest-demand areas? Because as we noted in Chapter 3, frequency number of customers at a given cost . Because the service is not very useful, even in areas of high transit demand, ridership is typically poor . correlates with high productivity (ridership per unit of cost) . High- Government services have a more complex set of motives, but they do frequency service, serving a favorable built environment, consistently But while the Coverage goal is not what would motivate a private busi- resemble businesses when they are trying to maximize the number of generates the highest “bang for buck,” that is, ridership per unit of cost . ness, it has played an important role in the shaping of every North users . So it is important to understand both why transit sometimes runs High-ridership planning therefore starts with high all-day frequency and like a business and why it sometimes, intentionally, does not . American public transit system . Excluding so much of a service area tends to be politically unacceptable . Concerns about lifeline access— extends it as far as it will go, focusing on the places where the most Every private business chooses which markets it will enter based on not high demand, but extreme needs experienced by small numbers of people will benefit from it. That, in turn, means dense and walkable where it believes it can realize the strongest return on investment. If people—are also a reason to devote resources to the coverage goal . places where many people are near the stops and can get to the stops . Santa Clara County wanted its transit to work in this way, this would A transit line along an already-busy corridor can also stimulate some new

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 59 14.b Key Questions

growth along that corridor, encouraging new retail, employment activity much more expensive for VTA to operate, for three reasons: complex braid of partly overlapping routes that flow north-south through and residential growth . Sunnyvale and Cupertino . Further west, Mountain View has poor fre- • The high cost of buying, storing and maintaining vehicles that are quency for such high density and low income, and here the problem may When coverage is the goal, service is spread out so as to maximize the used only briefly each day. also be that service is offered by too many overlapping routes, in this number of people who are near any service . The result is always low fre- • The higher cost of driver time due to short shifts . (VTA’s labor con- case routes generated by a multitude of operators and arrangements . quencies, because low frequency allows a limited resource to be spread Some efficiencies may also be possible in the northeast, in the context of over more area . Most coverage services run every hour, and for shorter tract has no provision for part time drivers, who are the most efficient way to staff peak-only service ). BART’s opening to Berryessa . But the route pattern covering most of the hours than other services do . The Community service category at VTA rest of the County shows little sign of easily re-allocated wasted service . KEY QUESTIONS typifies coverage services: hourly routes, often circuitous, because the • The tendency of peak-only service to be busy in only one direction, goal is a little service over a large area . which requires all the vehicles and drivers to return empty in the The next step of this study, the conceptual service alternatives, will other direction . explore these possibilities in more detail . The Current Balance Another way of saying this is that all-day, evening, and weekend service So throughout this study, we will ask: What percentage of resources do is relatively cheap to operate compared to peak service, which is why you want to devote to the goal of Ridership, and what percentage to Service Hierarchy focusing on all-day markets is often a better path to high ridership In Chapter 4, we discussed VTA’s current service hierarchy, and the idea Coverage? overall . The key to the all-day market is that it’s so diverse . It includes of branding service based on the mobility outcomes they can provide . We estimate that approximately 70% of VTA’s non-express bus service most commuting by lower-income people, whose work and training com- VTA current groups in services into several categories: Core, Local, is where it would be if ridership were the agency’s only goal, while the mitments rarely require them to travel only at rush hour . It also includes a Community, Express and Limited, but these categories do not necessar- other 30% serves coverage purposes . (We have excluded the Express wide array of trip purposes which tend to use capacity more evenly . ily match to easily explained service outcomes . For instance, the Core services from this calculation because the measures of ridership are network includes services like the 22 and 23, routes which deliver a high so different for them ). Moving towards ridership would mean shifting In general, then, we expect the study to feature a discussion about the level of frequency to key markets . It also includes the 55, a 30-minute resources from service providing coverage to low-density areas and relative importance of peak-only services for the “rush hour” commute route serving Sunnyvale-Saratoga road, far outside the “core” of the investing it in frequent service to dense places, while moving towards as opposed to all-day, all-direction service . (Note, of course, that all-day network in a geographic sense, and offering a lower level of service to coverage would entail the opposite . The next phase of this study will service is used at rush hour too) . While the rush hour is the time of the customer . develop some conceptual alternatives to help people consider this highest demand, that does not necessarily make it the time of highest tradeoff, and to decide whether VTA should revise the current balance, productivity, because of the high marginal cost of peak-only service . As discussed in Chapter 4, VTA may wish to consider its options around increasing ridership at the expense of coverage or vice versa . service branding in the future, in order to better communicate actual attributes of the network to customers more easily . One important note is that all current performance standards (as set Network Design forth in the Transit Sustainability Policy) are ridership-based; that is, they VTA’s most intensive services are very concentrated in San Jose, with two are based on measures of how effectively each route generates rider- major frequent lines extending westward but no frequent north-south Resource Level ship given investment . However, as mentioned in the section on service service in the western half of the County . San Jose is a strong market, Perhaps the most fundamental question about transit in this region is branding, these measures alone may not be appropriate for low-cost, generating a tremendous amount of the agency’s ridership . Further “how much”? We opened this report with the observation that many of infrequent services serving primarily the coverage goal . A clear choice improvements to routing or frequency could likely make it even better, the key indicators for the richness and impact of transit (quantity, rider- to allocate some portion of VTA’s resources towards the coverage goal but the key driver of ridership that the agency controls, useful high-fre- ship, relevance, productivity) have fallen or flatlined for VTA’s network may also invite a discussion of additional service standards that could be quency service, is already in place . over the past 15 years . The population, with an average population used to assess those routes’ performance towards non-ridership goals . growth rate of 1 1%. annually since 2010, has been growing faster than If the agency is to grow its ridership and increase transit mode share, as the transit service (as measured in terms of revenue hours, the basic mandated by the Transit Sustainability Policy, it must expand its frequent transit service unit) . The choice for policymakers and voters may be How to Serve the Peak? network to replicate the successes of the eastside grid . It has found whether transit should be an important and viable mode the get around Another significant trade-off at VTA is the high expectation that the success in radial frequent routes along El Camino Real and Stevens in the heart of Silicon Valley . agency focus intensely on the peak or “rush hour” commute, combined Creek, the two strongest westside radial corridors, but has so far not with the fact that this is not always the cost-effective thing to do . seriously directed resources towards a set of frequent grid services If the County continues to grow, it will do so mainly by increasing density similar to that in place west of downtown . within the already developed area . This will increase both demand and While ridership is certainly higher during the peak, service cost also rises ridership potential for VTA, as more people will live on its busiest lines . very dramatically at that time . Service that runs only during the peak is Such a service design would be expensive, but some of it could be Frequent network branding can also help insure that people who want potentially forged out of existing duplicative services, especially the

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 60 14.b Key Questions

to rely on transit can located where transit will serve them well, further increasing ridership potential .

Growth in demand will use existing capacity to a degree, but will soon need new capacity . New destinations will also arise—housing developments, corporate campuses, shopping centers—and with them, new demands on transit to provide more service to satisfy all the trips those sorts of places generate . KEY QUESTIONS Chapter 1 showed that in general, ridership has tracked with the quantity of service. This means that if higher ridership is desired—with benefits including less reliance on cars, higher fare revenue, and support for more energy- and emissions-efficient urban form, more service will be needed as well .

Some of this increase could be achieved by cutting coverage services, but this would sacrifice other values, including lifeline access and the inclusion of every member city . So if the current balance of ridership and coverage services is desired, and the needs of population growth are to be met, overall resources will eventually need to grow .

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 61 14.b

Appendix A: Ridership / Coverage Analysis

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 62 14.b Appendix A: Ridership / Coverage Analysis

To get a sense of the current mix of priorities in VTA’s existing bus Additionally, we used interactive data visualization tools to examine the Entire Bus Network Local Bus Network network, we performed a basic accounting of the extent to which dif- pattern of ridership on routes . ferent routes service each of the ridership and coverage goals . The Local System 93% Ridership 70% route-by-route accounting is shown in the tables on the next few pages, To provide an example of how such a judgement might be made, con- Coverage 30% a summary on the chart on this page . sider route 26 (Sunnyvale/Lockheed - Eastridge) . This is a very long route operating at 30 minute frequency during the peak and midday, with a Express 7% limited segment between Lockheed and El Camino Real that runs every Methodological Description 15 minutes during the peak periods . Of all bus routes in the network, Figure 62: Ridership / Coverage Split Table This ridership/coverage analysis is not designed to identify ridership it generates the 8th most average daily boardings, and is the 8th most potential, or routes which serve places where high ridership indicators productive as measured by boardings per revenue hour . By examining its are present . Instead, it is intended simply to gauge the extent to which ridership pattern as shown at right, we can see that its highest-ridership each route (and the network at large) is oriented towards either goal . In segments are on its frequent segment, and also in the portion of the other words, given the “three-legged stool” of transit ridership (land use, route that traverses the east side of San Jose along Tully . street network and service provision), how focused is the transit service element on ridership? As a 30-minute route, its ridership/coverage split was initially set to 50/50, but based on its performance relative to other routes in its class, An analysis of this sort can be performed through a variety of methods, and even to more frequent routes, its clear that this is an example of a but we prefer to simplify it to the greatest extent possible . Thus: route that is substantially more focused on ridership than its class base- • All Frequent routes (operating every 15 minutes or better during the line . While its clearly not a 100% ridership route since it mostly operates peak and midday periods) are initially considered to be 100% rider- at 30-minute headways, the great majority of its revenue hours are where ship routes, since it is assumed that the investment in such a high they would be if ridership were the only goal . Thus, we adjusted its rider- level of service is generally not warranted without the expectation of ship coverage split to 80% ridership, 20% coverage, and its daily revenue a favorable ridership outcome . hours are allocated as such .

• All 60 minute routes are assumed to be operated for 100% cover- We went through the same process for each route, resulting in the age purposes, because such a low frequency is very rarely rewarded eventual split shown in the table . It should be noted that the precise with much ridership as it is the least useful, most inconvenient sort split of local resources shown here is approximately 66% ridership, 34% of all-day service . Fittingly, most of VTA’s 60-minute services are coverage, but understanding that this is a process based on professional feeders routed through low-density, peripheral areas . judgement and multifactor assessment, we have reported the result ANALYSIS RIDERSHIP A: / COVERAGE APPENDIX rounded to the nearest 10% . • All 30 minute services are initially considered to be 50% ridership, 50% coverage oriented, since this moderate service level is sometimes a capacity-driven coverage solution, but at other times a precursor to the establishment of a future high-ridership frequent route .

• Limited and Express services were assigned to their own category, since these routes serve other goals in addition to the ridership/coverage outcomes, such as connecting outlying areas to job centers, taking advantage of HOV infrastructure and available external funding, and providing a congestion reduction element .

Starting from this initial classification and goal allocation, each route was examined in isolation, and its goal orientation adjusted if a com- pelling rationale to do so was found . The tables on the next page include some information used for this assessment, including productivity, total average daily ridership, frequency by time period, and span .

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 63 14.b Appendix A: Ridership / Coverage Analysis

Frequency # Type Name AM Mid PM Span Rev Hrs Avg . Daily Productivity Ridership% Coverage% Notes Ridership Coverage Boardings Hrs Hrs 10 Local SANTA CLARA TRANSIT- 15 15 15 5a-1130p 37 87. 1355 1. 35 79. 100% 0% Major all-day frequent or 20 minute corridor . 37 .87 - METRO AIRPORT 13 Community ALMADEN & 60 60 60 630a-730p 10 05. 193 4. 19 .24 0% 100% Local coverage route serving low density - 10 05. MCKEAN- OHLONE/CHYNWTH area . 14 Community GILROY TRANS CTR - ST . 45 40 45 8a-6p 9 42. 169 4. 17 99. 0% 100% Local coverage route serving low density - 9 42. LOUISE HOSP area . 16 Community M H. . CIVIC CTR - BURNETT AVE 60 60 630a-9a, 5 63. 100 1. 17 77. 0% 100% Local coverage route serving low density - 5 .63 2p-530p area . 17 Community GILROY TRNS CTR - MNTRY & 45 40 40 730a-530p 4 88. 57 .3 11 73. 0% 100% Local coverage route serving low density - 4 .88 LS ANIMAS area . 18 Community GILROY TRANS CTR - GAVILAN 30 40 45 7a-6p 6 .35 201 31 65. 0% 100% Local coverage route serving low density - 6 .35 COLLEGE area . 19 Community GILROY TRANS CTR - WREN & 45 40 45 530a-7p 8 92. 286 7. 32 15. 0% 100% Coverage service far outside the core dense - 8 92. MANTELLI area of the network . 22 Core PALO ALTO - EASTRIDGE 12 12 12 24 hrs . 356 .20 14178 7. 39 81. 100% 0% Major all-day frequent or 20 minute corridor . 356 .20 - 23 Core DE ANZA COL - ALUM ROCK 12 12 12 530a-1a 207 90. 8397 .2 40 .39 100% 0% Major all-day frequent or 20 minute corridor . 207 90. - TRANS CTR 25 Core DE ANZA COL - ALUM ROCK 10/30 10/30 10/30 5a-12mid 224 57. 7269 5. 32 .37 75% 25% Important connection east-west across the 168 43. 56 14. TRANS CTR city . Frequent segment west of Bascom very high ridership . Low density market generates little ridership in the long segment between ANALYSIS RIDERSHIP A: / COVERAGE APPENDIX Bascom and Cupertino . 26 Core SUNNYVALE/LOCKHEED 15/30 30 15/30 530a-11p 113 95. 4005 1. 35 15. 80% 20% High productivity crosstown grid element 91 16. 22 79. - EASTRIDGE with frequent segment in east . 27 Local GOOD SAM HOSP - KAISER 30 45 30 6a-8p 36 47. 822 7. 22 56. 0% 100% Local coverage route serving low density - 36 47. SAN JOSE area . 31 Local EVERGREEN VALLEY COL 30 30 30 6a-10p 24 17. 689 9. 28 55. 10% 90% 2 42. 21 75. - EASTRIDGE 32 Community SN ANTONIO SHOP CTR - STA 30 45 30 6a-730p 44 .27 1093 6. 24 70. 50% 50% Low-productivity coverage route serving 22 13. 22 13. CLARA TC moderately dense areas, may be important E-W grid element, but perhaps better market north on Arques/Scott for segment west of Sunnyvale? 34 Community SN ANTONIO SHOP CTR - 60 930a-3p 4 55. 69 6. 15 .30 0% 100% Local coverage route serving low density - 4 .55 DOWNTOWN MV area .

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 64 14.b Appendix A: Ridership / Coverage Analysis

35 Local DNTN MTN VIEW - STANFORD 30 30 30 6a-930p 54 08. 1123 8. 20 78. 0% 100% Short, infrequent coverage route duplicating - 54 08. SHOP CTR high-tier service on El Camino Real or longer trips . 37 Community WEST VALLEY COLLEGE - 30/60 30/60 30/60 630a-10p 30 62. 698 6. 22 82. 30% 70% Short, low ridership, low frequency route, but 9 19. 21 43. CAPITOL LRT some connection between the college/TC and rail station may be desirable in ridership- only network . 39 Community THE VILLAGES - EASTRIDGE 30 60 30 630a-730p 14 53. 458 5. 31 55. 0% 100% - 14 .53 40 Local FOOTHILL COL - LA AVENIDA & 30 30 30 630a-1030p 35 .25 1040 4. 29 51. 50% 50% 17 .63 17 .63 SHOR 42 Community KAISER SJ - EVERGREEN VALLEY 45 45 45 630a-7p 30 73. 641 20 86. 10% 90% Infrequent route with many deviations, only 3 07. 27 .66 COL serves one major destination . 45 Community ALUM ROCK TC - PENITENCIA 60 60 60 630a-630p 8 15. 227 1. 27 87. 0% 100% Local coverage route serving low density - 8 15. CK TC area . 46 Local GREAT MALL - MILPITAS HIGH 30 60 30 6a-630p 17 .38 604 .2 34 76. 0% 100% Coverage route . Low ridership at low cost . - 17 .38 SCHOOL Highest ridership stop other than Great Mall is a high school . 47 Local GREAT MALL - MCCARTHY 30 30 30 6a-930p 27 95. 847 7. 30 .33 50% 50% 13 98. 13 98. RANCH 48 Community LOS GATOS - WINCHESTER LRT 45 60 45 6a-7p 14 .20 366 8. 25 83. 0% 100% Local coverage route serving low density - 14 .20 area . 49 Community LOS GATOS - WINCHESTER LRT 45 60 45 630a-730p 15 77. 298 1. 18 91. 0% 100% Local coverage route serving low density - 15 77. area .

51 Local DE ANZA - MOFFETT/AMES CTR 30/60 60 30/60 630a-630p 25 78. 766 5. 29 73. 0% 100% - 25 78. ANALYSIS RIDERSHIP A: / COVERAGE APPENDIX 52 Local FOOTHILL COLLEGE - 30 30 30-60 7a-930p 19 .33 480 .3 24 84. 50% 50% Ridership-only network would have some 9 .67 9 .67 DWNTOWN MTN VIEW connection between college and downtown Mountain View, but unclear whether El Monte or San Antonio is a better street . Both low density, coverage territory . 53 Local WV COLLEGE- SUNNYVALE 60 60 60 7a-630p 20 87. 676 9. 32 44. 0% 100% Low-frequent, low-ridership, low-cost route, - 20 .87 TRANS CTR direct connection between WV College, Cupertino and El Camino Real, but the 57 is a more frequent, direct and shorter way to get to the college from El Camino Real from most places east of Sunnyvale . Low-density area around route other than around Sunnyvale downtown and Cupertino . .

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 65 14.b Appendix A: Ridership / Coverage Analysis

54 Local DE ANZA COLLEGE 30 30 30 6a-9p 29 02. 1092 .2 37 64. 100% 0% Critical direct westside connection between 29 02. - - LOCKHEED De Anza and Sunnyvale, but infrequent, and lower density north of downtown Sunnyvale . A 100% ridership network would likely have a route on either Sunnyvale-Saratoga or Hollenbeck between De Anza and Sunnyvale. 55 Core DE ANZA COLLEGE - GREAT 15/30 30 15/30 530a-1030p 76 52. 2416 7. 31 58. 75% 25% Critical direct westside connection between 57 .39 19 13. AMERICA De Anza and Sunnyvale, but infrequent, and route follows a looping path through low density area north of downtown Sunnyvale . Strong anchors at both ends . A 100% ridership network would likely have a route on either Sunnyvale-Saratoga or Hollenbeck between De Anza and Sunnyvale. 57 Local WEST VALLEY COLL - GREAT 30 30 30 530a-1030p 53 43. 1604 1. 30 02. 100% 0% 53 43. - AMERICA 58 Local WEST VALLEY COLLEGE 30 60 30 6a-730p 42 13. 756 8. 17 96. 0% 100% Duplicates route 57 for almost entire length; - 42 13. - ALVISO other segments local coverage . 60 Core WINCHESTER TC - GT AMERICA 15/30 30 15/30 530a-1030p 77 63. 2259 .3 29 10. 75% 25% 58 .23 19 41. 61 Core GOOD SAM HOSP - SIERRA & 30 30 30-40 6a-9p 59 95. 1784 4. 29 76. 75% 25% South of Curtner this route performs a cov- 44 96. 14 99. PIEDMONT erage function, but serves strong Bascom and somewhat dense E San Jose Mabury corridors . 62 Core GOOD SAM HOSP - SIERRA & 30 30 30-40 6a-1030p 60 75. 1717 4. 28 .27 50% 50% South of Curtner this route performs a cov- 30 .38 30 .38 PIEDMONT erage function, and its north end in NE San APPENDIX A: RIDERSHIP / COVERAGE ANALYSIS RIDERSHIP A: / COVERAGE APPENDIX Jose is low density relative to other routes' markets to the south . However, Bascom is a strong corridor . 63 Local ALMADEN EXPY - SAN JOSE 30 45 30 630a-10p 38 .27 942 .3 24 62. 25% 75% Low productivity service to low-density area . 9 .57 28 70. STATE However, as a grid element, some service might be present on Meridian in ridership- only network . 64 Core ALMADEN LRT - MCKEE & 15/30 15/30 15/30 530a-11p 100 53. 3714 6. 36 95. 50% 50% Very strong eastern side on McKee, but 50 .27 50 .27 WHITE Almaden segment is low-ridership, serving low density area, until southern terminus . 65 Community KOOSER & BLOSSOM HILL- 45 45 45 630a-7p 31 40. 620 4. 19 76. 50% 50% Infrequent route, but serves moderately 15 70. 15 70. DNTN S .J . dense Blossom Hill and Fruitdale, so potential grid-element in ridership only system .

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 66 14.b Appendix A: Ridership / Coverage Analysis

66 Core KAISER SAN JOSE - MILPITAS/ 15 20 15 5a-1130p 181 .30 6314 1. 34 83. 70% 30% Productive route, generates strong rider- 126 91. 54 .39 DIXON ship in moderately dense but low-income market . However, ridership drops off south of Monterey and Senter . 68 Core GILROY TC - SAN JOSE 15 20 15 4a-1230a 198 58. 5276 .3 26 57. 40% 60% Segment within San Jose is high ridership 79 43. 119 15. DIRIDON route; in Gilroy and Morgan Hill, performing non-ridership express function . 70 Core CAPITOL LRT STN - GREAT 15 15 15 5a-11p 162 03. 4860 6. 30 00. 100% 0% 162 03. - MALL/MAIN 71 Core EASTRIDGE- GREAT MALL/ 15 30 15 530a-10p 64 72. 2074 4. 32 05. 50% 50% 32 .36 32 .36 MAIN 72 Core SENTER/MONTEREY - 15 15-20 15 530a-1030p 73 70. 2556 .3 34 69. 75% 25% High productivity element of the SE San Jose 55 .28 18 43. DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE frequent network grid, but ridership and density is greatest north of Curtner . Monterey and Senter better corridors south of Curtner . 73 Core SNELL & CAPITOL - DOWNTWN 15 20 15 530a-930p 61 82. 2627 5. 42 50. 100% 0% Major all-day frequent or 20 minute corridor . 61 .82 - SAN JOSE 77 Core EASTRIDGE - GREAT MALL/ 15 20 15 6a-930p 74 00. 2293 30 99. 30% 70% 22 .20 51 .80 MAIN 81 Local VALLCO - SAN JOSE STATE 30 30 30-60 630a-830p 47 75. 1051 8. 22 03. 0% 100% Low productivity service to low-density area . - 47 75. 82 Local WESTGATE - DOWNTOWN SAN 30 30 30 6a-9p 47 98. 1349 5. 28 12. 50% 50% Somewhat productive, strong anchors, poten- 23 99. 23 99. JOSE tial grid element, but doesn’t serve a dense east of highway 87 market, and carries few total riders . APPENDIX A: RIDERSHIP / COVERAGE ANALYSIS RIDERSHIP A: / COVERAGE APPENDIX 88 Community VETS HOSP - MIDDLEFIELD & 60 60 60 630a-630p 10 12. 195 7. 19 .34 0% 100% Local coverage route serving low density - 10 12. COLORADO area . 89 Local CALIFORNIA AVE CTRN-VETS 30 30-40 30 630a-630p 7 .33 118 4. 16 15. 0% 100% - 7 .33 HOSPITAL 101 Express CAMDEN & HWY 85 - PALO 2 trips each 5 .27 84 6. 16 06. 0% 100% Express route- serves purposes other than - 5 .27 ALTO direction ridership primarily . 102 Express SOUTH SAN JOSE - PALO ALTO 7 trips each 17 .25 334 .2 19 .37 0% 100% Express route- serves purposes other than - 17 .25 direction ridership primarily . 103 Express EASTRIDGE - PALO ALTO 4 trips each 8 77. 186 .3 21 .25 0% 100% Express route- serves purposes other than - 8 77. direction ridership primarily . 104 Express PENITENCIA TRANS CTR - PALO 2 trips each 5 58. 85 9. 15 .39 0% 100% Express route- serves purposes other than - 5 .58 ALTO direction ridership primarily . 120 Express FREMONT BART - LOCKHEED 6 trips each 12 60. 270 9. 21 50. 0% 100% Express route- serves purposes other than - 12 .60 MARTIN direction ridership primarily .

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 67 14.b Appendix A: Ridership / Coverage Analysis

121 Express GILROY TRANS CTR - 9 trips each 25 .38 370 6. 14 60. 0% 100% Express route- serves purposes other than - 25 .38 LOCKHEED MARTIN direction ridership primarily . 122 Express SOUTH SAN JOSE - LOCKHEED 1 trip each 2 12. 48 8. 23 06. 0% 100% Express route- serves purposes other than - 2 12. MARTIN direction ridership primarily . 140 Express FREMONT BART - M COLL. EGE 3 trips each 6 53. 55 4. 8 48. 0% 100% Express route- serves purposes other than - 6 .53 & MONTAGUE direction ridership primarily . 168 Express GILROY TRANS CTR - SAN JOSE 6 trips each 13 90. 261 4. 18 81. 0% 100% Express route- serves purposes other than - 13 90. DIRIDON direction ridership primarily . 180 Express GREAT MALL/MAIN - FREMONT 30 30 30 530a-10p 31 .23 781 .3 25 01. 0% 100% Duplicates multiple other services traveling - 31 .23 BART north to connect to BART; express service serves purposes other than ridership . 181 Express SAN JOSE DIRIDON - FREMONT 15-30 15 15 530a-12mid 91 12. 2368 9. 26 00. 50% 50% Most productive freeway express route, soon 45 .56 45 .56 BART to be upgraded to FTN . 182 Express PALO ALTO - IBM/BAILEY AVE 1 trip each 2 10. 33 .2 15 81. 0% 100% Express route- serves purposes other than - 2 10. direction ridership primarily . 200 Local BAYPOINTE LRT - MOUNTAIN 2 0 77. - 0% 100% - 0 77. VIEW LRT NB pm trips 201 Community DOWNTOWN AREA SHUTTLE 10 15 10 630a-9p 23 02. 1019 9. 44 .31 0% 100% High productivity, but duplicates a lot of - 23 02. (DASH) other frequent service . Same service could likely be provided with incoming routes . 304 Limited S . SAN JOSE - SUNNYVALE 4 trips each 10 68. 83 4. 7 81. 0% 100% Express route- serves purposes other than - 10 .68 TRANS CTR direction ridership primarily . APPENDIX A: RIDERSHIP / COVERAGE ANALYSIS RIDERSHIP A: / COVERAGE APPENDIX 321 Limited GREAT MALL/MAIN - 1 trip each 1 .30 24 7. 19 00. 0% 100% - 1 .30 LOCKHEED MARTIN direction 323 Core DE ANZA COL - DOWNTOWN 15 15 15 630a-1030p 87 85. 2411 1. 27 45. 80% 20% Ridership-oriented nonstop service, but 70 .28 17 .57 SAN JOSE duplicates high-ridership 23 . 328 Limited ALMADEN VALLEY - LOCKHEED 2 trips each 5 .32 31 5. 5 92. 0% 100% Express route- serves purposes other than - 5 .32 MARTIN direction ridership primarily . 330 Limited ALMADEN VALLEY - TASMAN 4 trips each 10 57. 109 .3 10 .34 0% 100% Express route- serves purposes other than - 10 .57 DRIVE direction ridership primarily . 522 Core PALO ALTO - EASTRIDGE 15 15 15 5a-1030p 218 63. 7034 .3 32 17. 100% 0% Frequent, limited stop service on critical cor- 218 .63 - ridor, will be upgraded to BRT-lite soon .

Transit Choices Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 68 CAC Item #14 PAC Item #14 TAC Item #16

Transit Ridership Improvement Program Transit Choices Report

Advisory Committees March 2016 Transit Ridership Improvement Program

Program Goals • Improve Ridership • Improve Farebox Recovery Rate • Integrate Berryessa and Milpitas BART Stations

Two-Year Program (started 2015) •1 Assessment of VTA’s Current Transit Service •2 Policy Development •3 Partner Education and Involvement •4 Development of VTA’s Next Network

2 Transit Ridership Improvement Program

First deliverable is Transit Choices Report 1. Historical Trends 2. Transit Market Performance Assessment 3. Transit Service and Performance 4. Transit Service Information 5. Key Policy Questions

3 Historical Trends

Santa Clara County and VTA, since 2001: • Population up 10% • Transit service level down 13% • Ridership down 23%

+10%

-13%

-23%

4 Historical Trends

• Moderate increase in average cost/hour of service ‒ Light rail +49%, bus +4% (adjusted for inflation ‒ Declining traffic speeds due to congestion ‒ Changes in labor costs ‒ Increase in light rail service ‒ Increase in types of service that use labor less efficiently

(adjusted for inflation)

5 Historical Trends

• VTA’s farebox recovery is lowest among peers ‒ Average fare per rider ‒ Quantity of fares sold (ridership)

6 Market Assessment

• Santa Clara County is a difficult market for transit

• Productivity is caused by: ‒ Land Use ‒ Street Design ‒ Transit Network

• Recipe for transit success: ‒ Density  Most important factor ‒ Walkability ‒ Linearity ‒ Proximity

7 Market Assessment

• Unbalanced distribution of jobs and housing

Jobs blue

Housing red

8 Transit Service Assessment

• Mismatch between PM boardings and service levels

9 Transit Service Assessment

• Frequency is critical feature of transit service ‒ Frequency makes service useful ‒ Frequency is freedom • Frequent service is every 15-minutes or better ‒ Service is always “coming soon” ‒ Intersection of frequent routes creates network/grid to serve diversity of trips • VTA’s frequent routes are its most productive ‒ Despite their high cost

10 Transit Service Assessment

• VTA has strong frequent network in east San Jose ‒ Strongest market due to development patterns ‒ Density ‒ Walkability ‒ Linearity ‒ Proximity

high ridership in east San Jose

11 Transit Service Information

• Service classes communicate information to riders ‒ Maps, schedules, vehicles, infrastructure • Communicate defining features of a service class ‒ Frequency ‒ Span ‒ Stop spacing and speed • VTA could strengthen brand for its frequent network

LA Metro MetroLiner MetroExpress MetroRapid

MetroLocal 12 Ridership-Coverage Allocation is Key Choice

The only way to increase ridership with a fixed budget is to increase productivity…but productivity is not the only goal of public transit

key policy choice: How to divide resources between goals?

13 Ridership–Coverage Allocation is Key Choice

RIDERSHIP COVERAGE

GOAL IS PRODUCTIVITY GOAL IS SOMETHING OTHER THAN PRODUCTIVITY VTA . High demand areas today . Low demand areas . Productive . Unproductive . Fast, straight, direct 70% 30% . Meandering

14 Next Steps

• Discussion of major policy choices during 2016 ‒ Extensive community outreach this Summer ‒ Community leader workshops ‒ Transit network design class ‒ VTA board committees discussion in Spring, Summer, Fall • Policy choices will guide VTA’s Next Network ‒ Draft network plan will reflect ridership–coverage desire ‒ Draft network plan in December

15 Community Engagement

• Community Meetings, Workshops, Online Tools