Appendix A: BRT Case Study Review

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – Appendices December 2014

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan BRT Industry Review – DRAFT

Prepared for: SamTrans

August 2013

SF13-0692

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1

1.1 Definition of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) ...... 1 1.2 BRT In the SamTrans and El Camino Real Context ...... 2 1.3 Case Studies and Key Lessons Learned ...... 4

2.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 6

2.1 Background of This Study ...... 6 2.2 Purpose of the BRT Case Study Review ...... 6 2.3 Organization of this Review ...... 7

3.0 DEFINITION AND TYPICAL ATTRIBUTES OF BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) SYSTEMS ...... 8

3.1 Industry Definition of BRT ...... 8 3.2 Typical Attributes of BRT ...... 9 3.2.1 Frequent Service ...... 10 3.2.2 Fast and Reliable Service ...... 11 3.2.3 Enhanced Passenger Amenities ...... 22 3.2.4 Distinctive Branded Service ...... 22 3.3 Variants of BRT ...... 24 3.3.1 The Two Families of BRT ...... 24 3.3.2 Formal Differentiation between Rapid and BRT Services ...... 25

4.0 BRT WITHIN THE SAMTRANS CONTEXT ...... 30

4.1 Focus of this BRT Phasing Plan ...... 30 4.2 Proposed Delineation between Rapid and BRT Services for SamTrans ...... 30

5.0 CASE STUDIES ...... 32

5.1 Case Study 1: Metro Rapid – Los Angeles, CA...... 33 5.1.1 Description of the System ...... 33 5.1.2 Key Attributes ...... 34 5.1.3 Performance and Benefits ...... 35

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

5.1.4 Applicability to SamTrans ...... 36 5.2 Case Study 2: AC Transit Rapid – Oakland, CA ...... 37 5.2.1 Description of the System ...... 37 5.2.2 Key Attributes ...... 38 5.2.3 Performance and Benefits ...... 39 5.2.4 Applicability to SamTrans ...... 40 5.3 Case Study 3: Rapid 522 – Santa Clara County, CA ...... 41 5.3.1 Description of the System ...... 41 5.3.2 Key Attributes ...... 42 5.3.3 Performance and Benefits ...... 43 5.3.4 Applicability to SamTrans ...... 43 5.4 Case Study 4: EmX – Eugene, OR ...... 45 5.4.1 Description of the System ...... 45 5.4.2 Key Attributes ...... 45 5.4.3 Performance and Benefits ...... 47 5.4.4 Applicability to SamTrans ...... 47 5.5 Summary of Key Lessons Learned ...... 48 5.6 Next Steps ...... 49

Appendices

Appendix A – Travel Time Savings Benefits from Transit Priority Enhancements (SFMTA)

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

List of Tables

Table 1-1: The Two Families of BRT ...... 1 Table 1-2: Attributes for SamTrans Rapid vs. BRT ...... 2 Table 1-3: List of Four Case Study Systems ...... 4 Table 3-1: Typical BRT Attributes and Specific Strategies ...... 10 Table 3-2: Average Peak Service Headways on Example BRT Systems ...... 11 Table 3-3: The Two Families of BRT ...... 24 Table 3-4: Caltrans Incremental BRT Development Stages ...... 26 Table 3-5: VTA BRT Service Design Guidelines ...... 27 Table 4-1: Attributes for SamTrans Rapid vs. BRT ...... 31 Table 5-1: List of Four Case Study Systems ...... 32 Table 5-2: LA Metro Rapid Attributes (System-Wide) ...... 34 Table 5-3: LA Metro Rapid Performance and System Benefits ...... 35 Table 5-4: AC Transit Rapid Attributes ...... 38 Table 5-5: AC Transit Rapid Performance and System Benefits (72R Only) ...... 39 Table 5-6: VTA Rapid 522 Attributes ...... 42 Table 5-7: VTA Rapid 522 Performance and System Benefits ...... 43 Table 5-8: EmX Attributes ...... 45 Table 5-9: EmX Performance and System Benefits (Franklin Corridor Only)...... 47

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 DEFINITION OF BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)

Although there is no precise definition universally agreed upon, BRT is generally understood to connote bus services that are given priority over general traffic and, at a minimum, operate faster and more reliably than “local bus” service. BRT performance is facilitated by both operational and physical measures that may include some or all of the following elements (which are described in detail in the main report):

• Limited stop service;

• Bus priority at signals and on streets;

• Faster passenger boarding and fare collection;

• Transportation system management enhancements;

• Enhanced passenger amenities; and

• Unique branding.

Many variants of BRT operate in North America and throughout the world – each agency and entity has its own perspective on what constitutes BRT service in the local context. There is general industry consensus, however, that BRT can be delineated into two families based on the level of attributes and investment in each system: Rapid and Full BRT (or just BRT) – as shown in Table 1-1.

TABLE 1-1: THE TWO FAMILIES OF BRT

Type of BRT Typical Attributes Examples

• Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit District 1R & Line 72R These systems typically operate in mixed flow lanes, • Los Angeles County Metropolitan with some degree of signal priority, and likely Transportation Authority (Metro) Rapid branded service and vehicles. Rapid systems, also Rapid sometimes known as “BRT Lite” have minimal • Livermore Amador Valley Transit capital investment. Authority (LAVTA) Rapid • Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Rapid 522

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

TABLE 1-1: THE TWO FAMILIES OF BRT

Type of BRT Typical Attributes Examples

• Greater Cleveland Regional Transit These systems typically have a much higher degree Authority HealthLine of priority and enhancements than Rapid services. • Lane Transit District (LTD) Eugene These systems operate vehicles in dedicated transit Emerald Express (EmX) lanes (or segments of) that allow vehicles to BRT (or Full BRT) • LA Metro Orange Line operate faster and more reliably. Significant capital • VTA Valley Rapid (Future) investments are made to upgrade corridor right-of- • San Francisco Municipal way and stations, to make the riding experience Transportation Authority Van Ness more “rail-like”. BRT (Future)

1.2 BRT IN THE SAMTRANS AND EL CAMINO REAL CONTEXT

In the context of this El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan, the goal of this study is to first develop a short- and long-term BRT strategy. At present, SamTrans does not operate Rapid or BRT service on the El Camino Corridor. According to the Project Brief, the 2006 El Camino Real Bus Corridor Origin and Destination Survey recommended the implementation of a Rapid service to “prime the pump” for an anticipated BRT service, and that current densities are insufficient to support full-BRT. As such, it seems logical to conclude that for this analysis and development of this Phasing Plan:

• The short-term operating plan and phasing plan should focus on Rapid bus service. • The long-term operating plan and phasing plan should focus on more capitally intensive BRT services.

Based on the categorization of Rapid and BRT services by other counterpart entities, Table 1-2 presents the potential attributes for Rapid and BRT service tiers for the SamTrans and El Camino Real context.

TABLE 1-2: ATTRIBUTES FOR SAMTRANS RAPID VS. BRT

Typical BRT Specific Strategy/Strategies Rapid BRT Attribute

Frequent All- Frequent all-day, bi-directional service X X Day Service

Longer stop spacing X x Fast and Reliable Operational measures Service o Turn prohibitions / exemptions X X

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

TABLE 1-2: ATTRIBUTES FOR SAMTRANS RAPID VS. BRT

Typical BRT Specific Strategy/Strategies Rapid BRT Attribute

o Low-floor vehicles X X

o Level boarding facilities X

o All-door boarding/alighting X

o Off-board fare payment X

Transportation system management o X X enhancements and labeled as Appendix A

Transit priority measures

o Transit Signal Priority (TSP) X X

o Bulbouts X X

o Queue jump lanes X X

o Dedicated transit lanes

. Reserved lanes X

. At-grade busway X

. Grade-separated busway X

Enhanced More substantial stations X Passenger Amenities Real-time information X X

Distinctive Branded and specially marketed service X X Branded Service Specialized vehicles X X

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

1.3 CASE STUDIES AND KEY LESSONS LEARNED

Four case studies are reviewed in this document as applicable examples for the SamTrans context:

TABLE 1-3: LIST OF FOUR CASE STUDY SYSTEMS

Type of Service Name of Service Region Operator

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Rapid Metro Rapid Los Angeles, CA (USA) Transportation Authority (LA Metro)

Alameda/Contra Costa Transit District Rapid Rapid Oakland, CA (USA) (AC Transit)

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Rapid Rapid 522 Santa Clara County, CA (USA) Authority (VTA)

BRT EmX Eugene, OR (USA) Lane Transit District (LTD)

Several recurring themes, which are applicable to the future planning of the SamTrans El Camino Real BRT, are apparent:

• “Packages” of Strategies Are Most Effective at Reducing Travel Time and Improving Reliability - No single strategy outweighs the benefits of packaging strategies together to achieve maximum time savings or reliability. All Rapid or BRT elements contribute to the effectiveness of the service – whether it is longer stop spacing, level boarding, or TSP, etc. As noted below though, longer stop spacing (or skip stop service) is most effective at reduce travel times and is typically part of the initial phasing of any BRT system. Other measures complement longer stop spacing to incrementally improve travel time and/or reliability such as TSP and level boarding.

• Longer Stop Spacing Is Viewed As Most Effective – From the travel time savings assessments and anecdotal evidence, reducing stops comprised the largest element in travel time savings. This is also the easiest strategy to implement. There is some question, however, over what is the second most effective strategy – some agencies identify traffic signal coordination, while others identify level boarding. What is important to take away though is that the combination of these strategies generates the highest benefits.

• Significant Benefits Can Be Generated with Minimal Capital Investment – Significant benefits can be generated from low-cost strategies such as reducing the number of stops, TSP, and signal coordination. While dedicated lanes and rail-like stations can generate certain benefits, they come with a significant added capital investment that may not be worth the marginal benefit.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

• Most Agencies Implement TSP on Continuous Stretches to Maximize Benefit – VTA, AC Transit, and LA Metro all implement TSP along most portions of their Rapid systems. EmX provides TSP on only one-third of intersections along the route – however this should be viewed more as an anomaly than the norm, as Eugene is significantly smaller and less dense than the other three regions.

• Conditional TSP Should Be Considered – AC Transit and LA Metro provide conditional TSP for their Rapid systems. This prevents “early” buses from receiving priority and can help balance headways and prevent bus bunching from an early bus catching up to a late bus.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 BACKGROUND OF THIS STUDY

The 2010 Grand Boulevard’s Initiative Multimodal Corridor Plan (GBI Corridor Plan) identified the need for improvements in both transportation and land use along the El Camino Corridor.1 In San Mateo County, the El Camino Corridor is expected to experience an increase of over 24,800 households and 90,800 jobs between 2005 and 2035 using 2007 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projections. Several past studies identified BRT as feasible along the corridor.

Under this backdrop, the El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Phasing Plan seeks to define how enhanced transit service can attract sufficient ridership and achieve cost-effective performance. The Phasing Plan seeks to identify and develop the following:

• Costs and benefits of a BRT system;

• Essential system components;

• Stakeholder support;

• Ridership demand analysis;

• Operating and capital cost estimates;

• Network integration with existing and future SamTrans, VTA and Muni bus systems;

• Funding strategy; and

• Phasing and implementation plan.

2.2 PURPOSE OF THE BRT CASE STUDY REVIEW

The BRT Case Study Review is one of the first tasks of the larger BRT Phasing Plan. The Review is intended to inform SamTrans, key stakeholders, agencies, and cities about the:

• Typical attributes that define BRT service and quality;

• Potential benefits of various BRT attributes;

1 Grand Boulevard Multimodal Transportation Corridor Plan, The Grand Boulevard Initiative, October 2010.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

• Types of BRT in operation today in North America;

• The type of BRT being considered for this El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan; and

• Key lessons learned from implementation and operation of BRT at other agencies.

2.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REVIEW

This review is organized into four sections:

• Section 2.0: Introduction (this Section) – This section describes the background of the study and the purpose of this BRT Industry Review.

• Section 3.0: Definition and Typical Attributes of Bus Rapid Transit Systems – This section presents the industry definition of BRT as well as the typical attributes of BRT systems. This section also presents how other agencies and entities classify different tiers of BRT.

• Section 4.0: BRT within the SamTrans Context – This section discusses how BRT should be categorized and classified in the SamTrans context. It also lays out the attributes for different types of BRT based on Section 3.0 findings.

• Section 5.0: Case Studies – This section presents relevant BRT case studies and identifies applicable strategies and lessons learned for the El Camino and SamTrans context.

• Appendix A - Appendix A presents a table depicting the expected travel time savings from implementation of various transit priority measures for the on-going San Francisco MTA’s Transit Effectiveness Project or TEP. Anticipated TEP time savings benefits are quantified discretely from other measures such as longer stop spacing, stop relocation, etc. t should be noted that some of the material presented in this review is based on that from the VTA’s Service Design Guidelines as well as VTA’s BRT Strategic Plan, both of these efforts were led by Arup.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

3.0 DEFINITION AND TYPICAL ATTRIBUTES OF BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) SYSTEMS

This section presents the industry definition of BRT and typical attributes of BRT systems. It concludes with a comparison of how agencies differentiate between various tiers of BRT service.

3.1 INDUSTRY DEFINITION OF BRT

The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) defines BRT as a “flexible, rubber-tired rapid-transit mode that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) elements into an integrated system…BRT applications are designed to be appropriate to the market they serve and their physical surroundings, and they can be incrementally implemented in a variety of environments”.2 The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) defines BRT as a “rapid mode of transportation that can provide the quality of rail transit and the flexibility of buses”.3

Although there is no precise definition that is universally BRT is generally understood to connote agreed upon, BRT is generally understood to connote bus services that are given priority over bus services that are given priority over general traffic general traffic and, at a minimum, operate and, at a minimum, operate faster and more reliably faster and more reliably than “local bus” than “local bus” service. BRT performance is facilitated service. by both operational and physical measures that may include some or all of the following elements:

• Limited stop service;

• Bus priority at signals and on streets;

• Faster passenger boarding and fare collection;

• Transportation system management enhancements;

• Enhanced passenger amenities; and

• Unique branding.

2 Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 90, Bus Rapid Transit – Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit, Transportation Research Board, 2003. 3 Thomas, E. 2001. Presentation at Institute of Transportation Engineers meeting, Chicago (August).

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

In many cases, BRT service is meant to provide “rail-like” service and amenities, while being more flexible and economical.

BRT, as it is known today, originates from Latin America in the 1970s, where funding to build rail rapid transit systems was scarce. Cities such as Curitiba in Brazil led the way by developing rubber-tire bus- based transit systems operating with fewer stops and in dedicated at-grade rights-of-way with enhanced stations and intermodal transfer hubs as well as specialized vehicles (including articulated and double- articulated vehicles).

In the 1990s, North American agencies started to take notice and introduced BRT-like routes with different color schemes, names, marketing campaigns, and sometimes even fare structures. Vehicles, services, and branding started to provide a “rail-like” experience – the focus was not only on improving riding conditions, but also improving the level of service to attract non-riders.

3.2 TYPICAL ATTRIBUTES OF BRT

The following sub-sections describe typical attributes of BRT systems (as identified in TCRP Report 90) that separate BRT from local bus service. Table 3-1 identifies four key attributes and various underlying strategies of these attributes. While some BRT systems may not incorporate all four of these attributes, they typically incorporate several of these attributes – which collectively separate BRT as a premium and enhanced service over local bus.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

TABLE 3-1: TYPICAL BRT ATTRIBUTES AND SPECIFIC STRATEGIES

Typical BRT Attribute Specific Strategy/Strategies

Frequent All-Day Service • Frequent all-day, bi-directional service

• Longer stop spacing • Operational measures o Turn prohibitions / exemptions o Low-floor vehicles o Level boarding facilities o All-door boarding/alighting o Off-board fare payment Transportation system management enhancements Fast and Reliable Service o • Transit priority measures o Transit Signal Priority (TSP) o Bulbouts o Queue jump lanes o Dedicated transit lanes . Reserved lanes . At-grade busway . Grade-separated busway

• More substantial stations Enhanced Passenger Amenities • Real-time information

• Branded and specially marketed service Distinctive Branded Service • Specialized vehicles

3.2.1 FREQUENT SERVICE

Rail rapid transit is renowned for frequent all-day service Frequent BRT service is typically between in both directions. Vehicle arrivals are frequent enough 10-12 minutes in the peak, and 15-30 that riders can “show up” without consulting a schedule minutes in the off-peak. and experience relatively short waiting periods. BRT tries to mimic this level of service with all-day, bi-directional frequent service. This characteristic is important for encouraging the public to rely on rapid transit for their local travel needs as well as to attract non-riders and choice riders.

“Frequent service” is a relative term that varies among agencies. Among agencies operating BRT-type service in North America, the typical peak operating headway can be between 10 to 12 minutes during the weekday, and 15 to 30 minutes during off-peak hours (and possibly longer during early morning, late

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

evening, and Sunday operations).4 Systems operating in their own dedicated transit lanes can often operate at much lower headways though. Examples include:

TABLE 3-2: AVERAGE PEAK SERVICE HEADWAYS ON EXAMPLE BRT SYSTEMS

Operating Agency / Average Peak BRT System Running Way Type Location Headway (Minutes)

AC Transit / Central AC Transit 1R and Line 72R Mixed flow 12 Alameda County, CA

Kansas City Area Transportation KCATA / Kansas City, Mixed flow and segments of 10 Authority (KCATA) MAX MO dedicated median bus lane

LA Metro Orange Line Metro / Los Angeles, CA Dedicated busway 4

LAVTA / Eastern LAVTA Rapid Mixed flow 15 Alameda County, CA

VTA / Santa Clara Mixed flow and segments of VTA Valley Rapid (future service) 10-12 County, CA dedicated median bus lane

BRT systems typically operate bi-directionally all-day to better serve the needs of higher-density, multi- use corridors that generate trips all-day, not just during the peak periods. This characteristic distinctly separates BRT from commuter transportation (such as express bus service) in that the latter may only operate during the peak periods or in the peak direction of travel.

3.2.2 FAST AND RELIABLE SERVICE

Fast and reliable service – both actual and perceived – is another hallmark of rail rapid transit that BRT seeks to mimic. Achieving fast, reliable, and time-competitive transit journeys is paramount to keeping existing riders, but also attracting choice users that currently drive. Compared to local bus services, BRT can operate faster and more reliably by implementing: (i) longer stop spacing; (ii) operational measures such as turn restrictions, level boarding, and off-board fare payment; (iii) transit priority measures including specialized signals and queue jump lanes; and (iv) some form of dedicated transit lane. While longer stop spacing is relatively inexpensive and easy to implement, dedicated lanes are the most expensive strategy and the most difficult to implement.

These elements are described below.

4 Most BRT systems also operate on a headway, rather than schedule basis – meaning that a bus is evaluated “early” or “late” against its expected arrival headway at a given station.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

3.2.2.1 Longer Stop Spacing

Along a long route, incremental delay and variability Longer stop spacing is the easiest way to from frequent stops (including dwell times as well as improve travel speeds and reliability merge times) can result in a significant reduction in travel speed and on-time performance. Reducing the number of stops served (and thus increasing stop spacing) is the easiest way to improve travel speeds and reliability. Local buses typically stop every quarter mile or less in some cases, while agencies typically implement half-mile stop spacing for BRT services. Implementing longer stop spacing is one of the least expensive strategies to improve speed and reliability, but is less visible and prominent to the public than installing physical infrastructure to speed buses (such as a queue jump lane or dedicated bus lane).

Under this strategy, BRT serves higher demand stops and major origin/destination nodes, while skipping low demand stops or those located in less transit-supportive areas. Psychologically, the trip seems faster for passengers, who perceive a continuous movement uninterrupted by stops every few blocks. Often, but not always, implementation of longer stop spacing for BRT is accompanied by the continuation of less frequent local bus service to maintain local connectivity to/from lower demand stops/areas not served by BRT.

3.2.2.2 Operational Measures

A variety of “operational measures” can be implemented to Turn prohibitions can improve traffic speed BRT vehicles and improve reliability. through intersections and help buses run faster. 3.2.2.2.1 Turn Prohibitions / Exemptions

Vehicles making left turns block intersections and delay through traffic in the opposite direction. Vehicles making right turns can delay through traffic while waiting for pedestrians to cross the street. Prohibiting left and/or right turns at particular intersections can have significant benefits to transit travel times and reliability by minimizing interruptions to through transit and general traffic flow.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

Another strategy is called transit exemption. Transit exemption in right-hand turn lanes allows for transit through movements, while general traffic must turn right. Likewise, the exemption may allow transit vehicles to make turning movements where general traffic is prohibited from doing so. These strategies give transit “priority” over automobiles. Exemption is often implemented to allow transit vehicles to enter Source: FHWA bus stations or transit centers without having to merge in and/or out of mixed flow traffic congestion on through lanes. Exemption functions similar to queue jump lanes defined in Section 3.2.2.3.3, except the latter typically involve separate bus signal phasing.

In the El Camino Real context, two exemptions are in place on El Camino Real at Hillsdale Blvd. in San Mateo, and at Ravenswood Ave. in Menlo Park. These lanes are controlled with “bus exempt” signs on the right-turn only lanes allowing bus through movement, but no special bus signal phase. VTA also has two similar facilities along El Camino Real (but VTA refers to them as queue jump lanes, even though there are no special bus phases at these locations).

A request for additional exemption lanes has been made to the Service Planning Committee (as of June 20, 2013) at five locations along El Camino Real to improve on-time performance and efficiency of the new ECR route (which essentially combines the 390 and 391 into a single service operating at 15-minute headways along the entire corridor through San Mateo County):

• Northbound El Camino Real and Second Avenue in San Mateo;

• Southbound El Camino Real and Broadway in Redwood City;

• Southbound El Camino Real and Jefferson in Redwood City;

• Northbound El Camino Real and Jefferson in Redwood City; and

• Southbound El Camino Real and Valparaiso in Menlo Park.

3.2.2.2.2 Faster Loading/Unloading

The time it takes to board and alight a transit vehicle has impacts on dwell time, which can collectively add up along a long route. Loading/unloading can be accelerated through one of the following strategies:

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

• Low-Floor Vehicles - Buses that must “kneel” or require a “step-up” for passengers – either Fast loading/unloading is an important because the vehicle is high-floor or because of a element of BRT that can reduce dwell time significant vertical differential between the bus – this can be achieved with low-floor and the loading area/platform – require a vehicles, level boarding, and all-door longer time to board and alight than low-floor boarding/alighting vehicles. Dwell time for wheelchair and ADA riders using high-floor vehicles can be significant, particularly when a lift is activated.

• Level Boarding Facilities - In some cases, BRT systems have dedicated platforms that allow direct boarding into buses without a “step.” Eugene’s EmX BRT is one example of a system employing level boarding. The planned SFMTA Van Ness BRT system is another.

• All-Door Boarding/Alighting - Faster loading/unloading can also be accomplished with all-door boarding and alighting. BRT systems adopting this strategy often use off-board fare payment as well (described below). SFMTA has implemented this program recently system wide. RFID card readers are required at all doors for all-door boarding and alighting.

3.2.2.2.3 Off-Board Fare Payment

The exchange of cash or the validation of a commuter Off-board fare payment reduces boarding pass can also increase dwell time. In the SamTrans times, but is expensive to implement and context, while the use of Clipper has reduced dwell time requires more intense fare inspection impacts for riders, not every rider uses or has a Clipper card. Off-board fare payment, typically facilitated for BRT with ticket vending machines (TVMs) similar to those at Caltrain and Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) stations, can speed the boarding process significantly by minimizing the driver-rider interaction. As noted, off-board fare payment is typically implemented along with all-door boarding.

In practice, most BRT systems adopt off-board fare payment and TVMs to provide a more “rail-like” experience. Often, these elements accompany systems with dedicated bus lanes and enhanced, rail-like stations. A strict and comprehensive fare inspection process needs to be in place to discourage fare evasion.

3.2.2.2.4 Transportation System Management Enhancements

Another potential attribute of BRT is the implementation of various transportation system management enhancements. The typical goal of these enhancements is to improve on-the-ground operations and

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

effectiveness through schedule efficiencies, and changes in fleet type, service frequency, hours of operation, and Transit signal priority is a typical hallmark network structure allow operators to match the right of BRT systems, allowing buses to type and level of service to areas with corresponding minimize intersection stoppage along the demand for transit. These enhancements also include journey in-line management strategies including real-time dispatching, real-time monitoring of bus movements and traffic conditions, refinement of layover time, and deadheading assist operators in planning for delays due to peak-hour traffic.

3.2.2.3 Transit Priority Measures

Measures that give transit “priority” over general traffic include both operational and physical elements as described below.

3.2.2.3.1 Transit Signal Priority (TSP)

Generally, TSP can be implemented in two manners: (i) passively, where signals are programmed to align with transit running times or to optimize general traffic flow (this is done in the Denver Transit Mall); or (ii) actively, where priority is granted to a bus after it is detected. Active priority is either: (i) conditional, where only late buses are given priority (as is done on AC Transit’s San Pablo Rapid and Los Angeles’s Metro Rapid) or (ii) unconditional, where all buses Source: Sustainable Transportation in the are given priority regardless of whether they are early or late Netherlands (as is done in for the Santa Clara County portion of the El Camino Corridor for VTA).5

Typical active TSP strategies include: (i) extending the green cycle (i.e., green extension), which elongates the green time to allow an approaching bus to cross the intersection; or (ii) truncating the red cycle (i.e.,

5 For systems adopting headway-based schedule control, a bus is evaluated “early” or “late” against its expected arrival headway at a given station.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

early green), which shortens the red time so that a bus experiences a shorter time waiting at the intersection.

3.2.2.3.2 Bulbouts

Bus bulbouts, often referred to as curb extensions, Bulbouts reduce the merge times for buses effectively extend the curb at bus stops into the parking to serve curbside stops, but may impact lane, allowing buses to stop in the nearest traffic lane following traffic on narrow streets instead of at the curb lane when loading/unloading. Bulbouts can reduce bus merge times into and out of general mixed flow traffic lanes, while also creating more space for bus shelters and street furniture. Bulbouts can impact general traffic flow as buses stop in the mixed flow lanes, reducing throughput capacity, and forcing vehicles behind the bus to wait if they are unable to pass.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

3.2.2.3.3 Queue Jump Lanes

Queue jump lanes, also known as queue Queue jump lanes are typically implemented in jumpers or exempt lanes, are short segments of right-turn lanes and allow transit to continue priority lanes at specific locations. In the US through the intersection while general traffic turns context, queue jump lanes are typically in right- right. Queue jump lanes are typically enabled by a hand turn lanes and allow for transit through special bus phase or transit signal priority. movements.6 Queue jump lanes are enabled by a special bus signal phase or signal priority to allow the bus to move ahead of general purpose traffic.

Queue jump lanes can permit transit vehicles to bypass queues at congested intersections, bridge approaches and toll plazas, etc. and can reduce transit delay, improve travel speeds, and increase reliability. Queue jump lanes can also be deployed to allow transit vehicles to more effectively transition into and out of median bus lanes to serve curbside stops. No queue jump lanes currently exist along El Camino Real. Source: City of Chandler, AZ

6 Right-turning vehicles from the cross street, accustomed to turning on red, must be controlled to prevent conflicts with the through-moving transit vehicles. Control is typically achieved through one or more of the following methods: (i) signs banning right turns on red; (ii) yield or stop signs; (iii) special right-turn signals; and (iv) channelization to give right-turn vehicles better visibility of oncoming transit vehicles.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

3.2.2.4 Dedicated Transit Lanes

Transit operating in mixed flow lanes is subject to delay and conflict from other vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. Thus, stretches of dedicated transit lane(s) for exclusive transit use can be one of the most important factors, aside from implementing longer stop spacing, in achieving faster and more reliable service. Dedicated lanes are a visible and permanent commitment to providing priority to transit over general traffic.

Dedicated transit lanes can have significant benefits to travel time and reliability, but are costly and difficult to implement

Source: TheGreenCarWebsite.co.uk

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

While not all BRT systems operate in dedicated transit lanes, those that do are often able to operate at much higher speeds and carry much higher peak loads than BRT systems operating in mixed flow traffic. From the rider perspective, dedicated transit lanes may have an even stronger psychological impact, by allowing vehicles to bypass congestion and operate unimpeded in the transit lane.

However, implementing stretches of dedicated transit lanes is expensive, requires support both politically and financially from stakeholder cities, the business communities, and residents, and is typically difficult to achieve, especially if current mixed flow lanes are “re-allocated” for transit-only purposes. The re- allocation of mixed-flow lanes to dedicated bus lanes can have a significant impact to levels of service.

Dedicated transit lanes may be implemented along an entire corridor, or in a portion or portions of a corridor. Operationally, these lanes may function as:

• Peak-Only Lanes – Transit vehicles operate in these lanes during peak hours only. Outside of the peak, general traffic can operate in the lane as well. Often, peak-only lanes are implemented in the peak direction of travel and achieved by instituting parking bans during the peak. Buses then operate in the vacated parking lanes. This strategy has minimal Source: flickr.com physical infrastructure costs as no construction is required. This is the strategy employed in Vancouver along many arterials including the Broadway Corridor and Georgia Street, and in Washington DC suburbs such as Silver Springs (these lanes function as reversible peak-only lane).

• All-Day Lanes – Lanes are for exclusive transit use throughout the day. This strategy is typically the most expensive types as the lanes require some degree of physical segregation from adjacent traffic as well as enforcement.

• Reversible Lanes – In some right-of-way constrained sections, sufficient width may exist for only one dedicated transit lane. Some systems operate short reversible (or bi-directional) single lane segments so both travel directions can benefit from the dedicated transit segment. Functioning similar to a single track segment of rail, signals control movement into and out of the lane. Eugene’s EmX operates one short segment of reversible lane, while VTA’s Stevens Creek BRT Corridor has proposed such a lane through the congested and constrained Valley Fair section.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

• Contraflow Lanes – Contraflow transit lanes are often implemented on one- way streets, where transit operates in the opposite direction of the surrounding lanes. This allows two-way operation of the bus, while general traffic operates in one direction. Contraflow lanes can maximize spare capacity on a road and allow for more direct routings in areas with significant one-way road networks. Boston’s Silver Line operates a contraflow segment on Source: Google Street View Washington Street.

Three types of dedicated transit lanes exist – these are described below.

3.2.2.4.1 Reserved Lanes

Reserved lanes for transit are comprised of curb bus lanes, median busways, or reserved freeway lanes. Typically, these lanes are implemented by “re-allocating” existing mixed flow travel lanes to exclusive transit use. These lanes are typically physically separated from adjacent traffic through colored pavement, bollards, raised pavement, as well as short, mountable concrete medians.

The Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) Source: Arup (Mexico City, TransMetro) operates in a dedicated curbside lane (i.e., the right-most lane). Most agencies deploying reserved lanes, however, operate median bus lanes to avoid right-turn and parking conflicts. Median bus lanes can be configured with: (i) side platforms, which allow for right-side boarding, but also require a platform for each direction; or (ii) center platforms, which have a wider waiting area to serve both directions, but require either contraflow operations for right-side boarding or specialized vehicles allowing dual-side boarding. Cleveland’s HealthLine BRT and Eugene’s EmX systems use a center platform configuration with dual-side boarding vehicles. VTA’s proposed BRT system would operate with side platforms. Mexico City’s TransMetro is a large-scale example of BRT operating in median bus lanes on city streets.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

3.2.2.4.2 At-Grade Busway

The LA Metro Orange Line and the Miami-Dade Busway both operate as at-grade busways. At-grade busways are built in their own right-of-way (often abandoned rail corridors). Interaction with mixed flow traffic is limited to intersections and the entry and exit points of the busway. Transit typically operates much faster and more reliably than in reserved lanes which are still subject to mixed flow interference. Speed is limited by the number of mixed flow traffic crossings.

3.2.2.4.3 Grade-Separated Busway

The Ottawa Transitway and the Pittsburgh Busway operate as exclusive busways that provide complete physical separation from mixed flow traffic. Unlike at-grade busways, there are no crossings with mixed flow traffic. These BRT systems operate similar to rail rapid transit systems such as BART. They can achieve the fastest operating speeds, the highest reliability, and carry the highest hourly loads of the

various types of BRT systems. Source: Wikimedia

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

3.2.3 ENHANCED PASSENGER AMENITIES

BRT services also may include enhanced passenger amenities to improve the perceived and actual transit experience. Typical amenities are described below.

3.2.3.1 More Substantial Stations

BRT typically has enhanced and more robust stations to Enhanced passenger stations and waiting improve the passenger waiting experience. Amenities areas are one facet of BRT, but are typically can range from simple and more elegant stylized implemented at high demand stops first. shelters to more elaborate rail-like stations with high platforms and large seated waiting areas. High quality materials may also be used for the facility. Other amenities may include better lighting, sheltered waiting areas, real-time passenger information, ticket vending machines, etc.

3.2.3.2 Real-Time Information Source: VTA Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking of transit vehicles combined with knowledge of real-time traffic conditions allows transit agencies to provide up-to-date real-time passenger information such as expected arrival times and journey times both at the wayside and aboard vehicles through variable message signs and announcements, as well as through smartphones and other handheld devices. Real- time information systems can reduce perceived waiting times and improve the attractiveness of transit and use Real-time information is provided by many of transit. Implementation of real-time information agencies. For BRT, it is essential as it systems may not be warranted at all BRT stops initially – mimics the reliability and quality of rail. thus such systems are usually phased in to prioritize high demand stops first, and low demand stops later.

3.2.4 DISTINCTIVE BRANDED SERVICE

To separate BRT from local and express bus service in the minds of the riders but also non-riders, agencies typically brand BRT as a distinctive service. This branding is carried through for the entire “package”, primarily in terms of service, vehicles, and stops.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

3.2.4.1 Branded and Specially Marketed Service

To leverage the noted advantages of BRT, most Agencies market BRT as a premium service agencies market BRT as an elite, premium brand of and typically give it a catchy and service. The goal is to create the perception among memorable nickname – EmX, the Rapid, riders and non-riders that BRT is faster, more reliable, the HealthLine, etc. comfortable and “hip” than local service operating in the same corridor and a viable alternative to the automobile. Specialized branding may include:

• A unique name or route numbering for BRT, which can imply an elite level of service over local bus;

• Unique painting, bus wrapping, or logo for BRT vehicles;

• Specially chosen colors schemes and logos for BRT marketing materials, stop signs, and maps; and Image: City of Brampton, Ontario

• Targeted marketing campaigns to extol the benefits of BRT over local bus and possibly the automobile.

3.2.4.2 Specialized Vehicles

Agencies typically deploy BRT buses that are distinctive BRT systems typically deploy specialized from local buses both in appearance (for instance vehicles that differentiate the service from branding, color scheme, and logo), but also in make and regular local bus. Vehicles sometimes have model. Sleek and contoured vehicles that look more a rail-like appearance and feel to “rail-like” in appearance have been adopted at many emphasize the premium service. agencies, with low-floors for faster entry and exit, and nicer interior seating. Several BRT systems have introduced dual-side door vehicles to allow both left-side (for center platform configurations) and right-side boarding. Several agencies have likewise selected energy-efficient or zero-emission propulsion vehicles to further differentiate and bring greater publicity to the service. In addition, some BRT vehicles are equipped with Wi-Fi to further differentiate service. The VTA’s Valley Rapid plans to make all BRT vehicles Wi-Fi capable.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

3.3 VARIANTS OF BRT

This section discusses the two main variants of BRT and how other organizations/entities have tried to distinguish between different BRT systems.

3.3.1 THE TWO FAMILIES OF BRT

TABLE 3-3: THE TWO FAMILIES OF BRT

Type of BRT Typical Attributes Examples

These systems typically operate in mixed flow lanes, with • AC Transit 1R & Line 72R some degree of signal priority, and likely branded service • Los Angeles Metro Rapid Rapid and vehicles. Rapid systems, also sometimes known as “BRT • LAVTA Rapid Lite” have minimal capital investment. • VTA Rapid 522

These systems typically have a much higher degree of • Cleveland HealthLine priority and enhancements than Rapid services. These • Eugene EmX systems operate vehicles in dedicated transit lanes (or • Los Angeles Metro Orange BRT (or Full BRT) segments of) that allow vehicles to operate faster and more Line reliably. Significant capital investments are made to upgrade • VTA Valley Rapid (Future) corridor right-of-way and stations, to make the riding • SFMTA Van Ness BRT experience more “rail-like”. (Future)

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

3.3.2 FORMAL DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN RAPID AND BRT SERVICES

Several transit agencies and entities have attempted to For the remainder of this review and study, formally differentiate between the two tiers of enhanced the following terms will be used: service (Rapid vs. BRT) to better define service expectations to the public and to stakeholders. Rapid will connote systems that operate in mixed flow lanes with some degree of The following sections present how different agencies signal priority and minimal capital and entities differentiate between Rapid and BRT investment. services. It is notable that while there are slight nuances in how the entities define Rapid and BRT services – all BRT will connote more capital intensive similarly conclude that (as described in Table 3-3): systems with dedicated transit lanes, robust and enhanced stations, and more • Rapid connotes systems that operate in mixed rail-like amenities. flow lanes with some degree of signal priority and minimal capital investment.

• BRT connotes more capital intensive systems with dedicated transit lanes, robust and enhanced stations, and more rail-like amenities.

3.3.2.1 CalTrans BRT Handbook for Partners

In February 2007, CalTrans published its Bus Rapid Transit – A Handbook for Partners. This handbook was meant to inform Caltrans staff and other stakeholders about what elements comprise a BRT system. Table 3-4 presents the various stages of BRT implementation leading to “full BRT” operations. The “Initial BRT Stage” represents Rapid type services which operate in mixed flow traffic lanes with some form of transit priority. BRT requires greater investment but is typically more effective through allocation or implementation of dedicated bus lanes and transit running ways to provide separation from mixed flow vehicles.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

TABLE 3-4: CALTRANS INCREMENTAL BRT DEVELOPMENT STAGES

Source: Caltrans Bus Rapid Transit – A Handbook for Partners, California Department of Transportation, February 2007.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

3.3.2.2 VTA Service Design Guidelines

The VTA Service Design Guidelines (included within its 2007 Transit Sustainability Policy) define the typical attributes and minimum performance thresholds of Rapid service versus full-fledged BRT as presented Table 3-5 which was adapted from various tables in the Guidelines.7

Similar to the Caltrans working definition of BRT, VTA defines Rapid and BRT services as follows (this definition is from the BRT Strategic Plan’s State of the Industry Review):

• Rapid (known as BRT 1 in the Service Design Guidelines) - A premium level of service, with higher operating speeds, greater reliability, and fewer stops than local bus service. Buses and stations are brand identified, typically with standard amenities, such as shelters, benches, and real-time passenger information. BRT 1 primarily operates in mixed flow traffic lanes. Time- savings is generated from reducing the number of stops served and from transit priority elements such as signal priority, queue jump lanes, or bulbouts.

• BRT (known as BRT 2 in the Service Design Guidelines) - An enhanced service with dedicated running ways (or transitways), both on- and off-street, as well as high-capacity stations with enhanced amenities on par with those for light or heavy rail, and possibly passing lanes at stations to allow different types of routes and bypass flexibility. On-street facilities may be in the center median or at the curbside. Travel time savings accrue and reliability increases since BRT vehicles are not subject to mixed traffic delays. Capital costs for BRT are significantly higher than for Rapid systems.

Table 3-5 below presents how VTA delineates between Rapid and BRT services.

TABLE 3-5: VTA BRT SERVICE DESIGN GUIDELINES

Type of Service

Typical Attributes Rapid BRT

All-Day, Frequent Service X X

Limited Stops X X

Simplified Routing X X Service Elements Specialized Vehicles X X

More Robust Stops X

Rail-Like Stations X

7 It is noted that in the Guidelines, the official moniker of Rapid service is BRT 1, while BRT service is known as BRT 2. VTA’s various BRT corridors, however, are not known to the public as BRT 2.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

TABLE 3-5: VTA BRT SERVICE DESIGN GUIDELINES

Type of Service

Typical Attributes Rapid BRT

Off Vehicle Fare Payment X

Operates in Mixed-flow Lanes X

Operates in Peak Period Lanes X Runningway Operates in Dedicated Bus Lanes X

Operates in Dedicated Transitway X

Transit (Bus) Signal Priority X X Transit Priority Queue Jump Lanes X X Elements Bulbouts (Curb Extensions) X X

Avg. Boardings per Revenue Hour 45 55

Avg. Boardings per Station 150 350 Service Design Guideline (SDG) Avg. Boardings per Route Mile 200 350-475 Standards Residential Corridor Density (Minimum 12-16 12-16 Dwelling Units / Acre)

Higher Investment Costs X Other Attributes Brand Identity X X

Source: VTA BRT Service Design Guidelines, 2007.

3.3.2.3 LA Metro’s Transit Service Policy

LA Metro published its Transit Service Policy in 2011. This Policy outlines the different tiers of service Metro provides. It specifically differentiates between its Rapid (called Metro Rapid) and its BRT (called Metro Liner) services as follows:

• Metro Rapid (Rapid) – The Policy defines Metro Rapid service as “expedited arterial bus service operating on heavily traveled corridors. Time reductions are achieved through the use of fewer bus stops, transit signal priority, and peak period bus lanes. Metro Rapid buses use specially branded buses and enhanced bus stops at selected locations that include special shelters, information kiosks, and “Next Trip” displays.” Well known Metro Rapid routes include the Wilshire-Whittier Rapid and the Ventura Rapid.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

• Metro Liner (BRT) – The Policy defines Metro Liner service as “expedited BRT service operated on its own exclusive right-of-way on either arterials or freeways with dedicated transit stations.” Metro Liner service incorporates a series of design feastures including dedicated bus lanes, high- capacity vehicles, transit signal priority, enhanced bus stations and shelters, enhanced streetscapes, and improved fare collection with TVMs at select stations.” The Metro Orange and Silver Lines are examples of such services.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

4.0 BRT WITHIN THE SAMTRANS CONTEXT

This section discusses how BRT should be categorized and classified in the SamTrans context. It also lays out the attributes for different types of BRT based on Section 3.0 findings.

4.1 FOCUS OF THIS BRT PHASING PLAN

• The short-term operating plan and phasing plan should focus on Rapid bus service, which For this Phasing Plan: include lower cost enhancements such as wider stop spacing and transit priority, as corridor The short-term operating plan and conditions are not suitable for significant full- phasing plan should focus on Rapid bus scale BRT investment (i.e., ridership, densities, service. etc.). The long-term operating plan and • The long-term operating plan and phasing phasing plan should focus on more plan should focus on more capitally intensive BRT services, possibly with dedicated transit capitally intensive BRT services. lane segments and/or rail-like amenities.

4.2 PROPOSED DELINEATION BETWEEN RAPID AND BRT SERVICES FOR SAMTRANS

Based on the categorization of Rapid and BRT services by other counterpart entities in Section 3.3, Table 4-1 presents the potential attributes for Rapid and BRT service tiers for the SamTrans and El Camino Real context.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

TABLE 4-1: ATTRIBUTES FOR SAMTRANS RAPID VS. BRT

Typical BRT Specific Strategy/Strategies Rapid BRT Attribute

Frequent All- Frequent all-day, bi-directional service X X Day Service

Longer stop spacing X X

Operational measures

o Turn prohibitions / exemptions X X

o Low-floor vehicles X X

o Level boarding facilities X

o All-door boarding/alighting X

o Off-board fare payment X Fast and o Transportation system management enhancements X X Reliable Service Transit priority measures

o Transit Signal Priority (TSP) X X

o Bulbouts X X

o Queue jump lanes X X

o Dedicated transit lanes

. Reserved lanes X

. At-grade busway X

. Grade-separated busway X

Enhanced More substantial stations X Passenger Amenities Real-time information X X

Distinctive Branded and specially marketed service X X Branded Service Specialized vehicles X X

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

5.0 CASE STUDIES

This section presents four case studies, which were selected due to their perceived applicability to the El Camino Corridor and SamTrans case. Acknowledging that current and short-term corridor conditions would be more supportive of Rapid services rather than BRT, this case study review focuses on Rapid type systems which are most applicable to the corridor in the short-term. Three Rapid systems are presented. One BRT case study is also reviewed though to highlight the long-term possibilities in the Corridor if ridership grows and transit-supportive development and densities arise.

The four case studies are as follows in the table below:

TABLE 5-1: LIST OF FOUR CASE STUDY SYSTEMS

Type of Service Name of Service Region Operator

Rapid Metro Rapid Los Angeles, CA (USA) LA Metro

Rapid Rapid Oakland, CA (USA) AC Transit

Rapid Rapid 522 * Santa Clara County, CA (USA) VTA

BRT EmX Eugene, OR (USA) LTD

* Limited performance data is available for this case study. The others have been analyzed by the FTA or the local agency.

Each case study is described in four sections:

• Description of the System – This section describes the transit operator and service network, as well as the BRT services offered by the operator (including length and coverage).

• Key Attributes – This section describes the BRT corridor in terms of infrastructure elements such as dedicated bus lanes, queue jump lanes, and vehicles are detailed. Capital costs and O&M costs (if available) are also detailed. In addition, operating characteristics such as the span of service, frequency of service, as well as any transit priority and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) applications that improve operating performance and the passenger experience are noted.

• Performance and Benefits – This section highlights key operating performance metrics such as travel time savings and ridership as available.

• Applicability to SamTrans – This section highlights the key lessons learned from each case study, particularly, how such lessons may be applicable to the SamTrans case.

As a reference, Appendix A presents a table depicting the expected travel time savings from implementation of various transit priority measures for the on-going San Francisco MTA’s Transit

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

Effectiveness Project or TEP. Anticipated TEP time savings benefits are quantified discretely from other measures such as longer stop spacing, stop relocation, etc.

5.1 CASE STUDY 1: METRO RAPID – LOS ANGELES, CA

5.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM

In the summer of 2000, LA Metro initiated two mixed-traffic Rapid demonstration lines in major east-west corridors. Called Metro Rapid, the first two lines were along: (i) Wilshire and Whittier boulevards in central Los Angeles, a 25.7-mile route; and (ii) Ventura Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley, a 16.7-mile route.

Currently, 24 Metro Rapid lines serve Los Source: LA Metro, 2013. Angeles County, spanning nearly 400 miles – an outgrowth of the success of these two initial demonstration projects. Although Metro Rapid operates in mixed flow travel lanes, Metro Rapid benefits from TSP (allowing for green extension or red truncation), low-floor buses allowing for level boarding, and longer stop spacing. Metro Rapid vehicles are detected by Automatic Vehicle Location sensors that allow real-time monitoring and dispatch of vehicles, as well as provision of real-time vehicle arrival information.

LA Metro also operates a premium BRT service known as Metro Liner, which operates in extensive dedicated transit lanes with limited at-grade interaction with mixed flow traffic. Two Metro Liner routes exists in Los Angeles: (i) the Source: flickr.com Orange Line which is an outgrowth of the initial Ventura Metro Rapid line, which operates in an abandoned rail

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

right-of-way in the San Fernando Valley connecting to the northern terminus of the Red Line (a rail rapid transit line that serves Downtown Los Angeles); and (ii) the Silver Line, which operates in dedicated median lanes of the El Monte Busway and Harbor Transitway.

The focus of this case study review is on Metro Rapid services, which are most applicable to the current and short-range SamTrans context.

5.1.2 KEY ATTRIBUTES8

Key operating and infrastructure attributes for Metro Rapid are as follows below. Due to the size of the current system, information cited below is generalized for the Metro Rapid service as a whole rather than a single route. Where applicable, information for a single route will be presented and noted specifically.

TABLE 5-2: LA METRO RAPID ATTRIBUTES (SYSTEM-WIDE)

Key Attributes Description

• Weekday (Peak): 3-10 minutes (typical) Headway • Weekday (Off-Peak): 15-20 minutes (typical) • Weekend: Reduced compared to weekday Frequent All- Day Service • Weekday: 5:00AM-9:00PM (typical) Span of Service • Weekend: Reduced span of service compared to weekday

Bi-Directional Service • Yes

Average Stop Spacing • ~0.75 miles apart

• Low-floor vehicles help riders to load and unload quickly. Operational Measures • Metro Rapid stops are at the far-side, while local bus stops are at the near-side.

• TSP is implemented at over 1,000 intersections in the City and was Fast and collaboratively developed by the Los Angeles Department of Reliable Transportation and Metro for use in the City of Los Angeles. Services Transit Signal Priority • Priority is conditional – only buses that are 50% or more behind schedule are granted priority. • Rapid vehicles receive priority through early green or green extension (up to 10 seconds in both cases).

• None – Metro Rapid services operate in mixed flow traffic along the Dedicated Transit Lanes entirety of their routes. • Metro Liner routes operate in dedicated transit lanes.

8 Much of this information is from the LA Metro website (http://www.metro.net/projects/rapid/) as well as the Wilshire and Venture Metro Rapid: Final Report, Los Angeles Metro Rapid Demonstration Program, LA Metro, 2002.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

TABLE 5-2: LA METRO RAPID ATTRIBUTES (SYSTEM-WIDE)

Key Attributes Description

More Substantial • Metro Rapid stations have enhanced passenger amenities including Enhanced Stations transit information, lighting, and canopies. Passenger Amenities Real-Time Information • Most stations have “Next Bus” displays.

Specially Branded • Metro Rapid is a separate branded service different from local buses Service with distinctive red and silver colors. Branding and Marketing • Some routes use stylized, 60’ articulated vehicles, clearly Specialized distinguishable from more “boxy” local bus routes. Infrastructure • Metro Rapid stations are typically separated from local bus stops.

• Wilshire Metro Rapid: $5.0 million (2000) or $200,000 / mile (roughly Capital Costs (YOE) split between stations and TSP) • Ventura Metro Rapid: $3.3 million (2000) or $180,000 / mile Costs • Wilshire & Ventura Metro Rapid Lines: $12.7 million annually (2000) or O&M Costs (YOE) $300,000 / mile

5.1.3 PERFORMANCE AND BENEFITS9

Key Metro Rapid performance highlights and system benefits are detailed below. Much of these results are from the initial Wilshire and Ventura demonstration projects.

TABLE 5-3: LA METRO RAPID PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM BENEFITS

Component Description of Performance / Benefits

• Wilshire Metro Rapid: Average end-to-end travel time was reduced by approximately 28%, with three-quarters of this reduction from wider stop spacing and level boarding, and the rest due to TSP. • Ventura Metro Rapid: Average end-to-end travel time was reduced by 23%, with Travel Time Savings three-quarters of this reduction from wider stop spacing and level boarding, and the rest due to TSP. • Broadway Metro Rapid: Average travel time was reduced by 35%. • Vermont Metro Rapid: Average travel time was reduced by 40%.

9 Sources: (i) Wilshire and Venture Metro Rapid: Final Report, Los Angeles Metro Rapid Demonstration Program, LA Metro, 2002; (ii) Broadway and Vermont Metro Rapids (LA Metro – www.metro.net), 2012; and (iii) Metro Rapid TSP and ATSAC: (US Department of Transportation, Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Home - http://www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov), 2012.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

• Wilshire Metro Rapid: TSP reduced traffic signal delay by 33%. • Ventura Metro Rapid: TSP reduced traffic signal delay by 36%. • In general, Metro Rapid TSP reduced: (i) bus travel time variability by 35%; (ii) AM Improved Reliability and peak intersection bus delay by 13%; and (iii) the number of times a bus stops at a On-Time Performance red light by 50%. • TSP parameters (for instance granting less than 7 to 10 seconds of green per call), can reduce bus delays and also have negligible impacts on cross-street traffic.

Improved Rider Experience • Metro Rapid ratings were higher for all attributes compared to the prior service. (for Wilshire/Ventura Metro • The largest improvements in ratings were in cleanliness, travel time on the bus, Rapid only) and bus frequency.

• Wilshire Metro Rapid: Corridor ridership increased by 42%, while the share of new riders grew by 33%. • Ventura Metro Rapid: Corridor ridership increased by 27%, while the share of new riders grew by 26%. Increased Ridership • Wilshire/Ventura Metro Rapid: 14% of Metro Rapid riders began using transit service after Metro Rapid services were established. • Broadway Metro Rapid: Corridor ridership increased by 17%. • Vermont Metro Rapid: Corridor ridership increased by 4%.

5.1.4 APPLICABILITY TO SAMTRANS

Key lessons learned from the Metro Rapid context include:

• Combined, Low-Floor Vehicles and Longer Stop Spacing Reduces Travel Times – The Metro Rapid results estimate that nearly 75% of travel time savings is from both reducing stops and operating low-floor vehicles. This result suggests that combinations of attributes are most effective at achieving desired travel time savings and reliability.

• Specific TSP Operating Parameters Can Optimize Performance – LA Metro operates conditional priority for its TSP system – thus only late buses are granted priority. Furthermore, a TCRP study found that modest early green or green extension (e.g., less than 7 to 10 seconds per cycle) can reduce bus delays with negligible impacts on cross-street traffic. For the SamTrans context, it may be worthwhile to consider implementing conditional priority to reduce impacts on cross traffic.

• TSP May Be More Useful to Maintain Reliability Rather than Reduce Travel Time - The Metro Rapid results estimate that only about 25% of travel time savings is directly attributable to TSP. At the same time however, TSP significantly reduced the number of times buses stopped at intersections and the amount of time they were stopped – both factors that determine how reliable and on-time service is.

• An Extensive TSP Network Has Facilitated Metro Rapid Operations – TSP is implemented on over 1,000 streets in Downtown Los Angeles to facilitate transit movements. Long, continuous

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

stretches of TSP maximizes the benefit of priority, especially if signals are coordinated throughout the corridor.

• Separate Metro Rapid and Local Bus Stops Differentiate the Brand – Metro Rapid stops are not only designed differently than those for local bus stops, they are placed at different locations. Metro Rapid stops are located at the far-side of intersections, while local stops are at the near- side. While there is a capital cost associated with separating these facilities, this approach can help differentiate services in the minds of the public and accentuate the premium nature of Rapid or BRT services.

5.2 CASE STUDY 2: AC TRANSIT RAPID – OAKLAND, CA

5.2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM

In 2003, AC Transit initiated Rapid service along San Pablo Avenue (Line 72R also known as the San Pablo Rapid). Rapid service operates in mixed flow travel lanes. Rapid service operates with increased frequency, reduced travel time by reducing stops and implementing TSP, and real- time arrivals information at select locations.

The weekday-only 72R operates for 14.0 miles from Contra Costa College in San Pablo to Downtown Oakland and Jack London Square. The 72R replaced the 72L, which provided limited stop service. Two local routes (72 Source: showbus.com and 73) were maintained in the corridor.

In 2007, a second Rapid line, Line 1R (also known as the International Rapid), was started along Telegraph Ave, International Boulevard and East 14th Street from UC Berkeley to Bay Fair BART Station. The International Rapid line is 18 miles long and serves Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro. Weekend service is from Oakland and San Leandro only.

AC Transit’s first full-fledged BRT service will commence in 2016 between Downtown Oakland and San Leandro, essentially replacing the southern portion of the 1R’s route, operating in dedicated transit lane segments with enhanced median stations and other rail-like amenities such as TVMs.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

5.2.2 KEY ATTRIBUTES

Key operating and infrastructure attributes for the AC Transit Rapid are as follows:

TABLE 5-4: AC TRANSIT RAPID ATTRIBUTES

Key Attributes Description

• Weekday: 12 minutes all-day (1R/72R) Headway • Weekend: 15 minutes all-day (1R) Frequent All- • Weekday: 5:30AM-8:30PM (1R) / 6:00AM-8:00PM (72R) Day Service Span of Service • Weekend: 8:30AM-7:00PM (1R)

Bi-Directional Service • Yes

Average Stop Spacing • ~0.50 miles (26 stops over 14 miles for 72R only)

• Low-floor vehicles with three to four doors help riders to load and Operational Measures unload quickly.

• Signal coordination and TSP was implemented for the Rapid. • TSP is conditional meaning only late vehicles are provided priority. Transit Signal Priority • Rapid vehicles receive priority through early green or green extension. • All 63 intersections for the 72R are TSP enabled, yet only the Rapid Fast and bus can trigger the system. Reliable Services • Two short queue jump lanes were installed on San Pablo Avenue for Other Measures the 72R. (Bulbouts & Queue • No queue jump lanes were installed for the 1R due to insufficient Jump Lanes) street width.

• None – Rapid services operate in mixed flow traffic along the entirety of their routes. Dedicated Transit Lanes • Dedicated transit lanes will be built for the new BRT project opening in 2016 on International Blvd.

More Substantial Enhanced • Stops are not enhanced. Rapid stops also function as local bus stops. Stations Passenger Amenities Real-Time Information • Select stations are equipped with NextBus real-time arrival screens.

• Bus shelters and distinctive signs with the Rapid logo are located at Specially Branded most of the 51 stops, which are also used by local buses. Service • Buses also have the Rapid logo. Branding and Marketing • No specialized buses or stops were implemented as part of the Rapid Specialized program. Vehicles used for Rapid service are also used for local Infrastructure service.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

TABLE 5-4: AC TRANSIT RAPID ATTRIBUTES

Key Attributes Description

• 72R: $3.2 million (2003$), which did not include the vehicle cost, while some capital costs were split between TSP and on-street Capital Costs (YOE) improvements. Costs • Cost per mile: $230,000 / mile (excluding vehicles)

O&M Costs (YOE) • Data unavailable

5.2.3 PERFORMANCE AND BENEFITS10

Key AC Transit Rapid performance highlights and system benefits are detailed below. Note – only performance of the initial 14.0-mile 72R service is described below.

TABLE 5-5: AC TRANSIT RAPID PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM BENEFITS (72R ONLY)

Component Description of Performance / Benefits

• Average end-to-end travel time was reduced by approximately 12 minutes, equating to a 21% reduction compared to local service and 17% reduction compared to the old 72L. This meets the goal of a 20% reduction in travel time set Travel Time Savings by AC Transit. • It was estimated that about a third of travel time savings was from reducing stops, a third was from signal progression improvements (or signal coordination), a sixth from TSP, and a sixth from moving stops to the far-side.

• 72R reliability is still impacted by heavy congestion. Improved Reliability and • Service reliability has been maintained by providing additional vehicles in the On-Time Performance afternoon.

• 72R service received an average rider rating of 4.2, which is higher than the 3.7 for other services. • 80% of users perceived the 72R as faster than the previous service, with Improved Rider Experience almost half of respondents indicated the service was at least 15 minutes faster. • 90% of customers stated that the “ease of Bus identification” was “good” or “very good”

10 Source: The San Pablo Rapid BRT Project Evaluation, Final Report – June 2006, Federal Transit Administration, 2006.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

TABLE 5-5: AC TRANSIT RAPID PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM BENEFITS (72R ONLY)

Component Description of Performance / Benefits

• 72R ridership grew by 22% in the year after implementation • System-wide ridership grew by about 4.5% from 2003-04 during which 72R began operations. Increased Ridership • One survey of Rapid Bus users found that 40-50% of those using the line were new riders, with 19% having previously driven to their destination and 10-15% previously rode BART.

5.2.4 APPLICABILITY TO SAMTRANS

Key lessons learned from the AC Transit context include:

• Targeted Investment Can Increase Ridership and Choice Rider Capture – Average capital cost per mile for Rapid service is very low compared to other similar BRT systems. The majority of the costs were for TSP and other on-street improvements. However, the Rapid met its goal of 20% travel time savings over the replaced limited service, while capturing choice riders. Thus, even small targeted investments can be effective at meeting goals.

• Traffic Signal Coordination May Be Just As Important as TSP – It was estimated that a third of travel time savings came from better traffic signal coordination, while a sixth of the savings came from TSP. This means that while TSP shows promise, better coordination of signals can have significant benefits as well. Since Rapid operates solely in mixed flow lanes, this lesson may be especially applicable to SamTrans.

• 72R Implements TSP at All Intersections – TSP is implemented on all 72R intersections. Long, continuous stretches of TSP maximizes the benefit of priority, especially if signals are coordinated throughout the corridor.

• Sharing of Vehicles and Stops Can Dilute the Brand – Although Rapid services are distinct and have a distinct logo (as 90% of customers noted identification of the system was “good” or “very good”, Rapid vehicles and stations are essentially indistinguishable from local service. Rapid vehicles look no different than local buses, in fact some Rapid vehicles are used on local service. Bus stops have Rapid signs, but these stops are used by both Rapid and local services. This “blending” of the two services may cause rider confusion, as well as the loss of premium brand recognition. This issue, at least for AC Transit, will be solved when the new BRT system opens with dedicated stations and new vehicles.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

5.3 CASE STUDY 3: RAPID 522 – SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA

5.3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM

The VTA initiated Rapid 522 service in mid-2005, as its first foray into enhanced bus service. The Rapid 522 replaced the Limited Stop 300 and operates on a 26.0-mile route from the Eastridge Transit Center in Palo Alto to the Eastridge Mall in East San Jose on El Camino Real, the Alameda, Alum Rock Avenue, and Capitol Expressway. The Local 22 provides local coverage along the route.

Rapid 522 operates frequent all-day service at 15-minute headways, with longer stop spacing than the Local 22 Source: VTA (operating at 12-minute headways), all low-floor vehicles, and TSP as well as two queue jump lanes. The Rapid 522 is specially branded and marketed, with buses having a unique red and blue wrap.

Rapid 522 is the first step towards developing a full- fledged BRT system in Santa Clara County. The planned Valley Rapid will include three BRT corridors – the El Camino, Alum Rock, and Stevens Creek. Valley Rapid will operate in median bus lanes (and mixed flow lanes in some areas) with rail-like stations and vehicles. Ultimately, Valley Rapid will operate at 10-minute headways, with a local overlay at 15 minutes.

The focus of this case study review is on the VTA Source: VTA Rapid 522, which is most applicable to the SamTrans context.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

5.3.2 KEY ATTRIBUTES11

Key operating and infrastructure attributes for the Rapid 522 are as follows below.

TABLE 5-6: VTA RAPID 522 ATTRIBUTES

Key Attributes Description

• Weekday: 15 minutes all-day; 20-25 minutes in the early morning and late night Headway • Weekend: 15 minutes all-day; 20 minutes in the early morning and Frequent All- late night Day Service • Weekday: 4:45AM-9:00PM Span of Service • Saturday: 7:30AM-8:30PM

Bi-Directional Service • Yes

Average Stop Spacing • 0.5-1.0 mile (compared to 0.25 miles for local buses)

• Low-floor vehicles help riders to load and unload quickly. • Rapid 522 stops are typically at the far-side of the intersection. Operational Measures • Queue jump lanes exist along El Camino Real at the Page Mill and Arastradero intersections in Palo Alto. (Note – in the BRT attributes section, these are referred to as exemptions)

• Rapid 522 vehicles receive priority through early green or green extension. No other routes receive priority. Fast and • Unconditional priority is granted, thus early or late vehicles still Reliable receive TSP. Services Transit Signal Priority • Railroad preemption takes precedent over any TSP call by the Rapid 522 • Consecutive TSP calls at a single location are not allowed. • TSP is installed in continuous stretches along the entire 26.0-mile corridor except on the southern end on the Capitol Expressway.

• None – Rapid 522 operate in mixed flow traffic along the entirety of the routes. Dedicated Transit Lanes • Valley Rapid services will operate in mixed flow traffic as well as segments of dedicated median transit lanes.

11 Much of this information is from the VTA website (http://www.vta.org/projects/line22brt.html).

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

TABLE 5-6: VTA RAPID 522 ATTRIBUTES

Key Attributes Description

• Rapid 522 is a distinctive branded service. • Vehicles have a special wrap, and stations have branded Rapid signs Specially Branded attached to the bus poles. Service Branding and • Branding was a significant piece of the BRT Strategic Plan and Marketing development the future Valley Rapid.

Specialized • Rapid 522 has no specialized infrastructure. Conventional buses are Infrastructure used, but wrapped with the unique branding.

• Capital cost: $3.5 million (includes $1.6 million for queue jump lanes Capital Costs (YOE) and TSP implementation) Costs • Cost per mile: $140,000 / mile

O&M Costs (YOE) • Not available

5.3.3 PERFORMANCE AND BENEFITS12

Key Rapid 522 performance highlights are detailed below (if available).

TABLE 5-7: VTA RAPID 522 PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM BENEFITS

Component Description of Performance / Benefits

Travel Time Savings • VTA expected Rapid 522 to generate travel time savings on the order of 10-25%

Improved Reliability and • No information available. On-Time Performance

Improved Rider Experience • No information available.

• In September 2007, the Rapid 522 served 8,300 daily riders, its highest total since being started in 2005. Increased Ridership • In September 2007, the combined Local 22 / Rapid 522 handled over 27,000 daily riders, representing significant growth over the “pre-Rapid” corridor ridership of about 20,000 daily riders.

5.3.4 APPLICABILITY TO SAMTRANS

Key lessons learned from the Rapid 522 include:

12 Sources: (i) VTA BRT Strategic Plan, VTA, 2009; and (ii) http://www.vta.org/projects/line22brt.html.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

• VTA Implements TSP on Long Continuous Stretches – As noted, Rapid 522 enjoys transit signal priority for most of its route, except at the very end on its 26.0-mile route. Continuous stretches of TSP maximizes the benefit of priority, especially if signals are coordinated throughout the corridor. This is particularly instructive for SamTrans, as the Rapid 522 operates through multiple jurisdictions (including that of Caltrans).

• Rapid 522 and Local Service Perform Effectively Together – The Rapid 522 provides skipped stop service along the corridor, while the local service provides continuity and mobility to areas not served by the Rapid 522. This combination has been effective at increasing ridership as seen in the 2007 corridor transit travel volumes. Interestingly, the Rapid 522 operates at 15-minute headways, while the Local 22 operates at 12-minute headways.

• Conditional TSP Could Improve Performance – VTA currently grants unconditional priority to the Rapid 522, regardless of whether a vehicle is early or late. In the SamTrans context, it may be worth exploring how conditional or unconditional priority would impact Rapid service as well as cross-traffic. In addition, it would be instructive to discuss with VTA how Caltrain pre-emption and TSP calls are handled for cross streets along El Camino, particularly in Palo Alto, which has similarly configured grade-crossings as in San Mateo County.

• Marketing Was a Key Focus of VTA’s BRT Development Effort – An initial marketing effort was undertaken to develop the Rapid 522 brand and logo. During the planning for VTA’s BRT system, significant focus in the BRT Strategic Plan was placed on branding, focus groups, and outreach to develop a new logo, scheme, and name for BRT. Eventually this effort led to the Valley Rapid name. Branding again here is key to differentiate service and elevate a premium tier of service, this time from Rapid service to BRT service.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

5.4 CASE STUDY 4: EMX – EUGENE, OR

5.4.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM

Eugene’s LTD initiated BRT service, called Emerald Express or EmX, on its Franklin Corridor in January 2007. It replaced the western portion of the popular 11- Thurston line, which now terminates at Springfield Station.

EmX represents one of the first full-BRT systems to operate in the United States, running in dedicated median lanes physically separated from adjacent mixed flow lanes with a high level of transit priority. EmX operates with 63’ articulated vehicles.

The initial Franklin Corridor is a 4.0-mile corridor connecting downtown Eugene and downtown Springfield, the two principal Source: Wildish Land Co. hubs in LTD’s network. A 7.8-mile extension north to the Gateway Mall and Sacred Heart Medical Center was opened in January 2011. An extension to West Eugene from the current Eugene Station is in the planning phases.

5.4.2 KEY ATTRIBUTES

Key operating and infrastructure attributes for the EmX are as follows:

TABLE 5-8: EMX ATTRIBUTES

Key Attributes Description

• Weekday: 10 minutes all-day; 15-30 minutes in early morning / late evening Headway • Saturday: 15 minutes all-day • Sunday: 30 minutes all-day Frequent All- Day Service • Weekday: 5:30AM-11:30PM Span of Service • Saturday: 6:45AM-11:30PM • Sunday: 7:45AM-8:30PM

Bi-Directional Service • Yes

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

TABLE 5-8: EMX ATTRIBUTES

Key Attributes Description

Average Stop Spacing • ~0.5 miles (23 stops over 12 miles)

• Low-floor vehicles and all-door speed entry and exit. Operational Measures • Ticket vending machines allow for off-board fare payment. • All stops are at the far-side of the intersection.

• TSP is unconditional and given regardless of whether or not the vehicle is running on-time or late. Transit Signal Priority • EmX vehicles receive priority through early green or green extension. • 16 of 45 intersections along the Franklin Corridor are TSP enabled. Fast and Other Measures Reliable • Queue jump and bulbouts are employed at several signalized (Bulbouts & Queue Services intersections. Jump Lanes)

• EmX operates in both mixed flow lanes and exclusive lanes. • For the 4.0-mile Franklin Corridor, EmX operates in exclusive lanes for 65% of the journey. Half of the exclusive lanes are delineated by painted lanes and are located in both the median or alongside one Dedicated Transit Lanes side of the street. The remainder of exclusive lanes is located in the median and is physically separated from adjacent traffic by low curbs. • Most exclusive segments have one lane only and allow for reversible, bi-directional operations.

More Substantial • Stations are stylized with enhanced passenger amenities and appear Enhanced Stations similar to LRT stations. Passenger Amenities Real-Time Information • Real-time displays added in 2012 to all EmX stations.

Specially Branded • The EmX is a specially branded service that stands apart from other Service LTD services. It has a unique logo and green color scheme. Branding and Marketing • Vehicles are 63’ low-floor articulated hybrid-electric New Flyer units Specialized with a streamlined design and special color scheme. Infrastructure • Each vehicle holds 39 passengers and allows for dual-side boarding.

• Franklin Corridor: $25 million (2007), including $12 million to build, $6 million to design, and $6 million for six vehicles Capital Costs (YOE) • Cost per mile: $6.3 million / mile (including vehicles); $4.5 million / Costs mile (without vehicles)

O&M Costs (YOE) • Data unavailable

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

5.4.3 PERFORMANCE AND BENEFITS13

Key EmX performance highlights and system benefits are detailed below. Note – only performance of the initial 4.0-mile Franklin EmX service is described below.

TABLE 5-9: EMX PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM BENEFITS (FRANKLIN CORRIDOR ONLY)

Component Description of Performance / Benefits

• Average end-to-end travel time was reduced by approximately 1.0 minutes compared to the original Route 11 operating on the corridor. Travel Time Savings • This equates to a 4% reduction in travel time compared to the local service. • Travel time decreased due to reductions in signal delay (28%), dwell time (10%), and time in transit (18%).

Improved Reliability and • Service reliability and schedule adherence improved over Route 11. On-Time Performance • Variability of travel times was reduced.

• 80% of users perceived the EmX as faster than the previous service, with almost half of respondents indicating the service was at least 15 minutes faster. Improved Rider Experience • Customers rated reliability as “good”, compared to “fair” for Route 11. • 85% of customers stated that the “ease of Bus identification” was “good” or “very good”

• Since operations started, EmX has continually increased ridership (with ridership increasing from 4,000 riders in February 2007 to 5,400 in April 2008). Increased Ridership • LTD system ridership also increased commensurate with the opening of EmX. • 16% of EmX users previously drove.

• One negative was that eight accidents were recorded in the first year of operation, Other with all accidents being the fault of the other party involved.

5.4.4 APPLICABILITY TO SAMTRANS

Although EmX, with its rail-like amenities and dedicated transit lanes, represents one long-term vision for BRT on the El Camino Corridor, several key lessons are applicable to SamTrans and the El Camino Corridor:

• Perceived Travel Time May Be More Important than Actual Travel Time – EmX service was shown to have improved travel times by 4% - however riders perceived a much greater level of travel time savings, in some cases up to 15 minutes. This implies that the total package of BRT improvements (new vehicles, nicer stations, and dedicated lanes and transit priority) can have a

13 Source: EmX Franklin Corridor – BRT Project Evaluation, Final Report, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), April 2009.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

significant psychological impact on riders and serve as a way to attract choice riders (as 13% previously drove).

• Selective Implementation of TSP Can Be Effective, But Only in Low Density and Low Activity Corridors - Of the 45 intersections in the Franklin Corridor, only 16 of them were equipped with TSP. One result of the TSP (as well as select queue jump lanes) was a 28% reduction in signal delay (not overall travel time savings). The selective implementation of TSP in Eugene reflects the light traffic volumes and lower density of development in its operating environment – which do not necessitate TSP at every intersection (as done in the other case studies).

• Branding Helps People to Recognize the Service and its Transit Benefits - EmX was marketed with branded vehicles with special colors and logos. This scheme was applied to all marketing materials and infrastructure. This helped riders and the community to publically identify and recognize BRT service and its transit benefits.

• Implementation of Expensive, But Non-Essential BRT Elements Can Be Postponed – Ticket vending machines and real-time passenger information were expensive, but were non-essential elements that were implemented years later after initial service began. The initial capital focus was on improving travel time and the passenger riding experience with dedicated lanes, TSP, and specialized vehicles instead. Thus, not all the “bells and whistles” of the system need to be introduced from the start, but can be added incrementally as demand grows.

5.5 SUMMARY OF KEY LESSONS LEARNED

From the case studies, several recurring themes are apparent, which are applicable to the future planning of the SamTrans El Camino BRT:

• “Packages” of Strategies Are Most Effective at Reducing Travel Time and Improving Reliability - No single strategy “outweighs” the benefits of packaging strategies together to achieve maximum time savings or reliability. All elements contribute to the effectiveness of BRT – whether it is longer stop spacing, level boarding, or TSP, etc. As noted below though, longer stop spacing (or skip stop service) is most effective at reduce travel times and is typically part of the initial phasing of any BRT system. Other measures complement longer stop spacing to incrementally improve travel time and/or reliability such as TSP and level boarding. The findings from Appendix A for the SFMTA’s TEP show the relative effectiveness of these packages.

• Longer Stop Spacing Is Viewed As Most Effective – From the travel time savings breakdowns and anecdotal evidence, reducing stops comprised the largest element in travel time savings. This is also the easiest strategy to implement. There is some question, however, over what is the second most effective strategy – some agencies identify traffic signal coordination, while others identify level boarding. What is important to take away though is that the combination of these strategies generates the highest benefits.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

• Significant Benefits Can Still Be Generated with Minimal Capital Investment – Significant benefits can be generated from low-cost strategies such as reducing the number of stops, TSP, and signal coordination. While dedicated lanes and rail-like stations can generate certain benefits, they come with a significant added capital investment that may not be worth the marginal benefit.

5.6 NEXT STEPS

The findings from the BRT Industry Review and the El Camino Real Existing Conditions Report establish the groundwork for the development of the conceptual short-term and long-term BRT alternatives. The upcoming activities for this study include:

• Developing objectives and evaluation criteria;

• Developing Rapid and BRT alternatives and then collaborating with SamTrans and other stakeholders to refine these alternatives; and

• Selection of up to two alternatives to carry forward for more detailed analysis.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

APPENDIX A – TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS BENEFITS FROM TRANSIT PRIORITY ENHANCEMENTS (SFMTA)

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

TABLE A-1: ANTICIPATED BENEFITS FROM TEP TRAVEL TIME REDUCTION PROPOSALS ON EIGHT CORRIDORS Additional One-Way Length of One-Way Current Non-TSP TEP TSP Travel Service Management and Operational Service Type Daily Travel Time Enhanced Time Optimization Strategies Proposed Ridership Savings Segment Savings (% Savings) (% Savings) • Increase stop spacing to between 2-3 blocks • Optimize bus stop location at 15 locations (relocate stops) • Add bus bulb at 17 locations • Replace all-way STOP-controlled intersections with traffic signals or calming measures at 5 Local 5.6 miles 6.0 min 1.5 min 19,000 9 intersections Fulton Bus (9.0 km) (18%) (5%) • Add right-turn lanes at 11 intersections • Implement a road diet on a 6 block segment • Add peak-period parking restrictions • Add pedestrian bulbs or islands at 8 intersections • Replace all-way STOP-controlled intersections with traffic signals or calming measures at 5 intersections • Optimize bus stop location at 7 intersections (relocate stops) 8X Express 5.0 miles 7.0 min 1.5 min • Establish 1.6 km of transit-only lanes 23,000 Bayshore Bus (8.0 km) (18%) (4%) • Increase stop spacing from 2 to 2.5 blocks • Add turn pockets at up to 8 intersections • Add transit bulbs at 7 intersections • Elongate transit stops at 6 intersections • Create right-turn lane at key intersections • Convert side-running transit-only lanes to center-running transit-only lanes in 5 block segment • Add transit boarding islands at 6 intersections • Create signalized transit queue jumps at 3 locations • Increase bus stop spacing from 1 to 2 blocks 14 Local 7.5 miles 10.0 min 4.0 min 24,600 • Optimize bus stop location at 6 intersections (relocate stops) Mission Bus (12.1 km) (14%) (6%) • Add bus bulbs at 6 intersections • Elongate existing transit stops at 2 locations • Replace all-way STOP-controlled intersections with traffic signals or calming measures at 2 intersections • Restrict turns at 14 intersections • Reconfigure roadway • Shift route to serve new residential area 22 Local 2.2 miles 6.0 min 1.0 min • Create center-running transit-only lanes for several blocks 18,000 Fillmore Bus (3.5 km) (28%) (5%) • Create peak-period curb side transit-only lanes through lane conversion and parking removal for several blocks

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review August 2013

TABLE A-1: ANTICIPATED BENEFITS FROM TEP TRAVEL TIME REDUCTION PROPOSALS ON EIGHT CORRIDORS Additional One-Way Length of One-Way Current Non-TSP TEP TSP Travel Service Management and Operational Service Type Daily Travel Time Enhanced Time Optimization Strategies Proposed Ridership Savings Segment Savings (% Savings) (% Savings) • Restrict left turns at most locations • Add new traffic lights at 4 locations • Improve pedestrian environment • Remove 14 stops at 7 intersections • Optimize 6 stops at 5 intersections (relocate stops) 28 & 28L Local & th 3.4 miles 5.5 min 0.5 min • Add bus bulbs at 21 locations 19 Limited 17,500 (5.5 km) (26%) (2%) • Add pedestrian bulbs at 19 locations Avenue Bus • Add 31 right-turn lanes at 19 intersections • Remove one left turn lane at one intersection • Increase stop spacing from 1 to 2 blocks • Optimize bus stop location at 5 intersections (relocate stops) 30 Local 2.2 miles 3.5 min 2.0 min 28,000 • Add bus bulbs at 11 locations Stockton Bus (3.5 km) (15%) (9%) • Elongate existing bus bulbs at 4 locations (for multiple buses) • Add transit-only lanes at three locations • Replace all-way STOP-controlled intersections with traffic signals or calming measures at TSP 4 intersections benefits not 4.0 miles 3.0 min • Optimize transit locations at 3 intersections (relocate stops) J Church LRT 14,000 calculated (6.4 km) (12%) • Create more consistent stop spacing for this • Add transit bulbs at 7 intersections route • Extend boarding islands at 2 intersections Unclear at • Replace all-way STOP-controlled intersections with traffic signals or calming measures at this time if 8 intersections 3.4 miles 10.0 min TSP will be • Optimize transit locations at 4 intersections (relocate stops) N Judah LRT 40,000+ (5.5 km) (19%) imple- • Increase transit stop spacing from 2-3 blocks to 3-4 blocks mented on • Add transit bulbs at 6 intersections this route • Extend boarding islands at 13 intersections Source: SFMTA, 2012 (http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mtep/tepover.htm) Note: Other changes such as operational improvements and network enhancements could further improve travel times along the corridor.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – Appendices December 2014

Appendix B: Existing Conditions Report

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan

Existing Conditions Report - FINAL

Prepared for: SamTrans

July 2014

SF13-0692

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 5

1.1 Background of This Study ...... 5 1.2 Purpose of the Existing Conditions Report ...... 6 1.3 Introduction to the Corridor ...... 6

2.0 DEMOGRAPHICS & LAND USE ...... 8

2.1 Population and Employment ...... 9 2.2 Socioeconomic Characteristics ...... 13 2.3 Land Use ...... 15 2.3.1 Existing Land Use ...... 15 2.3.2 Key Destinations ...... 20 2.3.3 Planned Land Use ...... 23 2.4 Travel Characteristics ...... 24

3.0 ROADWAY FACILITIES ...... 28

3.1 Inventory of Lanes ...... 28 3.1.1 Cross-Sections ...... 32 3.2 Signal Coordination and Corridor Transit Signal Priority Capability ...... 34 3.2.1 caltrain and Signal Pre-Emption ...... 34 3.3 Exclusive Right Turn Lanes ...... 36 3.4 Traffic Volumes ...... 37 3.4.1 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes ...... 37 3.5 Intersection Level of Service ...... 39 3.6 On-Street Parking ...... 44

4.0 TRANSIT ...... 45

4.1 SamTrans ...... 45 4.1.1 Routes Serving the Corridor ...... 46 4.1.2 Cross Corridor Routes ...... 50

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

4.1.3 Ridership Along the Corridor ...... 53 4.1.4 Corridor Performance ...... 58 4.1.5 Service Quality and Customer Experience ...... 65 4.2 SFMTA (Muni) ...... 66 4.3 VTA ...... 66 4.4 Caltrain ...... 68 4.5 BART ...... 69 4.6 Shuttles...... 70 4.7 Interagency Connectivity ...... 71

5.0 BICYCLE FACILITIES ...... 74

6.0 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ...... 81

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 El Camino Corridor ...... 7 Figure 2-1 Population Density ...... 11 Figure 2-2 Employment Density ...... 12 Figure 2-3 Distribution of Household Income ...... 13 Figure 2-4 Median Age ...... 14 Figure 2-5 Race of Residents ...... 14 Figure 2-6 Land Use Along El Camino Corridor ...... 15 Figure 2-7 Existing Land Use ...... 19 Figure 2-8 Key Destinations (North) ...... 21 Figure 2-9 Key Destinations (South) ...... 22 Figure 2-10 Commute Mode Split ...... 24 Figure 2-11 Commute Trip Time ...... 24 Figure 2-12 Work Based Travel Patterns in San Mateo County ...... 26 Figure 2-13 Work and Non-Work Based Travel Patterns in San Mateo County ...... 27 Figure 3-1 Belmont Cross-Section ...... 32 Figure 3-2 San Carlos Cross-Section ...... 33 Figure 3-3 Redwood City Cross-Section ...... 33 Figure 3-4 Traffic Volumes...... 38 Figure 3-5 AM Intersection Level of Service ...... 42 Figure 3-6 PM Intersection Level of Service ...... 43 Figure 4-1 Route ECR ...... 47 Figure 4-2 Route 397 – SSP No Change...... 48 Figure 4-3 Route KX – SSP Recommended Change ...... 49 Figure 4-4 Weekday Passenger Boardings for Route ECR ...... 54 Figure 4-5 Weekday Passenger Boarding Activity by Stop (North County) ...... 55 Figure 4-6 Weekday Passenger Boarding Activity by Stop ...... 56 Figure 4-7 Weekday Passenger Boardings by Route ...... 57 Figure 4-8 Weekday Operating Speed ...... 59 Figure 4-9 Weekday Passenger Boardings per Revenue Hour ...... 60

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-10 Weekday Passenger Miles Per Route Mile ...... 62 Figure 4-11 Weekday Farebox Recovery Ratio ...... 63 Figure 4-12 Weekday Subsidy per Passenger Boarding ...... 64 Figure 4-13 VTA Rapid 522 Route Map ...... 67 Figure 4-14 Caltrain Weekday Passenger Boardings by Station (San Mateo County) ...... 68 Figure 4-15 Caltrain Weekday Passenger Boardings Total ...... 69 Figure 4-16 BART Weekday Exits by Station (San Mateo County)...... 70 Figure 4-17 BART Weekday Exits Total ...... 70 Figure 4-18 Millbrae BART/Caltrain Station Map ...... 72 Figure 4-19 Palo Alto Transit Center Map ...... 73 Figure 5-1 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Daly City, Colma, Pacifica) ...... 75 Figure 5-2 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Colma to Burlingame) ...... 76 Figure 5-3 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Burlingame, Hillsborough) ...... 77 Figure 5-4 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Hillsborough to San Carlos) ...... 78 Figure 5-5 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Foster City to Woodside) ...... 79 Figure 5-6 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Menlo Park to East Palo Alto) ...... 80

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

List of Tables

Table 0-1: The Two Families of BRT ...... 4 Table 2-1 Land Use by City in San Mateo County within the Corridor ...... 16 Table 3-1 Typical Roadway Conditions...... 29 Table 3-2 Caltrain Grade Crossings ...... 35 Table 3-3 Existing and Proposed Bus Exemption Locations ...... 36 Table 3-4 AADT Volumes ...... 37 Table 3-5 Intersection LOS Definitions ...... 39 Table 3-6 Intersection Level of Service ...... 41 Table 4-1 SamTrans Cross Corridor Routes ...... 50 Table 4-2 ECR On-Time Performance ...... 61 Table 4-3 SamTrans Customer Survey Response ...... 66 Table 4-4 Key Transfer Locations ...... 71

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The El Camino Real Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Phasing Plan seeks to develop a BRT plan for the El Camino Real Corridor (Corridor) in San Mateo County that achieves the following goals:

Goal 1 – Increase bus ridership along the El Camino Corridor by improving service for existing customers and attracting new customers.

Goal 2 – Complement the Grand Boulevard Initiative’s (GBI) vision of realizing the Corridor as a “grand boulevard of meaningful destinations” by building consensus on transit improvements that promote livability and commercial vitality.

Goal 3 – Minimize system capital and operating cost increases and operational impacts by developing a conceptual bus operating plan that optimizes local, Rapid, and Full BRT services along the corridor.

Goal 4 – Minimize corridor traffic and parking impacts while maximizing the benefits of Rapid and Full BRT services.

The Existing Conditions Report is one of the first tasks of the BRT Phasing Plan and sets the stage for future analysis and planning. This report draws heavily on existing studies and plans, including the SamTrans Service Plan (SSP) (2013) and Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI) Corridor Plan (2010), Economic and Housing Opportunities Assessment (2010), and Existing Conditions Report (2011). The executive summary discusses key themes for the Corridor and highlights data that supports the need for enhanced transit services along the El Camino Real Corridor.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Demographics and Land Use

The demographics and land use characteristics of the Corridor are conducive to supporting premium transit service above what is currently provided. Population density within 1/2 mile of the corridor is approximately 14 persons per square mile. There is a significant amount of multi-family residential, followed by single family residential and retail/office/commercial land uses. There are numerous activity centers along or adjacent to the El Camino Corridor that traditionally support high levels of transit use – schools, city halls, medical centers, shopping centers, downtown areas, commercial corridors, and transit stations. 1

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Roadway Facilities

In San Mateo County, El Camino Real ranges from four to six general purpose lanes (in both directions). There are no designated bicycle lanes. Right of way (ROW) varies considerably along the corridor, from approximately 45 feet to 120 feet (curb-to-curb). Segments with wider ROW are candidates for transit preferential treatments, including bus-only lanes, queue jump lanes, and bus bulbs. Narrow ROW present in other portions of the Corridor precludes a contiguous bus-only lane network for the entire Corridor. Areas with exclusive right-turn lanes and wide right-of-way could be good locations for potential queue jump lanes for transit. There are two existing intersections which allow buses to proceed straight through right turn lanes. These locations have “bus exempt” signs. SamTrans is currently considering exemption at an additional five locations. The majority of intersections evaluated are in compliance with the County’s LOS E standard, with the exception of El Camino Real / Millbrae Avenue (LOS F in AM peak hour).

Transit

In August 2013, SamTrans combined weekday local Routes 390 and 391 into local Route ECR (weekend service was combined in August 2012) and improved service frequency from 20 min to 15 min. In total, 102 southbound and 104 northbound stops are served by ECR with stop spacing averaging every quarter mile along the 26-mile corridor. SamTrans service along El Camino has the highest ridership of any corridor in the system yet saw a downward trend over the past decade. While there is no definitive explanation for the declining ridership, increasing congestion on El Camino, improved service and increased ridership on Caltrain, and increases in median income along the corridor could indicate that SamTrans customers are shifting modes (to automobile and commuter rail). Average travel speeds of 12 mph (characteristic of a local bus route) translate into long end-to-end travel times that are difficult to attract choice riders. During peak periods when congestion occurs along El Camino Real, it can take more than two and a half hours to travel between Daly City and Palo Alto. During off-peak periods end-to-end travel time is still around two hours.

SamTrans has an on-time performance goal of 85%. Early results for Route ECR (August 2013) indicate that the service is performing below that goal (combined 71.5%). The length of the route, number of stops, and congestion on El Camino Real all contribute to poor on-time performance. With substandard on-time performance, reliability is a major concern. Unreliable service increases wait time and uncertainty and discourages ridership, especially by choice riders.

Reducing the number of stops served (and thus increasing stop spacing) is the easiest way to improve travel speeds and reliability. Local buses such as Route ECR typically stop every quarter mile or less, while agencies typically implement half-mile to mile stop spacing for Rapid and BRT services. Implementing

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

longer stop spacing is one of the least expensive strategies to improve speed and reliability. Any improvement in speed would increase corridor ridership. Rapid and BRT service typically translate into 10- 25% reduction in travel time operating on-street in mixed-flow traffic or exclusive lanes.1

DEFINITION OF BRT

• Limited stop service;

• Bus priority at signals and on streets;

• Faster passenger boarding and fare collection;

• Transportation system management enhancements;

• Enhanced passenger amenities; and

• Unique branding.

1 Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making, US DOT, February 2009.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

TABLE 0-1: THE TWO FAMILIES OF BRT

Type of BRT Typical Attributes Examples

NEXT STEPS

In the context of the El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan, the Existing Conditions report documents conditions as they are today along the Corridor by identifying existing transit service and performance, demographics, socioeconomic characteristics, land use and activity centers, roadways and congestion, and non-motorized facilities. At present, SamTrans does not operate Rapid or BRT service on the El Camino Corridor. The goal of this study is to develop a short-term Rapid and long-term BRT strategy for the Phasing Plan that addresses speed and reliability issues in the corridor and results in improved ridership.

• The short-term operating plan and phasing plan should focus on Rapid bus service. • The long-term operating plan and phasing plan should focus on more capitally intensive BRT services.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THIS STUDY

The 2010 Grand Boulevard’s Initiative Multimodal Corridor Plan (GBI Corridor Plan) identified the need for improvements in both transportation and land use along the El Camino Corridor.2 In San Mateo County, the El Camino Corridor is expected to experience an increase of over 24,800 households and 90,800 jobs between 2005 and 2035 using 2007 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projections. Several past studies identified BRT as feasible along the Corridor. Under this backdrop, the El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Phasing Plan seeks to set forth a strategy to achieve the following goals:

Goal 1 – Increase bus ridership along the El Camino Corridor by improving service for existing customers and attracting new customers.

Goal 4 – Minimize corridor traffic and parking impacts while maximizing the benefits of Rapid and Full BRT services.

The Phasing Plan seeks to identify and develop the following:

• Benefits and costs of a BRT system;

• Essential system components;

• Stakeholder support;

• Ridership demand analysis;

• Operating and capital cost estimates;

2 Grand Boulevard Multimodal Transportation Corridor Plan, The Grand Boulevard Initiative, October 2010.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

• Network integration with existing and future SamTrans, VTA and Muni bus systems;

• Funding strategy; and

• Phasing and implementation plan.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT

The BRT Existing Conditions Report is one of the first tasks of the BRT Phasing Plan. This report draws heavily on existing studies and plans, including the SamTrans Service Plan (SSP) (2013) and Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI) Corridor Plan (2010), Economic and Housing Opportunities Assessment (2010), and Existing Conditions Report (2011). The report will highlight existing conditions which help identify the need to provide an enhanced bus transit system along the Corridor. Existing conditions are also inventoried in order to identify street network configuration opportunities and constraints and intersection operating conditions. Other factors such as land use intensities and activity nodes are included. Data from the SSP assisted with inventorying existing transit services and transit competitiveness. The existing conditions data will be incorporated into modeling scenarios to estimate ridership and develop a recommended service plan along the Corridor.

1.3 INTRODUCTION TO THE CORRIDOR

The El Camino Real Corridor connects San Francisco to San Jose along the Peninsula. El Camino Real (Royal Road in Spanish) is also the historical 600-mile route that connected the former Alta California’s 21 missions from San Diego to Sonoma. For this study the Corridor is defined as the portion of El Camino Real that traverses San Mateo County and the small section in Santa Clara County from the San Mateo County Border to the Palo Alto Transit Center. Figure 1-1 shows the extent of the study corridor. This report presents details of the Corridor, including:

• Demographics and land use

• Roadway facilities and performance

• Transit operations and performance

• Bicycle/Pedestrian facilities

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 1-1 El Camino Corridor

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

2.0 DEMOGRAPHICS & LAND USE

This section discusses the demographic and land use characteristics of the Corridor. Some of the key takeaways from this section include:

• The population density in the Corridor is greater than the San Mateo County average.

• The densest areas along the Corridor include: Daly City, Colma, San Bruno (east of the Corridor), Burlingame (east of the Corridor), and Redwood City.

• Employment is predicted to grow at an average of 7.2% every five years from 2010 to 2035 (from approximately 104,000 to 147,000 jobs).

• The areas along the Corridor with the highest employment density include South San Francisco, San Bruno, Burlingame, San Mateo, and Redwood City.

• Median household income is increasing at the same time low-income households are making up a greater share of residents along the Corridor.

• Daly City, San Mateo, Belmont, Redwood City, Menlo Park, and San Bruno have high percentages of transit supportive land use.

• There are numerous major destinations along or near the El Camino Corridor – schools, city halls, medical centers, shopping centers, downtown areas, commercial corridors, and multi-modal transit hubs that are conducive to transit usage.

• The drive alone rate along the Corridor is slightly lower than San Mateo County overall.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

2.1 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT

Population density along the Corridor (half-mile distance from El Camino Real) is slightly less than 14 persons per acre. In comparison, The densest areas along the population density in the entire County is about two persons per acre.3 Corridor include: Daly City, These densities along the corridor indicate that frequent, high capacity Colma, San Bruno east of the transit service could be supported. Corridor, Burlingame east of the Corridor, and Redwood City.

3 Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 2-1 shows existing population density along the Corridor. Population density fluctuates significantly. The densest areas along the Corridor include: Daly City, Colma, San Bruno east of the Corridor, Burlingame east of the Corridor, and Redwood City. Figure 2-2 illustrates the existing employment density along the Corridor. The areas along the Corridor with the highest employment density include South San Francisco, San Bruno, Burlingame, San Mateo, and Redwood City. Interestingly, between 2000 and 2010 employment decreased (124,000 to 104,000 jobs) along the Corridor, possibly due to the 2008 recession.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 2-1 Population Density

Source: Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 2-2 Employment Density

Source: Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

2.2 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

Figure 2-3 shows the distribution of household income for San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, respectively, and for the El Camino Real Corridor (not specific to San Mateo County). Forty percent of the population along the El Camino Real Corridor has a household income of greater $100,000, an increase from 27% in year 2000. San Mateo County as a whole has also seen a similar trend. The data shows that income disparity has increased since Median Income has risen 2000. Along the Corridor (not exclusive of San Mateo County), median while percentage earning two household income has increased from $65,000 to $83,000. The times below the poverty level percentage of population along the Corridor earning below 200% of has also risen. (or two times) the federal poverty level has increased from 18% to 21%.4

Figure 2-3 Distribution of Household Income

Source: Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011.

The median age along the Corridor is age 40, up from 35 in 2000, indicating an aging population. Figure 2-4 provides a comparison of median age, which has increased along the Corridor and within both

4 Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

counties as well. The race of residents living along the Corridor has also changed. Figure 2-5 shows that the Corridor (not specific to San Mateo County), along with the two counties, have seen a decrease in Caucasians and an increase in Latinos and Asians.

Figure 2-4 Median Age

Figure 2-5 Race of Residents

Source (both figures): Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

2.3 LAND USE

2.3.1 EXISTING LAND USE

Figure 2-6 shows the breakdown of land use type along the Corridor in San Mateo County. Figure 2-7 provides a map of the existing land Daly City, San Mateo, uses along the Corridor. The largest category of land use in the Belmont, Redwood City, Corridor is multi-family residential, followed by single family Menlo Park, and San Bruno residential, and retail/office/commercial. Table 2-1 provides a have high percentages of breakdown by land use type by City within the Corridor. Transit- land uses supportive of supportive locations will have high percentages of multi-family transit. housing and retail/office/commercial land uses. Daly City, San Mateo and Belmont are the cities with the highest percentage of multi-family residential land use. Redwood City, Menlo Park, and San Bruno have the highest percentage of retail/office/commercial land use.

Figure 2-6 Land Use Along El Camino Corridor

Source: Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011. Table 4-5.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

TABLE 2-1 LAND USE BY CITY IN SAN MATEO COUNTY WITHIN THE CORRIDOR

- Family Vacant Nature Corridor) City Total Industrial / Residential Residential County (for % of City in Institutional Multi Agriculture / Single FamilySingle / Commercial / Infrastructure Retail / Office / Retail Open Space / Public Civic / / Right ofRight / Way Manufacturing

Area (acres) 330.72 2,657.91 110.91 15.61 167.88 8.43 21.78 80.76 3,394.01 13.46% Daly City % of City Total 9.74% 78.31% 3.27% 0.46% 4.95% 0.25% 0.64% 2.38% 100.00%

Area (acres) 175.48 185.6 119.63 17.57 674.09 0 16.53 35.38 1,224.28 4.86% Colma % of City Total 14.33% 15.16% 9.77% 1.44% 55.06% 0.00% 1.35% 2.89% 100.00%

Area (acres) 587.7 822.99 292.22 129.9 234.98 11.39 67.55 65.01 2,211.74 8.77% South San Francisco % of City Total 26.57% 37.21% 13.21% 5.87% 10.62% 0.52% 3.05% 2.94% 100.00%

Area (acres) 358.07 574.24 220.82 15.49 70.81 38.6 103.66 15.79 1,397.49 5.54% San Bruno % of City Total 25.62% 41.09% 15.80% 1.11% 5.07% 2.76% 7.42% 1.13% 100.00%

Area (acres) 270.1 295.95 9.1 13.07 39.59 0 141.86 62.53 832.2 3.30% Millbrae % of City Total 32.46% 35.56% 1.09% 1.57% 4.76% 0.00% 17.05% 7.51% 100.00%

Area (acres) 511.75 550.71 164.63 172.87 90.72 7.96 48.84 17.46 1,564.94 6.21% Burlingame % of City Total 32.70% 35.19% 10.52% 11.05% 5.80% 0.51% 3.12% 1.12% 100.00%

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

TABLE 2-1 LAND USE BY CITY IN SAN MATEO COUNTY WITHIN THE CORRIDOR

Area (acres) 305.54 0.51 4.46 0 2.64 16.13 2.76 6.94 339 1.34% Hillsborough % of City Total 90.13% 0.15% 1.32% 0.00% 0.78% 4.76% 0.81% 2.05% 100.00%

Area (acres) 968.85 5,769.97 345.15 43.03 76.58 24.9 45.42 96.54 7,370.44 29.23% San Mateo % of City Total 13.15% 78.29% 4.68% 0.58% 1.04% 0.34% 0.62% 1.31% 100.00%

Area (acres) 346.49 1,390.12 69.89 36.94 62.24 22.31 1.67 25.71 1,955.36 7.75% Belmont % of City Total 17.72% 71.09% 3.57% 1.89% 3.18% 1.14% 0.09% 1.31% 100.00%

Area (acres) 394.01 336.6 153.11 667.51 21.75 12.99 11.74 27.02 1,624.73 6.44% San Carlos % of City Total 24.25% 20.72% 9.42% 41.08% 1.34% 0.80% 0.72% 1.66% 100.00%

Area (acres) 393.65 448.88 265.16 44.31 80.51 4.29 23.72 27.71 1,288.24 5.11% Redwood City % of City Total 30.56% 34.84% 20.58% 3.44% 6.25% 0.33% 1.84% 2.15% 100.00%

Area (acres) 61.78 2.12 2.26 0 81.03 22.18 2.99 8.94 181.29 0.72% Atherton % of City Total 34.08% 1.17% 1.25% 0.00% 44.70% 12.23% 1.65% 4.93% 100.00%

Area (acres) 237.32 541.91 195.6 2.87 31.66 22.41 33.2 13.23 1,078.20 4.28% Menlo Park % of City Total 22.01% 50.26% 18.14% 0.27% 2.94% 2.08% 3.08% 1.23% 100.00%

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

TABLE 2-1 LAND USE BY CITY IN SAN MATEO COUNTY WITHIN THE CORRIDOR

Area (acres) 130.28 202.28 62.11 105.04 76.32 1.53 140.15 35.02 752.72 2.99% Unincorporated % of City Total 17.31% 26.87% 8.25% 13.95% 10.14% 0.20% 18.62% 4.65% 100.00%

El Camino Area (acres) 3,977.84 10,113.28 1,492.29 1,101.14 633.85 173.3 555.99 336.91 25,214.64 Corridor Total (San Mateo % of City Total 15.78% 40.11% 5.92% 4.37% 2.51% 0.69% 2.21% 1.34% 100.00% County)

Source: Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011. Table 4-5.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 2-7 Existing Land Use

Source: Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

2.3.2 KEY DESTINATIONS

Major destinations are primary generators of person trips, and their intensity and density are attractive to alternate transportation modes, such as transit. There are numerous major destinations along or near the El Camino Corridor, including:

• Educational institutions such as Menlo College (Menlo Park) and Stanford University (Palo Alto);

• City halls and other municipal buildings;

• Medical facilities such as Kaiser Permanente Medical Center (South San Francisco), Peninsula Hospital (Burlingame), and Mills Health Center (San Mateo);

• Shopping centers such as The Shops at Tanforan (San Bruno), Hillsdale Shopping Center (San Mateo), and Stanford Shopping Center (Palo Alto);

• Downtowns and commercial corridors such as Broadway and Burlingame Avenue (Burlingame), Downtown San Mateo, Laurel Street (San Carlos), Downtown Redwood City, and Downtown Menlo Park; and

• BART and Caltrain stations that provide access to regional destinations such as Downtown San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose.

Some of the major destinations are shown on Figure 2-8 (northern San Mateo County) and Figure 2-95 (southern San Mateo County).

5 SamTrans Service Plan, Market Assessment Working Paper. 2012.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 2-8 Key Destinations (North)

Source: SamTrans Service Plan, Market Assessment Working Paper. 2012

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 2-9 Key Destinations (South)

Source: SamTrans Service Plan, Market Assessment Working Paper, 2012

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

2.3.3 PLANNED LAND USE

Policy documents in development or developed by cities within San Mateo County affect land uses on the El Camino Corridor. Overall, the adopted policies encourage increasing land use intensity along the Corridor. Adopted plans by jurisdiction are shown in the table below.

Jurisdiction Land Use Plans (North to South)

Daly City General Plan Update

Colma Housing Element Update

South El Camino Real Area Plan South San Francisco El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan

General Plan San Bruno Downtown and Transit Corridors Plan

Millbrae Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Update

Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan

Hillsborough General Plan

Bay Meadows Phase II Guidelines and Development Standards Rail Corridor Transit-Oriented Development Plan San Mateo Hillsdale Station Area Plan General Plan

General Plan Update (in progress) Belmont Economic Development/Target Site Policy Amendments (in progress)

General Plan Update San Carlos Zoning Ordinance Update

General Plan Update Redwood City Downtown Precise Plan

El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan Menlo Park Housing Element Update (in progress)

San Mateo County North Fair Oaks Community Plan

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Details of how each plan may affect the Corridor are documented in the Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report (November 2011) and the project website (www.grandboulevard.net).

2.4 TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS

From the 2005-2009 American Community Survey, about 70% of workers along the El Camino Corridor (not specific to San Mateo County) drove alone to work, 9% carpooled, 9% took public transit, 6.5% walked or biked, and 6% took another Drive alone rate along the means. The drive alone rate has decreased from 75% in 2000. The Corridor has decreased from drive alone rate along the Corridor is slightly lower than that in San 75% in 2000 to 70% in 2009. Mateo County overall. Figure 2-10 details mode split.

Figure 2-10 Commute Mode Split

Source: Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011.

Figure 2-11 provides detail on commute times. Residents along the El Camino Corridor (not specific to San Mateo County) have shorter commute times than that in the County as a whole. About 47% of Corridor residents commute less than 20 minutes to work. Commute times have also decreased since 2000.

Figure 2-11 Commute Trip Time

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Source: Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011.

Using the MTC 2005 Travel Model, work and non-work travel patterns were mapped on Figure 2-12 and Figure 2-13. Some of the key insights include:

• Travel within a specific city is seen mostly within Daly City, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and Redwood City. With the exception of Redwood City, these cities also see high volumes of peak period home-to-work trip making.

• Travel between cities generally follows a north-south pattern along the El Camino Corridor. Redwood City, San Mateo, and South San Francisco are major generators for work trips to and from nearby cities.

• There is significant regional travel between the counties. Work trips account for 39% of the trips to and from San Francisco County and 48% of trips to and from Santa Clara County.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 2-12 Work Based Travel Patterns in San Mateo County

Source: SamTrans Service Plan, Market Assessment Working Paper. 2012

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 2-13 Work and Non-Work Based Travel Patterns in San Mateo County

Source: SamTrans Service Plan, Market Assessment Working Paper. 2012

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

3.0 ROADWAY FACILITIES

This section discusses the roadway characteristics of the Corridor. Some of the key takeaways from this section include:

• Areas with exclusive right turn lanes may be good locations for potential queue jump lanes for transit. There are two existing intersections which allow buses to proceed straight through right turn lanes. These locations have “bus exempt” signs. SamTrans is currently installing exemption signs at an additional five locations.

• Some of the intersections along the Corridor with the highest roadway volumes include Westborough Boulevard in South San Francisco, I-380 in San Bruno, and SR-92 in San Mateo.

• The majority of intersections evaluated are in compliance with the County’s LOS E standard for El Camino Real, with the exception of El Camino Real / Millbrae Avenue.6

3.1 INVENTORY OF LANES

El Camino Real ranges from two to three general purpose (GP) lanes in each direction. There are no designated bus-only or bicycle lanes. Landscaped or painted medians exist on the majority of the Corridor. Table 3-1 provides a summary of the typical roadway conditions7 along the corridor including number of lanes and existence of sidewalks, parking, and medians for each City along the Corridor. Right- of-way varies considerably, which provides both opportunities and constraints for bus preferential treatments.

6 City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), 2011 7 Specific right-of-way conditions may vary within the block segments described the table.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

TABLE 3-1 TYPICAL ROADWAY CONDITIONS

Length Avg ROW SB SB SB NB NB NB From To City Median (mi) Width (ft) Sidewalk Parking Lanes Lanes Parking Sidewalk

John Daly Blvd/ El 20', De Long St 0.31 Daly City 200 2 2 Camino Real Planted

John Daly Blvd/El 15', Bismark St 0.65 Daly City 110 X X 2 2 X X Camino Real Planted

Market St/ San 15', Bismark St 0.42 Daly City 110 X X 2 2 X X Pedro Rd Raised

Market St/San Daly City/ Unincorporated 30', Mission Rd 1.39 110 X X 3 3 X X Pedro Rd Colma/ Colma Planted

Mission Rd Hickey Blvd 0.48 Colma/South San Francisco 45 2 Barrier 2

16', Hickey Blvd McLellan Dr 0.37 South San Francisco 120 X 2 2 X Planted

16', McLellan Dr Ponderosa Rd 1.4 South San Francisco 120 X X 3 3 X X Planted

20', Ponderosa Rd Francisco Dr 0.49 South San Francisco 120 X X 3 3 Planted

South San Francisco/San 20', Francisco Dr Commodore Dr 0.72 120 X X 3 3 X X Bruno Planted

17', Commodore Dr San Bruno Ave 0.34 San Bruno 120 X 3 3 X Planted

17', San Bruno Ave Murchison Dr 2.81 San Bruno/Millbrae 120 X X 3 3 X X Planted

17', Murchison Dr Ray Dr 0.59 Burlingame 120 X X 3 3 Planted

Ray Dr Mills Ave 0.31 Burlingame 45 X 2 2

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Length Avg ROW SB SB SB NB NB NB From To City Median (mi) Width (ft) Sidewalk Parking Lanes Lanes Parking Sidewalk

Burlingame/Hillsborough/San Mills Ave 2nd Ave 3.12 45 X 2 2 X Mateo

15', 2nd Ave Mission Dr 0.27 San Mateo 90 X 3 3 X Planted

17th Ave/Bovet Mission Dr 0.79 San Mateo 90 X X 3 5' 3 X X Rd

12' 17th Ave/Bovet Rd Lodato Ave 0.46 San Mateo 90 X X 3 3 X X Planted

Lodato Ave 28th Ave 0.5 San Mateo 90 X X 3 5' 3 X X

14', 28th Ave 36th Ave 0.61 San Mateo 95 X 3 3 X Raised

36th Ave North Rd 0.59 San Mateo/Belmont 95 X 3 16' 2 X

16', North Rd Middle Rd 0.71 Belmont 95 X 2 2 Planted

16', Middle Rd San Carlos Ave 1.42 Belmont/San Carlos 95 X X 2 2 X X Planted

12', San Carlos Ave Arroyo Ave 0.39 San Carlos 95 X X 3 2 X X Planted

Arroyo Ave Belmont Ave 0.53 San Carlos 95 X X 3 12' 2

10', Belmont Ave St Francis Wy 0.27 San Carlos 95 X X 3 2 Planted

10', St Francis Wy Claremont Ave 0.35 San Carlos/Redwood City 95 X X 3 2 X X Planted

12', Claremont Ave SR-84 1.47 Redwood City 95 X X 2 2 X X Planted

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Length Avg ROW SB SB SB NB NB NB From To City Median (mi) Width (ft) Sidewalk Parking Lanes Lanes Parking Sidewalk

Redwood City/North Fair 12', SR-84 Wilburn Ave 1.18 Oaks 95 X X 3 3 X X Planted (Unincorporated)/Atherton

17', Wilburn Ave Spruce Ave 0.71 Atherton/Menlo Park 90 3 3 Planted

12', Spruce Ave Valparaiso Ave 0.46 Atherton/Menlo Park 100 X 3 2 X X Planted

18', Valparaiso Ave Roble Ave 0.51 Menlo Park 100 X X 2 2 X X Planted

18', Roble Ave Quarry Rd 0.88 Menlo Park/Palo Alto 100 X X 3 3 X X Planted

Quarry Rd University Ave 0.17 Palo Alto 80 3 Barrier 3

Source: ARUP 2013

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

3.1.1 CROSS-SECTIONS

Typical cross-sections are provided below for Belmont (Figure 3-1), San Carlos (Figure 3-2), and Redwood City (Figure 3-3). Each of the cross-sections was obtained from the Transforming El Camino Real Study (San Mateo County Transit District, 2007).

Figure 3-1 Belmont Cross-Section

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 3-2 San Carlos Cross-Section

Figure 3-3 Redwood City Cross-Section

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

3.2 SIGNAL COORDINATION AND CORRIDOR TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY CAPABILITY

Transit Signal Priority (TSP), also known as Bus Signal Priority (BSP), can help reduce delay and variability in bus travel times and schedule arrival times. TSP can be implemented in a mixed flow context, but also for dedicated bus lanes and queue jump lanes to minimize delay to through bus movements. Traffic signals along the Corridor are currently coordinated via an interconnect cable and controlled by Caltrans. As part of the Smart Corridor Program the signals will be upgraded (Type 170 controllers will be replaced with type 2070 lite) within the next year to the current Caltrans standard. The new controllers will be TSP capable; however upgrades to either the central system or signal cabinets would be needed to implement TSP as well as the addition of equipment hardware on each bus that travels along the corridor.

Caltrans owns, operates and maintains all signals in the El Camino Corridor. If TSP is a desired component of the BRT Phasing Plan, cities along the corridor should be included in any discussions regarding signals in their jurisdictions, however, implementation decisions would be made by Caltrans and SamTrans. Based on initial discussions with Caltrans, there are no objections to TSP and Caltrans would be willing to work with SamTrans to implement TSP. Discussions would be needed in regard to the method of installation (type of equipment) and data collection.

3.2.1 CALTRAIN AND SIGNAL PRE-EMPTION

Caltrain currently employs signal pre-emption at all at-grade crossings along its commuter rail corridor. There are 30 grade crossings in San Mateo County as shown in Table 3-2. Proximity of the Corridor to Caltrain grade crossings has the potential to affect how TSP would function. It is likely that Whipple Avenue in Redwood City is the only Caltrain grade crossing that is close to the Corridor enough to affect TSP functionality.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

TABLE 3-2 CALTRAIN GRADE CROSSINGS

Cross Street City

Linden Avenue South San Francisco

Scott Street San Bruno

Center Street Millbrae

Broadway Burlingame

Oak Grove Avenue Burlingame

North Lane Burlingame

Howard Avenue Burlingame

Bayswater Avenue Burlingame

Peninsula Avenue San Mateo

Villa Terrace San Mateo

Bellevue Avenue San Mateo

1st Avenue San Mateo

2nd Avenue San Mateo

3rd Avenue San Mateo

4th Avenue San Mateo

5th Avenue San Mateo

9th Avenue San Mateo

25th Avenue San Mateo

Whipple Avenue Redwood City

Brewster Avenue Redwood City

Broadway/Marshall Street Redwood City

Maple Street Redwood City

Main Street Redwood City

Chestnut Avenue Redwood City

Fair Oaks Lane Atherton

Watkins Avenue Atherton

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

TABLE 3-2 CALTRAIN GRADE CROSSINGS

Cross Street City

Encinal Avenue Menlo Park

Glenwood Avenue Menlo Park

Oak Grove Avenue Menlo Park

Ravenswood Avenue Menlo Park

3.3 EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANES

Areas with exclusive right turn lanes may be good locations for considering transit queue jump lanes if current traffic and delay conditions warrant. Queue jump lanes, also known as queue jumpers or exempt lanes, are short segments of Areas with exclusive right priority lanes at specific locations. In the US context, queue jump lanes turn lanes may be good are typically in right-hand turn lanes and allow for transit through locations for considering movements. There are two existing intersections which allow buses to queue jump lanes for transit. proceed straight through right turn lanes. These locations have “bus exempt” signs. SamTrans is currently installing exemption signs at an additional five locations. Existing and proposed locations are listed in Table 3-3. Additional intersections, depending on right-of-way and intersection operations, may also be good candidates for bus exemption.

TABLE 3-3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUS EXEMPTION LOCATIONS

Cross Street City Northbound Southbound Status

Hillsdale Boulevard San Mateo X Existing

Ravenswood Avenue Menlo Park X Existing

Second Avenue San Mateo X Proposed

Broadway Redwood City X Proposed

Jefferson Redwood City X X Proposed

Valparaiso Menlo Park X Proposed

Source: SamTrans Service Planning, 2013.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

3.4 TRAFFIC VOLUMES

3.4.1 ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

The annual average daily traffic volume (AADT) measures the daily traffic flow for a given location averaged out over the year. Figure 3-4 illustrates the AADT along the Corridor at given intersections. The AADT for the Corridor ranged from approximately 16,000 to 47,000 vehicles. Some of the busier intersections include Westborough Boulevard in South San Francisco, I-380 in San Bruno, SR-92 in San Mateo and Woodside Road in Redwood City. A comparison of AADT levels along the Corridor between 2005 and 2010 (see Table 3-4) shows a nine percent decrease in traffic volumes from 2005 levels, likely an after-effect of the 2008 recession.

TABLE 3-4 AADT VOLUMES

Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes Along the Corridor

County 2005 2010 Difference

San Mateo County 32,145 29,109 -3,036 (-9%)

Source: Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011. Table 5-3.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 3-4 Traffic Volumes

Source: Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

3.5 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

The method to conduct level of service (LOS) analysis is documented by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). LOS is considered a qualitative description of traffic operations; however, most studies quantify intersection LOS using “control delay” at intersections.

Intersection LOS is based on control delay, which is defined as the delay directly associated with the traffic control device (i.e., a stop sign or signal), including initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay and final acceleration delay. These delay estimates are considered meaningful indicators of driver discomfort and frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time.

The LOS analysis for signalized intersections accounts for factors that affect delay at signalized intersections, including the turning movement volumes, lane geometries, and signal timing plan (e.g., cycle length, coordination and phasing). Table 3-5 presents the relationship between LOS and delay for signalized intersections.

TABLE 3-5 INTERSECTION LOS DEFINITIONS

Average Delay1 LOS Description (Seconds / Vehicle)

Insignificant delay: No approach is fully used and no vehicle waits longer than one A < 10.1 red indication (at signals).

Minimal Delay: An occasional approach is fully used and drivers begin to feel B 10.1 – 20.0 restricted.

C 20.1 – 35.0 Average/moderate, but acceptable delay. Most drivers feel restricted.

D 35.1 – 55.0 Tolerable delay. Some queuing may occur, but usually dissipates quickly.

Significant delay. Volume approaches capacity and vehicles wait through several E 55.1 – 80.0 signal cycles. Drivers at unsignalized intersections may wait in long queues.

Excessive delay and congestion. Conditions are at capacity with long delay and F >80.0 queuing.

Notes: 1. For signalized intersections Source: Chapters 16 and 17, Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

The congestion management agency for San Mateo County (City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG)) defines unacceptable LOS as part of the Congestion Management Program (CMP). The minimum acceptable level of service for El Camino Real is LOS E. The majority of intersections are in compliance with the LOS E standard, with the exception of El Camino Real & Millbrae Avenue. See Table 3-6 for a comparison of intersection LOS at C/CAG monitoring locations and intersections studied in the Caltrain Electrification EIR. Figure 3-5 and Figure 3-6 show the 2011 intersection LOS for the Corridor. When acceptable intersection operations are considered LOS E, significant delay is expected to occur. Intersections at or approaching LOS E should be considered for transit preferential treatments to improve bus speed through congested locations.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

TABLE 3-6 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

Intersection of El City 2009 (C/CAG) 2011 (C/CAG 2013 (Caltrain) Camino Real &

Hillside / John Daly Daly City D C - Boulevard

San Bruno Ave San Bruno D C -

Millbrae Ave Millbrae E F/D D

E 25th Avenue San Mateo - - C/F

31st Avenue San Mateo - - B/E

E Hillsdale Boulevard San Mateo - - D/E

Broadway Burlingame B B -

Park-Peninsula Burlingame B C

Ralston Ave Burlingame D C F

Holly Street San Carlos D C

San Carlos Avenue San Carlos - - C/D

Whipple Ave Redwood City D C E/D

Broadway Street Redwood City - - C/D

James Avenue Redwood City - - C

Fair Oaks Lane Atherton - - C

Watkins Avenue Atherton - - D

Glenwood Avenue Menlo Park - - C

Oak Grove Avenue Menlo Park - - B/C

Santa Cruz Avenue Menlo Park - - A/B

Ravenswood Avenue Menlo Park - - D/F

Source: San Mateo County Congestion Management Program. 2011.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 3-5 AM Intersection Level of Service

Source: San Mateo County Congestion Management Program. 2011. Appendix F.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 3-6 PM Intersection Level of Service

Source: San Mateo County Congestion Management Program. 2011. Appendix F.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

3.6 ON-STREET PARKING

On-street parking is available on the majority of the Corridor. However, on-street parking is prohibited in some areas of few lanes or narrow width including residential areas of Hillsborough, Burlingame, and Atherton, as well as on segments adjacent to major intersections. Segments of downtown San Mateo and Redwood City have metered parking. Commercial districts in Daly City, San Carlos, Redwood City, and Menlo Park have free time-restricted parking.8 Conversion of the parking lane (where one exists) to either a peak-period or exclusive bus-only lane is an effective strategy to improve transit speed and reliability. Actual occupancy, availability of off-street parking, and cities’ policies on transit preferential treatments would help guide the discussion for future conversion of the parking lane to either a peak-period or exclusive bus-only lane.

8 Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

4.0 TRANSIT

This section describes weekday ridership along the Corridor and the transit agencies and routes that operate within the Corridor. Some of the key takeaways include:

• Weekday ridership is strong where active, mixed-use regional corridors and activity centers are present, specifically along the El Camino Real;

• Stops along the Corridor with high weekday boardings include Daly City BART Station, Colma BART Station, South San Francisco BART Station, San Bruno (near Kaiser Permanente Medical Center), Millbrae Transit Center, downtown San Mateo, Hillsdale Shopping Center, Redwood City Caltrain Station, and Palo Alto Caltrain Station;

• SamTrans routes along the Corridor have seen a steady downward trend in ridership over the last 12 years. Route 397 (owl service) is the exception but also has much lower overall ridership numbers compared to ECR and KX;

• El Camino Real service has the highest level of service productivity, strongest farebox recovery ratios, and lowest subsidy per passenger boarding in the SamTrans system;

• Operating speed along El Camino is average for the SamTrans system. Focusing improvements, such as operating speed, on productive, high-ridership services (such as the El Camino Real routes) will improve service quality for a majority of SamTrans riders;

• In a customer survey, compared to other transit characteristics, on-time performance and frequency were the two greatest concerns; and

• For customers using multiple operators to reach their destinations, there are several key transfer locations along the Corridor including Daly City BART, El Camino Real & Hillsdale Avenue, Millbrae Caltrain/BART Station, and Palo Alto Transit Center.

4.1 SAMTRANS

The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) is the public transit operator for San Mateo County and provides service within the County and also connects north to San Francisco and south to Palo Alto. This section primarily focuses on the routes serving the Corridor and discusses ridership, service performance, and customer experience.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

4.1.1 ROUTES SERVING THE CORRIDOR

The SamTrans routes which serve the El Camino Corridor include routes ECR (formerly 390 and 391), 397, and KX (See Figure 4-1, Figure 4-2, and Figure 4-3). Implementation of the SamTrans Service Plan (SSP) included the following service changes along the Corridor:

• In August 12, 2013, routes 390 and 391 were replaced by Route ECR, which runs every 15 minutes between the Palo Alto Transit Center and the Daly City BART Station. This change eliminated stops at the San Bruno and South San Francisco BART stations, as well as service into San Francisco. Alternative service into San Francisco for Route 391 customers is available on Route 292, Route KX (peak-hour only), Muni 14, BART and Caltrain.

• On January 26, 2014, Route ECR reinstated service to the San Bruno BART Station and eliminated service to the Millbrae BART Transit Center. KX began operation between Redwood City and San Bruno BART, via the San Francisco International Airport, with service to San Francisco only offered on weekdays during the peak-hour/peak-direction.

Route 397 was not affected by the SSP changes. Route 397 is a late night (“owl”) service.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-1 Route ECR

Source: SamTrans

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-2 Route 397 – SSP No Change

Source: SamTrans Service Plan: Final Adopted Recommendations. May 2013.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-3 Route KX – SSP Recommended Change

Source: SamTrans

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

4.1.2 CROSS CORRIDOR ROUTES

A large number of SamTrans bus routes either intersect or travel along (for some portion) El Camino Real as part of their route. Table 4-1 provides detail of each routes’ interaction with the Corridor, the number of stops on the Corridor, and whether the SSP had an impact on the route.

TABLE 4-1 SAMTRANS CROSS CORRIDOR ROUTES

# of Route Origin/Destination Interaction with Corridor SSP Changes stops1

Colma BART/ South Travels along ECR from I-380 to the San Bruno 38 0 None San Francisco BART station

South San Francisco 39 Travels along ECR from Arroyo Dr to Orange 2 N/A (school route)

San Bruno BART/ Travels along ECR in San Bruno from San 43 5 None Burlingame Bruno Ave to Park Place

46 Burlingame Crosses ECR at Trousdale 0 None

53 San Mateo Crosses ECR at SR92 0 None

Travels along ECR from Clark Drive to Barneson 55 San Mateo 4 None Ave

San Mateo (school 59 Crosses ECR at 4th St 1 N/A route)

Belmont (school Travels along ECR from 42nd Ave to Davey 68 2 N/A route) Glen Rd

Travels along ECR between Hazel and 72 Redwood City 0 None Northumberland and Dumbarton and Selby

Redwood City 79 Travels along ECR from Roosevelt to Woodside 0 N/A (school route)

82 & Atherton/ Menlo Crosses ECR at Valparaiso and Santa Cruz 0 None 83 Park

Crosses ECR at Valparaiso and Santa Cruz. Atherton/ Menlo 84 Travels along ECR between Fair Oaks Ln and 2 N/A Park Encinal

Menlo Atherton 86 School/ Portola Crosses ECR at Santa Cruz Ave 0 N/A Valley

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

TABLE 4-1 SAMTRANS CROSS CORRIDOR ROUTES

# of Route Origin/Destination Interaction with Corridor SSP Changes stops1

120 Daly City/ Colma Crosses ECR/Mission St at John Daly Blvd 1 Improved schedule

Crosses ECR/Mission St at John Daly Blvd. Daly City/ Skyline 121 Travels along ECR/Mission from F St to Mission 1 Route realignment College/ Lipman MS Rd.

SF (Stonestown)/ Travels along ECR from Arroyo Dr to Lawndale 122 3 Route realignment SSF BART Blvd

Daly City BART/ Route shortening - will 130 Crosses ECR/Mission St at John Daly Blvd 5 South San Francisco stop at Colma BART

Travels along ECR from Hickey Blvd to New route (not 131 South San Francisco Unknown McLellan implemented)

Route realignment will Travels along ECR from Lawndale Blvd to shift travel along ECR 132 South San Francisco 3 Arroyo Dr to between Arroyo Dr and Orange Ave

Route shortening - Daly City/ San 133 Travels along ECR from Hickey Blvd to Sneath 3 travel along ECR will be Bruno BART from Arroyo to Sneath

Pacifica/ San Bruno 140 Crosses ECR at San Bruno Ave 1 Route realignment BART

141 San Bruno Crosses ECR at Jenevein 1 Route realignment

250 San Mateo Crosses ECR at Hillsdale 1 Route realignment

Foster City/ San 251 Travels along ECR from 31st to Hillsdale 1 Route realignment Mateo

New route (not 252 San Mateo Travels along ECR from 2nd to 5th Unknown implemented)

College of San Crosses ECR at Ralston. Travels along ECR from 260 Mateo/ San Carlos 2 Improved schedule Holly St to San Carlos Ave. Caltrain

Route shortening - will Travels along ECR from 31st Ave to 36th and 262 Belmont 4 not serve Hillsdale Davey Glen Rd to Ralston Ave Shopping Center

Travels along ECR from James Ave to Jefferson 270 Redwood City 1 Improved schedule Ave

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

TABLE 4-1 SAMTRANS CROSS CORRIDOR ROUTES

# of Route Origin/Destination Interaction with Corridor SSP Changes stops1

Route shortening - Travels along ECR from James Ave to Roosevelt 271 Redwood City 2 discontinue portion on Ave ECR

Canada College/ 274 Crosses ECR at James Ave 0 Decreased schedule RWC Caltrain

Canada College/ Travels along ECR from James Ave to New route (not 275 unknown RWC Caltrain Woodside implemented)

Stanford Shopping 280 Center/ East Palo Travels along ECR from Sand Hill Rd to Palm Dr 1 To be discontinued Alto

Stanford Shopping 281 Center/ East Palo Travels along ECR from Sand Hill Rd to Palm Dr 1 Improved schedule Alto/ Menlo Park

Hillsdale Shopping 292 Crosses ECR at Hillsdale 0 Route realignment Center/ SF

Hillsdale Shopping Route shortening - will 294 Center/ Half Moon Travels along ECR from 31st to Hillsdale 1 not serve Linda Mar Bay/ Linda Mar

Travels along ECR from 2nd Ave to 5th Ave, Route shortening - will San Mateo/ Menlo 27th Ave to 36th Ave, San Carlos Ave to 295 8 not serve south of Park Arroyo, James Ave to Woodside. Crosses ECR Redwood City at Santa Cruz.

RWC Caltrain/ East Travels along ECR from James Ave to Jefferson 296 1 Improved schedule Palo Alto Ave

RWC Caltrain/ Palo Travels along ECR from James Ave to Jefferson 297 1 None Alto Caltrain Ave

Notes: 1. Stops along El Camino Real. Source: SamTrans, 2013.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

4.1.3 RIDERSHIP ALONG THE CORRIDOR

4.1.3.1 Ridership by Stop

Figure 4-4 shows average weekday boardings for Route ECR for

October and November 2013. Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 show Weekday ridership appears average weekday daily boardings by individual stop for the entire strong where active, mixed- SamTrans system. The circle sizes are proportionate to the number of use regional corridors and boardings. Weekday ridership appears strong where active, mixed-use high-activity centers are regional corridors and high-activity centers are present, specifically present, specifically along the along the El Camino Real and Caltrain Corridor. Strong ridership is also El Camino Real. present in Daly City, South San Francisco, San Mateo, Redwood City, and East Palo Alto, where market characteristics are typically more conducive to transit. In general, weekend ridership is lower; however, it also appears dominant primarily along the El Camino Real and Caltrain Corridor, and in Daly City, indicating strong all-week demand in these areas9. Stops along the El Camino Corridor with high weekday boardings include:

• Daly City BART Station

• Colma BART Station

• South San Francisco BART Station

• San Bruno (near Kaiser Permanente Medical Center)

• Millbrae Transit Center

• Downtown San Mateo

• Hillsdale Shopping Center

• Redwood City Caltrain Station

• Palo Alto Caltrain Station

9 SamTrans Service Plan – Fixed Route Service Evaluation. TMD. 2012.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-4 Weekday Passenger Boardings for Route ECR

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-5 Weekday Passenger Boarding Activity by Stop (North County)

Source: SamTrans Service Plan – Fixed Route Service Evaluation. TMD. 2012.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-6 Weekday Passenger Boarding Activity by Stop (South County)

Source: SamTrans Service Plan – Fixed Route Service Evaluation. TMD. 2012.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

4.1.3.2 Ridership by Route

In October-November 2013, Route ECR served 5,300-5,400 daily weekday boardings in either direction (thus daily corridor boardings totaled about 10,600-10,700 in both directions). Saturday boardings were about 60% of the average weekday, while Sunday boardings were about 55% of the average weekday. The most recent systemwide ridership analysis was performed for the 2013 SamTrans Service Plan, where ridership data from 2012 was analyzed. See Figure 4-7 for a comparison of weekday passenger boardings for all SamTrans routes. In 2012, Route ECR operated as Routes 390 and 391.

Figure 4-7 Weekday Passenger Boardings by Route

Source: SamTrans Service Plan – Fixed Route Service Evaluation. TMD. 2012.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

4.1.3.2.1 Elderly and Wheelchair Customers

Data collected for Route ECR (Routes 390 and 391 in October 2012) indicate that approximately 0.7% of customers are elderly and 0.2% require a wheelchair lift. While it is imperative to provide service to these user groups, stop dwell time is increased and results in a higher variability of service reliability. Low floor or level boarding would decrease dwell time and provide an improved customer experience for these users.

4.1.3.2.2 Average Passenger Trip Length and Turnover

For SamTrans as a whole, the average passenger trip length is slightly Higher seat turnover on El over four miles. The El Camino Real routes average passenger trip Camino Real service is length is higher at about 5.4 miles. This suggests that SamTrans’ present in Redwood City, San customers are utilizing bus service for longer trips despite the Mateo, and Daly City where availability of Caltrain that runs parallel to the Corridor. Higher seat strong off-corridor markets turnover on El Camino Real service is present in Redwood City, San are located. Mateo, and Daly City where strong off-corridor markets are located.10

4.1.4 CORRIDOR PERFORMANCE

Service performance is evaluated across five areas: speed, productivity, on time performance, corridor intensity, and financial effectiveness. This section will discuss each area as it relates to the Corridor routes.

4.1.4.1 Operating Speed

Operating speed is a key metric which contributes to a customer’s Operating speed along El onboard experience and perception of service quality. SamTrans as a Camino is average for the whole, along with the El Camino Real routes, have an average SamTrans system. Focusing operating speed of around 12 mph11 (see Figure 4-8). For such a long improvements on productive, route, a 12 mph average operating speed is less than optimal. It high-ridership services (such discourages choice riders from using the service and contributes to ECR routes) will improve high operating costs. Increasing operating speed will thus help to service quality for the greatest increase ridership and reduce operating costs. Focusing on number of customers. improvements that increase operating speed, on productive, high-

10 SamTrans Service Plan – Fixed Route Service Evaluation. TMD. 2012. 11 SamTrans Service Plan – Fixed Route Service Evaluation. TMD. 2012.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

ridership services (such as the El Camino Real routes) will improve service quality and reduce travel time for a majority of SamTrans customers.

Figure 4-8 Weekday Operating Speed

Source: SamTrans Service Plan – Fixed Route Service Evaluation. TMD. 2012.

4.1.4.2 Productivity

Productivity measures route level service effectiveness using passenger boardings per revenue vehicle hour. Passenger boardings per revenue The El Camino Real service vehicle hour is the number of unlinked passenger boardings (ridership) has the highest level of generated per revenue hour of service operated. This measure shows service productivity in the ridership generated per unit of service provided by SamTrans. See SamTrans system but is still Figure 4-9 for a comparison of this measure across all SamTrans below comparable routes. routes. Routes 390 and 391 averaged 42 passenger boardings per revenue hour on weekdays, 43 on Saturday, and 34 on Sunday. While the El Camino Real service has the highest level of service productivity in the SamTrans system, its boardings per revenue vehicle hour is below that of comparable routes, such as the Metro Rapid network in Los Angeles which has approximately 60 boardings per revenue vehicle hour.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-9 Weekday Passenger Boardings per Revenue Hour

Source: SamTrans Service Plan – Fixed Route Service Evaluation. TMD. 2012.

4.1.4.3 On-Time Performance

SamTrans has an on-time performance goal of 85%. Early results for Route ECR (August 2013) as shown in Table 4-2 indicate that the service is performing below that goal (combined 71.5%). The length of the route, number of stops, and congestion on El Camino Real all contribute to poor on-time performance.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

TABLE 4-2 ECR ON-TIME PERFORMANCE

Day Late Early On-Time

Weekday 24.6% 1.8% 73.6%

Saturday 33.6% 2.1% 64.3%

Sunday 19.6% 1.3% 79.1%

Overall 26.8% 1.7% 71.5%

Source: SamTrans, 2013

4.1.4.4 Corridor Intensity

Corridor intensity measures level of service consumption on a per mile basis using passenger mile per route mile. Passenger miles per route The El Camino Corridor mile is the number of passenger miles generated per mile of route. represents the best candidate Greater corridor intensity creates the opportunity to invest additional for investment in expedited resources and implement higher levels of service. The SamTrans bus service on weekdays. Service Plan evaluation found that Routes 390 and 391 (now Route ECR) showed high intensity along the Corridor (see Figure 4-10). Route ECR represents the best candidate for investment in expedited bus service on weekdays.

4.1.4.5 Financial Effectiveness

Financial effectiveness compares passenger farebox revenue (operating revenue) with operating costs using farebox recovery ratio and net subsidy per passenger boarding. Each metric is discussed below.

4.1.4.5.1 Farebox Recovery Ratio

Farebox recovery ratio is the ratio of fare revenue to operating costs. Subsidized services have farebox recovery ratios below 100 percent, The El Camino Real routes while profitable services are over 100 percent. Systemwide, SamTrans have higher farebox recovery recovers approximately 18 percent of operating costs through farebox ratios (22%) than local and revenues. The El Camino Real routes have the strongest farebox community service groups in recovery ratios mainly due to the strong ridership along the Corridor the SamTrans system (18%), compared to other system routes (see Figure 4-11).

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-10 Weekday Passenger Miles Per Route Mile

Source: SamTrans Service Plan – Fixed Route Service Evaluation. TMD. 2012.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-11 Weekday Farebox Recovery Ratio

Source: SamTrans Service Plan – Fixed Route Service Evaluation. TMD. 2012.

4.1.4.5.2 Net Subsidy per Passenger Boarding

Net subsidy per passenger boarding measures the average passenger fare less the operating cost per unlinked passenger boarding. This The El Camino Real routes metric indicates the amount of cost subsidy necessary to support each have the lowest subsidy per passenger trip. At a systemwide level SamTrans’ average subsidy per passenger boarding passenger boarding is $5.20 on weekdays, $5.80 on Saturdays, and compared to other SamTrans $6.50 on Sundays. As shown in Figure 4-12, El Camino Real service has system groups. the lowest subsidy per passenger boarding as a group due to higher ridership and productivity along this Corridor. This is the only service group with a subsidy below $5.00.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-12 Weekday Subsidy per Passenger Boarding

Source: SamTrans Service Plan – Fixed Route Service Evaluation. TMD. 2012.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

4.1.5 SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE

Service quality and customer experience are important metrics to understand a customer’s perceived quality of service. Metrics discussed below include crowding and results of the customer survey.

4.1.5.1 Crowding

Crowding is experienced on El Camino Real routes. The passenger load standard for SamTrans services is 125 percent of seated capacity. While load data hasn’t yet been prepared for Route ECR, the SamTrans Service Plan found that Route 390 experienced loads over the seated capacity and 391 experienced loads over the load standard (of 125 percent of seated capacity)12.

4.1.5.2 Customer Survey

SamTrans conducts on-board surveys of its customers every three years. Customers were asked to rate SamTrans characteristics on a scale of 1 (Very Dissatisfied) to 5 (Very Satisfied). Good on-time performance and high service frequency are On-time performance and two key characteristics of Rapid and BRT service. Customers rated frequency are the two lowest these characteristics at 3.78 and 3.64, respectively. This roughly performing metrics ranked translates to between a Neutral rating and a Satisfied rating, with room by SamTrans customers. for improvement compared to the Satisfied to Very Satisfied ratings of other performance metrics. See the ratings of various characteristics compared across three years of survey data in Table 4-3. Compared to other characteristics, on-time performance and frequency are the two lowest performing.

12 SamTrans Service Plan – Fixed Route Service Evaluation. TMD. 2012.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

TABLE 4-3 SAMTRANS CUSTOMER SURVEY RESPONSE

Q: How are we doing?1 2006 2009 2012

Courtesy of bus operators 4.03 4.2 4.24

Feeling of personal security on bus 4.08 4.25 4.3

Availability of schedules on bus 3.91 4.32 4.33

On-time performance 3.76 3.87 3.78

Frequency (how often buses run) 3.55 3.67 3.64

Convenience of routes 3.99 4.13 4.15

Value of money 3.79 3.82 3.96

Communication of bus changes (schedule) 3.79 3.87 3.99

Responsiveness of customer service 4.02 4.15 4.22

Overall experience with SamTrans 4.13 4.21 4.21

Cleanliness of bus 4.23 4.32

Notes: 1. Responses are on a scale from 1 (Very Dissatisfied) to 5 (Very Satisfied). Source: SamTrans, 2013.

4.2 SFMTA (MUNI)

Muni provides bus and light rail transit (LRT) service, primarily within the borders of the City and County of San Francisco, serving approximately 700,000 average weekday boardings. Muni service that connects with SamTrans ECR is provided at Daly City BART and on Mission Street at Evergreen Avenue. Four Muni routes currently serve the Daly City BART Station: the 14L Mission Limited (serves the station during peak hours), the 28 19th Avenue, 28L 19th Avenue Limited, and 54 Felton. ECR customers can also connect to the 14 Mission, 14L Mission Limited, and 14X Mission Express on Mission Street.

4.3 VTA

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the operator of bus and LRT service for Santa Clara County. VTA also provides some connecting services to San Mateo and Alameda Counties. VTA routes that connect with SamTrans Route ECR at the Palo Alto Transit Center include:

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

• Local Route 22: from Palo Alto Transit Center to Eastridge Transit Center with 12- to 60-minute headways

• Rapid Route 522: from Palo Alto Transit Center to Eastridge Transit Center with 15- to 30-minute headways

• Local Route 35: Downtown Mountain View to Stanford Shopping Center with 30-minute headways

Figure 4-13 shows a route map for Rapid 522. Local Route 22 operates along the same route but with more frequent stops. Within the Corridor, the Palo Alto Transit Center has the most weekday boardings13. VTA is in the planning stages for BRT service along El Camino Real in Santa Clara County. It is expected to be completed and operational by 2018. VTA has identified two other BRT corridors within the County: Santa Clara/Alum Rock and Stevens Creek. The Santa Clara/Alum Rock Bus Rapid Transit Project is under construction and is expected to be completed in the fall of 2015.

Figure 4-13 VTA Rapid 522 Route Map

Source: VTA, 2013.

13 Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011. VTA, May 2011.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

4.4 CALTRAIN

Caltrain provides commuter rail service along the San Francisco Peninsula and through the South Bay to San Jose and Gilroy. In San Mateo County, Caltrain generally runs parallel to the Corridor. In the County, Caltrain has 13 stations (2 only active on weekends). Figure 4-14 and Figure 4-15 show the average weekday boardings at stations within San Mateo County from 1992 to 2013. In general, ridership on all stops has steadily increased over time. Millbrae, Redwood City, and Hillsdale are the three most popular stations.

Caltrain will be implementing its Modernization Program to upgrade the performance, operating efficiency, capacity, safety and reliability of Caltrain's commuter rail service with conversion to electrified operations. The Caltrain Modernization Program is scheduled to be operational by 2019.

Figure 4-14 Caltrain Weekday Passenger Boardings by Station (San Mateo County)

Source: SamTrans, 2013.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-15 Caltrain Weekday Passenger Boardings Total

Source: SamTrans, 2013.

4.5 BART

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) is a regional heavy rail system connecting the counties of San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo. Within San Mateo County, BART has six stations (Daly City, Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, San Francisco International Airport, and Millbrae). All stations (except for SFO) are within one-quarter of a mile of the El Camino Corridor. Figure 4-16 and Figure 4-17 show the average weekday exits at the BART stations in San Mateo County from 1999 to 2012. BART ridership at most San Mateo County stations has increased over the past decade. Ridership at the Colma station dropped after the SFO Extension opened. The most popular stations are Daly City, SFO, and Millbrae.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-16 BART Weekday Exits by Station (San Mateo County)

Figure 4-17 BART Weekday Exits Total

Source (both figures): BART, SamTrans, 2013.

4.6 SHUTTLES

Shuttles offer first mile/last mile connections to regional transit providers such as BART and Caltrain. These shuttles provide service to rail stations, residential neighborhoods, and employment sites. Some of the major shuttles in the Corridor include:14

• Weekday shuttles operated by Caltrain

14 Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

• Shuttles operated by SamTrans

• Shuttles and on-demand commuter taxi program operated by the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Alliance)

• Private shuttles operated by major employers such as Genentech

4.7 INTERAGENCY CONNECTIVITY

Several transit agencies operate along the El Camino Corridor. For riders using multiple operators to reach their destinations, there are several key transfer locations along the Corridor. These are summarized in Table 4-4.

TABLE 4-4 KEY TRANSFER LOCATIONS

Location Transit Operator

Daly City BART BART, SamTrans, SF Muni, shuttles

San Jose Avenue/Mission Street SF Muni

El Camino Real and Hillsdale Avenue Caltrain, AC Transit Transbay Service (Route M)

Millbrae Caltrain/BART Caltrain, BART, SamTrans, shuttles

Palo Alto Transit Center Caltrain, SamTrans, VTA, Dumbarton Express, shuttles

Source: Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011.

AC Transit prepared maps for several regional transit centers as part of the Bay Area Hub Signage Program. Figure 4-18 and Figure 4-19 are maps created for the Millbrae BART/Caltrain Station and the Palo Alto Transit Center, respectively.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-18 Millbrae BART/Caltrain Station Map

Source: http://www.actransit.org/transit-center-maps-and-information/

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-19 Palo Alto Transit Center Map

Source: http://www.actransit.org/transit-center-maps-and-information/

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

5.0 BICYCLE FACILITIES

Heavy traffic, high vehicle speeds, and lack of bicycle Heavy traffic, high vehicle speeds, and lack facilities along El Camino Real makes the Corridor a of bicycle facilities along El Camino Real difficult route for bicyclists to travel on. In addition, makes the Corridor a difficult route for multiple freeways, along with the BART and Caltrain bicyclists to travel on. right of ways, create barriers to bicycle travel. Some cities have established dedicated bicycle routes on streets parallel to El Camino Real to provide a safer means of travel down the Peninsula. Many of these parallel routes rely on side streets that are often noncontiguous and disjointed.

The San Mateo County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2011) identifies proposed bicycle facilities to connect many of these disjointed parallel routes. The Plan discusses the North-South Bikeway paralleling El Camino Real as a key corridor (such as along Huntington Ave, Magnolia Ave, California Dr, Pacific Bl, Old County Rd, and Middlefield Rd.). Key corridors are defined as long-distance routes that serve key transportation and recreation needs evident in county commute patterns, concentration of population and county geography. The North-South Bikeway is also identified in MTC‘s Regional Bicycle Plan. Figure 5-1 to Figure 5-6 show the existing and proposed bike network in San Mateo County.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 5-1 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Daly City, Colma, Pacifica)

Source: San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. 2011.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 5-2 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Colma to Burlingame)

Source: San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. 2011.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 5-3 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Burlingame, Hillsborough)

Source: San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. 2011.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 5-4 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Hillsborough to San Carlos)

Source: San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. 2011.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 5-5 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Foster City to Woodside)

Source: San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. 2011.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 5-6 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Menlo Park to East Palo Alto)

Source: San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. 2011.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

6.0 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

Pedestrian facilities provided along the Corridor consist mainly of crosswalks and sidewalks. The majority of crosswalks across El Camino Real are at signalized intersections. There are a limited number of crosswalks at unsignalized intersections and at mid-block locations.15 Crossing El Camino Real is challenging for pedestrians due to the Crossing El Camino Real can heavy traffic volumes, high travel speeds, the long crossing distance be challenging for (ranging from four to six vehicle travel lanes), and long distances pedestrians due to high between signalized crosswalks. vehicle volumes and lengthy

Along the Corridor, there are several segments with sidewalk gaps. crossing distances. There are no sidewalks along the Corridor in Atherton. Segments of Colma, Burlingame, South San Francisco, and San Mateo, and San Carlos are also missing sidewalks on one or both sides of the street. Most of the sidewalks along the Corridor are functional by design. They tend to lack pedestrian-oriented elements such as landscaping, street furniture, bulb outs, and attractive streetscapes. The sidewalks are also generally narrow (4’). Poor placement of benches, transit shelters, and information signage poles in the sidewalk further narrow the effective walkable area.

15 Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011.

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – Appendices December 2014

Appendix C: Initial Evaluation Framework

MEMORANDUM

Date: September 23, 2013 To: Douglas Kim From: Steve Crosley & Corey Wong Subject: El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Phasing Plan - Proposed Evaluation Framework

SF13-0692

This memo proposes an evaluation framework to define future bus transit services for the SamTrans El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Phasing Plan Study. The proposed evaluation framework matches project goals and objectives with evaluation criteria to compare the performance of conceptual alternatives with that of a no-project alternative for two study horizons: (i) short-term (i.e., by 2015); and (ii) long-term (i.e., by 2035). The evaluation framework will allow for an understanding of the benefits and impacts of each conceptual alternative and their ability to complement local (e.g. SamTrans Routes ECR and KX) and regional (e.g., Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Caltrain, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)) transit along the defined El Camino Real study area (between Palo Alto and Daly City).

This preliminary set of goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria can be reviewed and discussed among internal and external stakeholders prior to conceptual alternative screening process.

PROPOSED STUDY GOALS

The study will help define how SamTrans can:

Goal 1 – Increase bus ridership along the El Camino Corridor by improving service for existing customers and attracting new customers.

332 Pine Street | Floor 4 | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Doug Kim September 23, 2013 Page 2 of 3

Goal 4 – Minimize corridor traffic and parking impacts while maximizing the benefits of Rapid and Full BRT services.

PROPOSED EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

Building off the study goals, proposed project objectives for the El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan Study are identified along with their respective evaluation criteria and data sources to conduct the evaluation. The proposed evaluation matrix is presented on the following page:

Goal Objective Evaluation Criteria Source(s) • Increase in corridor ridership • Increase in ridership along key segments of corridor • VTA Model 1.1. Increase ridership • Increase in system ridership 1. Increase bus ridership along • Operating plan • Increase in new riders the El Camino Corridor by • Boardings per revenue hour improving service for existing • Improve station experience and security (station infrastructure customers and attracting new for Full BRT only) • Physical plan (qualitative customers 1.2. Improve • Improve in-vehicle experience assessment) passenger experience • Create unique service branding/identity • Operating plan • Legible and easy to understand routing and service 2.1. Improve . Pedestrian safety assessment (bulbouts, medians, sidewalks, • Physical plan (qualitative pedestrian safety crossing opportunities) assessment) 2. Complement the Grand • # of households accessible within a 15-minute walk from a • Operating plan Boulevard Initiative’s vision of 2.2 Increase access to station • VTA Model/2040 Plan realizing El Camino Real as a households, • # of jobs accessible within a 15-minute walk from a station Bay Area (GIS) “grand boulevard of meaningful employment and • Convenient and direct pedestrian/bicycle access between • Physical plan (qualitative destinations” by building retail opportunities stations and adjacent land uses assessment) consensus on transit • Operating plan improvements that promote 2.3. Support planned • VTA Model/2040 Plan livability and commercial vitality • Serve key commercial and residential growth areas growth in corridor Bay Area (GIS) • 3. Minimize system capital and • VTA Model • Capital cost operating cost increases and 3.1. Provide cost- • Operating plan • Operating and Maintenance (O&M) cost per revenue hour operational impacts by effective service • Physical plan • O&M cost per unlinked passenger trip developing a conceptual bus • SamTrans cost model operating plan that optimizes 3.2. Minimize ECR • Minimize operating demands for peak vehicles • Operating plan local, Rapid and Full BRT services operating impacts • Reliability (travel time variability) • VTA Model along the corridor • Volume-to-Capacity (LOS) at key segments (effect of BRT 4.1.Minimize traffic • VTA Model 4. Minimize corridor traffic and physical improvements and Intelligent Transportation Systems impacts • parking impacts while (ITS) measures) maximizing the benefits of Rapid 4.2. Minimize physical • Net change in on-street parking and Full BRT services changes to corridor • Physical Plan • Extent of new turn restrictions infrastructure

332 Pine Street | Floor 4 | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – Appendices December 2014

Appendix D: Phase 1 Initial Screen

MEMORANDUM

Date: November 4, 2013 To: Doug Kim, SamTrans From: Steve Crosley & Corey Wong Subject: Initial Service Concept Development and Screening

SF13-0692

Summary

The purpose of this memo is to introduce and screen a series of initial near-term service concepts for Rapid service along the El Camino Real (ECR) corridor. Rapid service would be the first phase of service improvements proposed as part of the El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan. These near- term service concepts define a potential operating plan for a Rapid service and the inter- relationship of Rapid service with current ECR and KX services. Details such as headways, spans of service, and specific stop locations are not defined at this stage, but will be developed once service concepts are agreed upon and consensus for moving forward obtained.

An initial set of eight service concepts are presented and qualitatively assessed against one another based on a set of initial screening criteria. These initial screening criteria were derived from goals and objectives proposed in the Evaluation Framework Memo (dated September 23, 2013) developed for this study.1

In summary, five of the eight service concepts passed initial screening and are recommended for more detailed service plan development. These five service plans will be assessed against the full evaluation framework described in the Evaluation Framework Memo to select a preferred Rapid service alternative.

1 The detailed evaluation framework to assess Rapid and BRT alternatives was presented in the Evaluation Framework Memo from September 23, 2013. This memo will be referred to as the Evaluation Framework Memo.

332 Pine Street | Floor 4 | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Doug Kim November 4, 2013 Page 2 of 13

Organization

This memo is divided into five sections:

• Initial Rapid Service Concepts – Introduces the eight Rapid service concepts and the operating relationship with ECR and the KX. • Phase 1 Evaluation Framework and Initial Screening Criteria – Describes the two- phased evaluation framework process with a focus on the initial screening criteria and the linkage to the project goals and objectives. • Service Concept Evaluation vs. Screening Criteria – Presents the evaluation results of the eight service concepts against the screening criteria. • Recommendations – Presents the recommended service concepts to carry forward. • Next Steps – Describes the next steps after consensus is obtained on the service concepts.

Initial Rapid Service Concepts

Based on an analysis of the existing corridor conditions including ridership, travel trends, and current ECR/KX service, eight service concepts for the ECR Corridor were developed. These are described in the following table. It is noted that further analysis of the KX travel patterns and its temporal boarding profile is required: Doug Kim November 4, 2013 Page 3 of 13

Table 1: Initial Near-Term Service Concepts Rapid ECR KX Schematic Diagram (Concept Only) # Concept Description Service Service Service Purple = Rapid; Blue = ECR; Red = KX

• Rapid service is introduced into the corridor Rapid / (~ 0.5-1.0 mile stop spacing) 1 X X X ECR / KX • ECR operates similar to today • KX operates per January 2014 runbook

• Rapid service is introduced into the corridor and absorbs ECR service • Stop spacing of Rapid (~0.3-0.5 miles) is shorter than that of a “typical” Rapid service due to 2 Rapid / KX X X Rapid’s role as “local” route • KX operates per January 2014 runbook

Doug Kim November 4, 2013 Page 4 of 13

Rapid ECR KX Schematic Diagram (Concept Only) # Concept Description Service Service Service Purple = Rapid; Blue = ECR; Red = KX

• Rapid service is introduced into the corridor (~0.5-1.0 mile stop spacing) Rapid / • ECR operates similar to today 3 X X ECR • KX is discontinued • No direct service is provided to SFO (riders must transfer to BART at Millbrae/San Bruno)

• Rapid service is introduced into corridor and absorbs ECR/KX service • Stop spacing (~0.3-0.5 mile stop spacing) is 4 Rapid Only shorter than that for “typical” Rapid service due X to Rapid’s role as a “local” route • No direct service is provided to SFO (riders must transfer to BART at Millbrae/San Bruno)

Doug Kim November 4, 2013 Page 5 of 13

Rapid ECR KX Schematic Diagram (Concept Only) # Concept Description Service Service Service Purple = Rapid; Blue = ECR; Red = KX

• Rapid service is introduced into corridor as two separate routes – possibly a northern Rapid and a southern Rapid • Split routes are feasible if travel demand analysis Split Rapid / 5 shows strong internal demand within the north X X X ECR / KX and south parts of corridor, respectively, with low end-to-end demand • ECR operates similar to today • KX operates per January 2014 runbook

• Rapid service is introduced into corridor as two routes – possibly a northern Rapid and a southern Rapid – with overlapping service segments • Overlapping split routes are feasible if travel Overlap analysis shows split in demand between north 6 Rapid / X X X and south parts of corridor, respectively, with ECR / KX strong demand along a shared segment in the middle of the corridor and low end-to-end demand • ECR operates similar to today • KX operates per January 2014 runbook

Doug Kim November 4, 2013 Page 6 of 13

Rapid ECR KX Schematic Diagram (Concept Only) # Concept Description Service Service Service Purple = Rapid; Blue = ECR; Red = KX

• Rapid service is only introduced on a portion of the corridor (e.g., north/south half or two-thirds) • Truncated Rapid is feasible if most origin- destination activity focused on one portion of Truncated the corridor compared to the other 7 Rapid / ECR / X X X • Truncated Rapid is also feasible if service is KX duplicated by BART or other regional transit service along a portion of the corridor • ECR operates similar to today • KX operates per January 2014 runbook

• “Hybrid” Rapid service denotes local service (closely spaced stops) in high demand portions of the corridor and limited-stop service in low demand portions of the corridor. • Hybrid Rapid is feasible if demand warrants Hybrid Rapid 8 additional stops in high demand area (beyond X X X / ECR / KX those served by other Rapid service concepts) • Hybrid Rapid operates slower than other concepts except Concepts #2 and 4 • ECR operates similar to today • KX operates per January 2014 runbook

Phase 1 Evaluation Framework and Initial Screening Criteria

An initial set of goals and objectives for the ECR BRT Phasing Plan were defined in the Evaluation Framework Memo, which highlighted key evaluation criteria to assess the detailed service plans and arrive at a recommended service plan. The evaluation framework has been slightly refined to include a two-step process as follows:

• Phase 1 Evaluation (Initial Screening) – This evaluation represents a qualitative screening of service concepts to identify a shortlist of candidate concepts for more detailed development (e.g., elaboration on headways, spans of service, stop locations, travel times). A subset of representative screening criteria is used for this evaluation, based on the larger project goals and objectives identified in the Evaluation Framework Memo. • Phase 2 Evaluation (Detailed Analysis) – This is a detailed, quantitative analysis of shortlist concepts that utilizes the VTA Model to estimate ridership, travel time, etc. This evaluation is based on the detailed evaluation framework established in the Evaluation Framework Memo.

This section summarizes the initial screening criteria for the Phase 1 Evaluation. Each screening criterion is worth 1-3 points, with 3 being the top performing option, and 1 being the worst performing option. The score for each criterion is then summed up for a composite score by service concept.

The initial qualitative screening criteria are as follows:

332 Pine Street | Floor 4 | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Doug Kim November 4, 2013 Page 8 of 13

Table 2: Phase 1 Screening Criteria for Service Concepts Screening Relationship to Project Goals ID Qualitative Assessment Criteria & Objectives • Is service improved for existing users? A Faster Service • Goal 1 - Objectives 1.1/1.2 • Are new users attracted to the service? • Is the service easy to understand? • Is a one-seat ride provided B Ease of Use • Goal 1 – Objective 1.2 (without multiple transfers)? • Is the service confusing (i.e., which destinations are served)? • Is access for existing users maintained and/or improved? Access to C • Is greater access provided for • Goal 2 – Objectives 2.2/2.3 Transit potential new riders and new destinations? Need for • Are significantly more resources Additional D required than currently needed • Goal 3 – Objective 3.2 SamTrans (e.g., vehicles, drivers, costs)? Resources • Is reliability and efficiency improved (i.e., on-time performance, less variable travel times, reduced travel time, etc.)? • Does the concept allow for more Operating flexibility in resource deployment • Goal 1 – Objective 1.2 E Efficiency to meet targeted demand (i.e., • Goal 3 – Objective 3.2 can resources be targeted at highest activity areas or markets with greatest potential)? • Does the service accommodate interlining efficiencies?

Service Concept Evaluation vs. Screening Criteria

Each of the eight service concepts is assessed against the five initial screening criteria. The tables below summarize the results and provide insight into the performance of a given service plan against select criteria.

Table 3: Evaluation of Service Concepts vs. Initial Screening Criteria Service Need for Additional SamTrans # Faster Service Ease of Use Access to Transit Operating Efficiency Concept Resources • Good – Maintains ECR service for existing riders and introduces Rapid • Good - Rapid operates faster • Poor – New Rapid route is operated • Moderate – Rapid operates along • Good – Three distinct routes with to capture new riders. KX continues Rapid / ECR / service than today’s ECR with along the entire corridor, while ECR the entire corridor, which makes it 1 direct, one-seat rides on Rapid, to provide local connectivity in the KX limited stops, while ECR handles and KX maintained, increasing subject to higher delay and lower Local and KX. south of the corridor, and long- local service. resources needed. reliability than shorter Rapid routes. distance service to SFO and San Francisco. • Poor – Rapid operates along the • Poor – Introduces new Rapid entire corridor and must also serve • Moderate – Rapid serves some service, maintains KX, but cancels • Poor – Customers may be confused • Good – Rapid service replaces ECR, most ECR passengers, thus making additional ECR stops and operates the ECR. Existing riders could be 2 Rapid / KX over what stops are now served by but operates faster and likely significantly more stops than other slower than Concept 1 (but still significantly impacted by the Rapid. requires fewer resources. Rapid service options (and faster than today’s ECR service). eliminating stops previously served encountering additional delay by ECR. contributing to low reliability). • Moderate – Maintains ECR service • Moderate– New Rapid route is • Good - Rapid operates faster for existing riders and introduces operated along the entire corridor, • Moderate – Rapid operates along service than today’s ECR with • Good – Two distinct routes with Rapid to capture new riders. KX while ECR is maintained, increasing the entire corridor, which makes it 3 Rapid / ECR limited stops, while ECR handles direct, one-seat rides long-distance users impacted and resources needed (despite potential subject to higher delay and lower local service. must use alternate service to reach KX resources being reallocated to reliability than shorter Rapid routes. SFO and San Francisco. the Rapid). • Poor – Introduces new Rapid • Poor – Rapid operates along the service, but cancels ECR or KX. entire corridor and must also serve • Moderate – Rapid serves some • Poor – While only one route Existing riders could be significantly • Good – Rapid service replaces ECR most ECR passengers, thus making additional ECR stops and operates operates on the corridor, customers impacted by eliminating stops and KX and likely requires fewer 4 Rapid Only significantly more stops than other slower than Concept 1 (but still may be confused over what stops previously served by ECR. KX long- resources. Concept 4 would Rapid service options (and faster than today’s ECR service). are now served by the Rapid. distance users impacted and must perform better than Concept 2. encountering additional delay use alternate service to reach SFO contributing to low reliability). and San Francisco. • Moderate – New Rapid routes • Moderate - Rapid operates faster • Poor – Four routes operate on the operate on a portion of the service than today’s ECR with corridor and the Rapid has a north corridor, while ECR and KX are • Good – Shorter Rapid routes are limited stops, while ECR handles and south branch which may be • Good – Maintains ECR/KX services maintained. Concept 5 performs less subject to delay and variability. Split Rapid / 5 local service. Riders must transfer confusing. One-set rides are for existing riders and introduces better than Concept 1 since Also, this concept allows more ECR / KX between split rapid services, which available for short trips, although Rapid to capture new riders. resources could be deployed to service to be concentrated in core could significantly increase travel long-distance ones would require a select high activity segments (and market areas. time. transfer. potentially reduce overall operating requirements).

332 Pine Street | Floor 4 | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Doug Kim November 4, 2013 Page 10 of 13

Service Need for Additional SamTrans # Faster Service Ease of Use Access to Transit Operating Efficiency Concept Resources • Moderate – New Rapid routes • Moderate - Rapid operates faster • Poor – Four routes and two Rapid operate on a portion of corridor, service than today’s ECR with • Good – Shorter Rapid routes are branches operate on the corridor, while ECR and KX are maintained. limited stops, while ECR handles • Good – Maintains ECR/KX services less subject to delay and variability. Overlap Rapid potentially confusing riders. One- Concept 6 performs better than 6 local service. Riders must transfer for existing riders and introduces Also, this concept allows more / ECR / KX set rides are available for short Concept 1 since resources could be between split rapid services, which Rapid to capture new riders. service to be concentrated in core trips, although long-distance ones deployed to select high activity could significantly increase travel market areas. would require a transfer. segments (and potentially reduce time. overall operating requirements). • Moderate – New Rapid route • Moderate – Three routes and the operates on a portion of corridor, • Good – Shorter Rapid route is less • Good - Rapid operates faster truncated Rapid operate on the while ECR and KX are maintained. Truncated • Good – Maintains ECR/KX services subject to delay and variability. service than today’s ECR with corridor, potentially confusing Concept 7 performs better than 7 Rapid / ECR / for existing riders and introduces Also, this concept allows more limited stops, while ECR handles riders. One seat rides possible for Concept 1 since resources could be KX Rapid to capture new riders. service to be concentrated core local service. longer-distance riders on ECR and deployed to select high activity market areas. KX. segments (and potentially reduce overall operating requirements). • Moderate – Hybrid Rapid operates along the entire corridor. Hybrid Rapid serves local stops in high • Moderate – Hybrid Rapid route is • Good – Maintains ECR service for demand areas, but limited stop operated along the entire corridor existing riders and introduces Rapid service in all other areas. Thus, the • Moderate – Rapid serves some with longer run times than Rapid • Good – Three distinct routes with to capture new riders. KX continues Hybrid Rapid makes more stops Hybrid Rapid / additional ECR stops and operates services due to additional local 8 direct, one-seat rides on Rapid, to provide local connectivity in the than other Rapid service options ECR / KX slower than Concept 1 (but still stops – depending on service Local and KX. south of the corridor, and long- (and encountering additional delay faster than today’s ECR service). headway, a moderate increase in distance service to SFO and San and contributing to low reliability). resources may be required versus Francisco. Hybrid Rapid is flexible in that the current scenario. service is scalable to meet demand (by removing or adding stops as warranted).

Table 4: Summary of Service Plan Performance and Composite Scores

Key findings are as follows:

• The Truncated Rapid service concept scored the highest with a composite score of 13 points. This option performs best in providing faster service, access to transit, and operating efficiency. This concept scored higher in operating efficiency than other service concepts in which the Rapid operates along the entire corridor, rather than along a portion of it. • The Rapid/ECR/KX and Rapid/ECR service concepts scored 12 points each, with high performance in faster service, ease of use, and access to transit. As noted, both these options operate the Rapid along the entire length of the corridor, thereby potentially subjecting the service to more variability and travel time delay. • The Hybrid Rapid service concept scored 12 points, scoring well in access to transit as well as moderate scores in faster transit service and operating efficiency. This service would provide limited stops in low demand areas, but operate local service in high demand areas. It may require a moderate increase in resources depending on the service headway selected. • The Split and Overlap Rapid service concepts scored 11 points each. From operational and access to transit perspectives, these concepts scored highly as they would provide more operating flexibility and improve reliability with shorter rapid routes. However, these concepts impose a mid-corridor transfer, thus longer-distance trips from the north portion of the corridor to the south would require a transfer. If delayed or improperly coordinated, this transfer could impose a significant time penalty as well as being inconvenient and confusing. • The Rapid/KX and Rapid Only service concepts scored the lowest at 8 points each. While each of these concepts performs well in reducing the need for additional SamTrans resources,

332 Pine Street | Floor 4 | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Doug Kim November 4, 2013 Page 12 of 13

they perform poorly in terms of maintaining access for current passengers as the ECR would be absorbed into the Rapid and some current ECR stops would be eliminated.

Recommendations

Based on the findings above, the following concepts are recommended for detailed analysis in Phase 2.

Table 5: Recommended Service Concepts for Detailed Planning/Analysis Carry Forward Service # for Detailed Notes Concept Analysis • Carry forward and include Concept 3 as a 1 Rapid/ECR/KX YES variant. • Further analysis of KX service required. • Do not carry forward as elimination of the ECR would require the Rapid to stop much more 2 Rapid/KX NO frequently, but also eliminates many local bus stops currently in use by ECR riders. 3 Rapid/ECR YES • Carry forward, but as a variant of Concept 1. • Do not carry forward as elimination of the ECR would require the Rapid to stop much more 4 Rapid Only NO frequently, but also eliminates many local bus stops currently in use by ECR riders. 5 Split Rapid NO • Do not carry forward as concept requires passengers to transfer if they are traveling between the north and south halves of the 6 Overlap Rapid NO corridor – imposing a time penalty and inconvenience to the riders. Truncated 7 YES • Carry forward. Rapid 8 Hybrid Rapid YES • Carry forward. Note: It is noted that additional service variants may be apparent after analysis of travel markets.

Next Steps

The next steps for this analysis are:

• Further assess the KX boarding and alighting data to determine potential impacts of canceling or modifying service; Doug Kim November 4, 2013 Page 13 of 13

• Obtain VTA Model select link and select zone analysis to determine relative market feasibility of various service concepts (including the Split Rapid, Overlap Rapid, and Truncated Rapid concepts); • Finalize Existing Conditions and Future Conditions studies; • Present service concepts to SamTrans Operations on October 30, 2013; and • Develop service plans for the four service concepts by January 28, 2014 (as noted market analysis may show the market for other service variants within the family of alternatives identified in Table 5). El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – Appendices December 2014

Appendix E.1: Rapid Stop Selection

MEMORANDUM

Date: January 13, 2014 To: Barrow Emerson & Melissa Reggiardo, SamTrans From: Steve Crosley & Corey Wong Subject: SamTrans ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Rapid Station Selection

SF13-0692

Summary

The Initial Service Concept Development and Screening Memo (November 4, 2013) presented and evaluated eight service concepts for potential Rapid service and its relationship to the existing ECR and KX routes. Several “families” of service concepts were recommended for detailed analysis using the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Travel Demand Model. This detailed analysis will include defining stations, routes, headways, service spans, and resource impacts (in terms of revenue hours, miles, and vehicles) for these “families” of concepts.

This memo summarizes the process used to select stations for the Rapid service concepts being developed for modeling. For this multi-phased modeling process, a set of common, consistent Rapid stations are recommended at this stage to serve as the backbone stop network for all Rapid service concepts (i.e., full Rapid, truncated Rapid, overlap Rapid, etc.). Refinement of the station network may occur in later modeling stages as warranted, when detailed service planning is conducted and forecast demand is available.1

1 “Stops” are referred to as “stations” when discussing the Rapid service context.

332 Pine Street | Floor 4 | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com January 13, 2014 Page 2 of 17

ORGANIZATION

This memo is divided into four sections:

• Existing Conditions Stop Level Ridership Analysis – Presents a stop-level boardings/alightings assessment of October 2013 ECR service in order to identify high, medium, and low activity stops along the El Camino Corridor. • Rapid Station Selection Process – Presents a four-stage selection process to identify stations for proposed Rapid service along the Corridor. • Recommended Rapid Stations – Identifies stations for proposed Rapid service along El Camino Real using the four-stage selection process. • Next Steps – Describes the next steps after consensus is obtained on the proposed Rapid stations for modeling.

EXISTING CONDITIONS STOP LEVEL RIDERSHIP ANALYSIS

In October-November 2013, the ECR served 5,300-5,400 daily weekday boardings in either direction (thus daily corridor boardings totaled about 10,600-10,700 in both directions). Saturday boardings were about 60% of the average weekday, while Sunday boardings were about 55% of the average weekday. The average weekday total was about 20% lower than 2010 weekday combined boardings on the 390 and 391 along a similar stretch of El Camino Real, according to the SamTrans Service Plan. Figure 1 depicts the average daily ECR boardings per weekday, Saturday, and Sunday.

Figure 1 - Average Daily ECR Boardings by Direction In total, 102 southbound (October/November 2013) (SB) and 104 northbound (NB) stops are served by the ECR. In October and November, average weekday combined ons/offs ranged from over 400 daily ons/offs at the busiest stops to fewer than 20 daily ons/offs at the least utilized stops.

As shown in Table 1, about January 13, 2014 Page 3 of 17

40% of all stops in either direction have over 100 combined daily ons/offs, but less than 10% of stops have more than 250 combined daily ons/offs. These 10% of stops account for about one- fourth of daily activity along the entire corridor. Stop-level activity at every ECR stop is presented in Appendix A.

Table 1: Number of Stops by October/November 2013 ECR On/Off Activity

Average Weekday Ons+Offs # of SB Stops # of NB Stops

100+ 39 39 125+ 29 33 150+ 19 21 200+ 13 13 250+ 7 8 Total Stops 102 104 Source: SamTrans, 2013.

January 13, 2014 Page 4 of 17

RAPID STATION SELECTION PROCESS

Figure 2 – Stop Selection Process Along the 26-mile long Corridor (Daly City BART Station to the Palo Alto Transit Center), the ECR stops on average every quarter mile (0.25 miles) in either direction. This average stop spacing is wider than the typical local route with a stop spacing of 0.125-0.25 miles.2 Rapid service, as defined earlier in this study, typically has longer station spacing than local service to increase travel speeds and reduce the number of times the vehicle stops, concentrating service at high activity nodes and major transit connection points.

A four-stage selection process was used to identify stations for proposed Rapid service along El Camino Real as depicted in Figure 2 and as described below:

• Stage 1: Experiences High On/Off Activity – Rapid service should serve the most heavily used stations along the corridor. A threshold of 125 combined daily ons/offs was used to identify high activity stations along El Camino Real.3 The inventory in Table 1 shows that 29 SB and 33 NB stations meet this minimum threshold. If all of these stations were recommended for Rapid service, stop spacing would be roughly equivalent to a spacing of 0.70-0.80 miles - this aligns with VTA’s service design guidelines for BRT 1

2 See Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Service Design Guidelines, 2007.

3 The initial stop selection along El Camino Real was based on the combined 390/391 ridership, using a daily on/off activity threshold of 150. As ECR ridership was about 20% lower than that of the combined 390/391 service, the Rapid activity threshold was lowered to 125 daily ons/offs. January 13, 2014 Page 5 of 17

(which is VTA’s version of Rapid service) of 0.50-1.25 miles.4 The proposed activity threshold of 125 daily ons/offs provides a balance between serving high demand locations and providing reasonable corridor station spacing and coverage. A higher threshold would have resulted in fewer stations, and possibly lower ridership.

• Stage 2: Serves Major Land Uses – Stations, not identified as high activity stations (i.e., with fewer than 125 daily ons/offs), were recommended for Rapid service if they also served a major land use (for instance a downtown shopping district, major retail, school, hospital, or civic institutions).

• Stage 3: Provides Connections to Regional and Local Transit Network – Stations not already identified in Stages 1 or 2 were recommended for Rapid service if they provided connections to the regional transit network (i.e., Caltrain and BART stations) and major local transit services (i.e., SamTrans local bus).

• Stage 4: Provides Minimal Coverage/Access where Significant Gaps Exist between Consecutive Stations – The resulting station network recommended from Stages 1, 2 and 3 resulted in significant gaps in service (in terms of distance between stops) along some corridor segments. For instance to maintain minimal coverage and access for potential transit patrons, additional intermediate stations were recommended where spacing between consecutive stations exceeded 1.5-2.0 miles. In these cases, stations were recommended at intermediate locations with the most transit-supportive conditions to provide minimal coverage of 1.0-1.25 miles between stations. The stretch of the corridor between Colma BART and South San Francisco BART was one noticeable exception to this approach, since this stretch passes several cemeteries.

RECOMMENDED RAPID STATIONS

This section identifies proposed Rapid stations along El Camino Real for subsequent modeling based on this four-stage process. It is noted that locations are indicative and for modeling purposes at this stage. The exact location of stations may be refined after the initial modeling

4 See Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Service Design Guidelines, 2007. January 13, 2014 Page 6 of 17

runs and through additional field visits and site investigations for the preferred alternative. Table 2 lists the stations proposed for Rapid service on the Corridor. Key findings are as follows:

• A total of 37 stations are recommended for Rapid service or about 35% of the number of stops served by the ECR in October 2013. This is equivalent to an average Rapid station spacing of 0.70 miles. In some cases, closely-spaced stations recommended for inclusion from the analysis above were consolidated to reduce the number of stations. For instance, only two stations around Hillsdale were recommended instead of the three that meet the activity threshold.

• Twenty-six (26) of the recommended stations surpassed the minimum activity threshold of 125 daily ons/offs. Most of these stations also coincided with major land uses and trip generators/attractors that Rapid service should serve, as well as major regional transit networks and major local transit services.

• Four (4) additional “low-activity” stations were recommended for Rapid service as they would provide access to major trip attractors/generators including downtown Menlo Park, Target in Redwood City, downtown Burlingame, and Mills Peninsula Hospital in Burlingame.

• Two (2) additional stations (South San Francisco BART and El Camino Real and Jenevein Ave.) were recommended for regional transit connectivity and local transit service linkages. These two stations were in addition to those transit hubs already identified as high activity stations.

• Five (5) additional stations were recommended to provide minimum coverage where gaps between stations exceeded 1.5-2.0 miles. Most of these stations were in the southern half of the corridor, in particular between the San Carlos and Menlo Park Caltrain stations. These assumptions could also be revisited after the modeling to increase travel speeds and reduce the number of designated stations along the corridor.

These stations are depicted in the following Figure 3 in both the NB and SB directions. January 13, 2014 Page 7 of 17

NEXT STEPS

The next step in this process is to develop the conceptual operating plan (including frequency, span of service, and transit priority elements for the recommended service concepts) to allow for ridership modeling, concept prioritization, and subsequent concept refinement. January 13, 2014 Page 8 of 17

Table 2 – Proposed Rapid Stops Rapid Station Location A,B Primary Rationale for El Camino Real Rapid Service 3. Provides 4. Provides 1. Meets Activity 2. Serves Major # Southbound # Northbound Regional/Local Minimal Notes Threshold Land Use Connections Coverage Link to Daly City BART, Muni, SF State 1 Daly City BART 37 Daly City BART X X University shuttles Mid-block on northbound Mission St.; 2 Mission St. & San Jose St. 36 Mission St. & San Jose St. X X links to Muni Line 14/14L

3 Mission St & School St 35 Mission St & Price St X

4 Mission St & San Pedro Rd. 34 Mission St. & East Market X X Links to SamTrans 130

Link to Colma BART; stop on El 5 Colma BART 33 Colma BART X X Camino Real Link to South San Francisco BART; 6 South San Francisco BART 32 South San Francisco BART X note SB stop FS of Murchison El Camino Real & Arroyo 7 31 El Camino Real & Arroyo Dr/SSF X X Dr/SSF El Camino Real & W Orange 8 30 El Camino Real & W Orange Ave X Ave El Camino Real & Brentwood 9 29 El Camino Real & Spruce Ave X Dr Links to San Bruno BART; truncated 10A San Bruno BART 28A San Bruno BART X X X Rapid Stop on El Camino Real – through 10B El Camino Real & Sneath Lane 28B El Camino Real & Sneath Lane X X Rapid service El Camino Real & San Bruno El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave Links to three local bus routes and 11 27 X X Ave W W office park San Bruno Caltrain connection is 12 El Camino Real & Jenevein Ave 26 El Camino Real & Jenevein Ave X about 1,500 ft away Serves Capuchino High School and 13 El Camino Real & Park Pl 25 El Camino Real & Santa Inez Ave X nearby elementary school

14 El Camino Real & Silva Ave 24 El Camino Real & Silva Ave X X

Links to Millbrae BART; new SB station 15A Millbrae BART 23A Millbrae BART X X would be proposed at Chadbourne January 13, 2014 Page 9 of 17

Rapid Station Location A,B Primary Rationale for El Camino Real Rapid Service 3. Provides 4. Provides 1. Meets Activity 2. Serves Major # Southbound # Northbound Regional/Local Minimal Notes Threshold Land Use Connections Coverage El Camino Real & Chadbourne Links to Millbrae BART; new SB station 15B 23B El Camino Real & Linden Ave X Ave would be proposed at Chadbourne Links to Mills Peninsula Hospital; also 16 El Camino Real & Trousdale Dr 22 El Camino Real & Trousdale Dr X X included for coverage El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 17 21 X X X Links to Broadway Caltrain Broadway/Burlingame Broadway/Burlingame El Camino Real & Burlingame El Camino Real & Burlingame 18 20 X X Links to Burlingame Caltrain Ave Ave N El Camino Real & W Poplar N El Camino Real & W Poplar 19 19 X Ave Ave N El Camino Real & El Cerrito 20 18 N El Camino Real & Tilton Ave X X X Links to San Mateo Caltrain Ave

21 S El Camino Real & W 2nd Ave 17 S El Camino Real & E 2nd Ave X X

22 S El Camino Real & W 4th Ave 16 S El Camino Real & E 5th Ave X

23 S El Camino Real & 17th Ave 15 S El Camino Real & 17th Ave X X Links to Hayward Park Caltrain

24 S El Camino Real & W 20th Ave 14 S El Camino Real & W 20th Ave X

25 S El Camino Real & W 25th Ave 13 S El Camino Real & W 25th Ave X

Links to Hillsdale Caltrain; several S El Camino Real & W Hillsdale S El Camino Real & W Hillsdale possibilities to relocate or consolidate 26 12 X X X Blvd Blvd the station for enhanced access to the Mall and Caltrain Included for coverage only but move 27 S El Camino Real & W 41St Ave 11 S El Camino Real & 42nd Ave X station to far-side

28 El Camino Real & Ralston Ave 10 El Camino Real & Ralston Ave X X Links to Belmont Caltrain

El Camino Real & San Carlos 29 9 El Camino Real & San Carlos Ave X X X Links to San Carlos Caltrain Ave

30 El Camino Real & Brittan Ave 8 El Camino Real & Brittan Ave X Included for coverage only January 13, 2014 Page 10 of 17

Rapid Station Location A,B Primary Rationale for El Camino Real Rapid Service 3. Provides 4. Provides 1. Meets Activity 2. Serves Major # Southbound # Northbound Regional/Local Minimal Notes Threshold Land Use Connections Coverage El Camino Real & Edgewood 31 7 El Camino Real & Edgewood Rd X Included for coverage only Rd Links to RC Caltrain, downtown RC, 32A Redwood City Caltrain Station 6A Redwood City Caltrain Station X X X and Sequoia High; locate SB stop nearside, NB stop farside Links to RC Caltrain, downtown RC, 32B El Camino Real & James Ave 6B El Camino Real & James Ave X X X and Sequoia High; locate SB stop nearside, NB stop farside Included for coverage only (could also 33 El Camino Real & Lincoln Ave 5 El Camino Real & Cedar St X locate at Oak/Main) Serves Target; also included for 34 El Camino Real & Center St 4 El Camino Real & Charter St X X coverage Included for coverage only; public 35 El Camino Real & 5th Ave 3 El Camino Real & 5th Ave X feedback has also identified this station as valuable Links to MP Caltrain and downtown El Camino Real & Santa Cruz El Camino Real & Ravenswood 36 2 X X MP (relocate Oak Grove Ave station Ave Ave south) Links to PA Caltrain, VTA, shuttles, 37 Palo Alto Caltrain 1 Palo Alto Caltrain X X X downtown PA, and Stanford University Note: A Recommended Rapid station location is indicative at this stage and developed to facilitate VTA demand modeling. Assumptions may be refined after modeling and during detailed service planning. B Lettered suffices represent potential options at a proposed station location.

January 13, 2014 Page 11 of 17

Figure 3 – Proposed Rapid Stations

January 13, 2014 Page 12 of 17

Appendix A: ECR Weekly Ons/Offs by Stop (October/November 2013)

The following tables and figure present average weekday ECR ons/offs by stop for October/November 2013. Gray shaded cells represent those stops generating over 125 ons/offs per weekday. Bold cells represent those stops that are proposed as Rapid stations. Note that in some cases, the proposed Rapid stop has been slightly shifted from the current ECR stop. Please refer to Table 2 for the precise stop locations.

Table A1: Average Southbound ECR Weekday Ons/Offs by Stop (October/November 2013) Average Activity Weekday Weekday Weekday Stop # STOP NAME Bus Stop ID On Off Total 1 DALY CITY BART BAY 2 1667930655 208 0 208 2 MISSION ST & JOHN DALY BLVD 1533712260 2 0 2 3 MISSION ST & SICKLES AVE 1131066120 76 4 80 4 MISSION ST & GOETHE ST 577410737 457 16 473 5 SAN JOSE AVE & BEPLER ST 1701484379 117 12 129 6 MISSION ST & PARKVIEW AVE 460320079 33 13 46 7 MISSION ST & WESTLAKE AVE 678423931 55 38 93 8 MISSION ST & BISMARK ST 1315692463 41 63 104 9 MISSION ST & SCHOOL ST 359656924 124 92 217 10 SAN PEDRO RD & MISSION ST 1785542533 87 64 151 11 COLMA BART & BAY 5 1483387202 247 116 363 12 EL CAMINO REAL & F ST 2037197476 20 6 26 13 EL CAMINO REAL & COLMA BLVD 644869772 11 16 27 14 EL CAMINO REAL & SERRAMONTE BLVD 745352022 31 33 64 15 EL CAMINO REAL & & OLD MISSION RD 1349512983 2 3 4 16 EL CAMINO REAL & ARLINGTON DR 1651502919 7 10 17 17 EL CAMINO REAL & HICKEY BLVD 611315579 46 55 101 18 EL CAMINO REAL & MCLELLAN DR 2003824553 29 29 59 19 EL CAMINO REAL & ALTA LOMA STAIRWAY 1617948624 48 15 64 20 EL CAMINO REAL & KAISER HOSPITAL 661647360 19 37 56 21 EL CAMINO REAL & ARROYO DR/SSF 1617948706 106 81 187 22 EL CAMINO REAL & SOUTHWOOD DR 611315860 46 32 78 23 EL CAMINO REAL & W ORANGE AVE 1953493183 74 77 151 24 EL CAMINO REAL & COUNTRY CLUB DR 1399845124 61 43 105 25 EL CAMINO REAL & BRENTWOOD DR 1282404664 73 91 163 26 EL CAMINO REAL & SNEATH LN 963637626 190 198 388 27 EL CAMINO REAL & HWY 380 1282160405 22 31 53 28 EL CAMINO REAL & SAN BRUNO AVE W 1584394745 136 67 203 29 EL CAMINO REAL & ANGUS AVE W 594539040 43 36 79 30 EL CAMINO REAL & JENEVEIN AVE 2104488541 61 54 116 31 EL CAMINO REAL & CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD 896529026 47 47 94 32 EL CAMINO REAL & SAN FELIPE AVE 124777138 35 41 76 33 EL CAMINO REAL & PARK PL 644870890 61 88 149 34 EL CAMINO REAL & CAPUCHINO DR 628093710 24 32 56 35 EL CAMINO REAL & CENTER ST/MILBRAE 879752001 31 37 68 36 EL CAMINO REAL & MEADOW GLEN AVE 1768944516 19 34 53 37 EL CAMINO REAL & SILVA AVE 795866019 56 84 140 38 EL CAMINO REAL & TAYLOR AVE 124777483 41 51 92 39 MILLBRAE BART ES BAY 8 2038 197 121 318 40 EL CAMINO REAL & MURCHISON DR 628094121 76 57 132 41 EL CAMINO REAL & TROUSDALE DR 1601172683 61 43 104 January 13, 2014 Page 13 of 17

Average Activity Weekday Weekday Weekday Stop # STOP NAME Bus Stop ID On Off Total 42 EL CAMINO REAL & RAY DR 1701836027 9 9 18 43 EL CAMINO REAL & ADELINE DR 829420823 9 8 16 44 EL CAMINO REAL & HILLSIDE DR 1634727229 21 17 38 45 EL CAMINO REAL & EASTON DR 1886385502 9 12 21 46 EL CAMINO REAL & BROADWAY/BURLINGAM 1852831127 59 81 140 47 EL CAMINO REAL & SANCHEZ AVE 1366291914 16 14 30 48 EL CAMINO REAL & ARC WY 1802499562 3 7 10 49 EL CAMINO REAL & OAK GROVE AVE 1450178070 18 22 39 50 EL CAMINO REAL & BELLEVUE AVE 946861636 15 26 41 51 EL CAMINO REAL & BURLINGAME AVE 1752168041 33 87 120 52 EL CAMINO REAL & HOWARD AVE 510654086 47 39 86 53 N EL CAMINO REAL & WARREN RD 963638994 30 37 67 54 N EL CAMINO REAL & W BELLEVUE AVE 946861818 30 30 60 55 N EL CAMINO REAL & W POPLAR AVE 175109923 71 53 124 56 N EL CAMINO REAL & EL CERRITO AVE 1852831575 74 75 148 57 S EL CAMINO REAL & W 2ND AVE 544208798 92 120 213 58 S EL CAMINO REAL & W 4TH AVE 1685059518 143 74 217 59 S EL CAMINO REAL & W 9TH AVE 1299183644 48 33 81 60 S EL CAMINO REAL & HOBART AVE 158333001 23 29 51 61 S EL CAMINO REAL & 17TH AVE 460322955 64 59 123 62 S EL CAMINO REAL & W 20TH AVE 1483733181 72 75 147 63 S EL CAMINO REAL & W 25TH AVE 24115500 54 89 143 64 S EL CAMINO REAL & 27TH AVE 2037381657 18 40 57 65 S EL CAMINO REAL & W 31ST AVE 1265466163 54 182 236 66 S EL CAMINO REAL & W HILLSDALE BLVD 1987050166 206 112 318 67 S EL CAMINO REAL & 37TH AVE 1852832466 40 62 102 68 S EL CAMINO REAL & W 39TH AVE 1936718571 30 20 50 69 S EL CAMINO REAL & W 41ST AVE 661650187 29 58 87 70 S EL CAMINO REAL & 43RD AVE 913308469 20 17 38 71 EL CAMINO REAL & DAVEY GLEN RD 829422464 24 33 57 72 EL CAMINO REAL & RALSTON AVE 41 104 153 256 73 EL CAMINO REAL & HARBOR BLVD 661650548 33 50 83 74 EL CAMINO REAL & 5TH AVE/BELMONT 980417695 18 19 37 75 EL CAMINO REAL & HULL DR 1869610196 20 18 38 76 EL CAMINO REAL & SAN CARLOS AVE 1735392560 91 91 182 77 EL CAMINO REAL & ARROYO AVE/SAN CAR 946863460 19 20 39 78 EL CAMINO REAL & BRITTAN AVE 1433402826 33 53 86 79 EL CAMINO REAL & BELMONT AVE 393215478 29 32 61 80 EL CAMINO REAL & EATON AVE 1584397863 9 11 20 81 EL CAMINO REAL & EDGEWOOD RD 191889002 20 34 54 82 EL CAMINO REAL & HOPKINS AVE 762314396 8 21 29 83 EL CAMINO REAL & BREWSTER AVE 862977936 25 74 99 84 EL CAMINO REAL & JAMES A 2138386060 0 1 2 85 REDWOOD CITY STATION BAY 6 A 1735393558 116 287 403 86 EL CAMINO REAL & JEFFERSON AVE 2104492500 52 33 85 87 EL CAMINO REAL & LINCOLN AVE 1047435866 44 87 131 88 EL CAMINO REAL & OAK AVE 242129547 77 68 145 89 EL CAMINO REAL & CENTER ST 510657226 43 67 110 90 EL CAMINO REAL & OAKWOOD DR 560988919 25 34 59 91 EL CAMINO REAL & 5TH AVE 1819280173 34 55 89 92 EL CAMINO REAL & ALMENDRAL AVE 1718617174 1 1 2 93 EL CAMINO REAL & WINCHESTER DR 695207105 1 2 3 94 EL CAMINO REAL & ISABELLA AVE 74450143 0 3 3 95 EL CAMINO REAL & MENLO COLLEGE 695207172 3 7 10 January 13, 2014 Page 14 of 17

Average Activity Weekday Weekday Weekday Stop # STOP NAME Bus Stop ID On Off Total 96 EL CAMINO REAL & VALPARAISO AVE 141559093 3 12 15 97 EL CAMINO REAL & OAK GROVE AVE 2020607324 17 59 76 98 EL CAMINO REAL & LIVE OAK AVE 980420032 8 10 18 99 EL CAMINO REAL & MIDDLE AVE 1081083360 9 13 22 100 EL CAMINO REAL & CAMBRIDGE AVE 711984684 1 6 7 101 EL CAMINO REAL & STANFORD SOUTH 2054162015 3 55 57 102 PALO ALTO CALTRAIN BAY 1 678855823 0 162 162 SB Total 5,329 5,026 10,355 Source: SamTrans, 2013.

Note: A At this time, the exact location of the proposed Rapid stop has not been determined.

Table A2: Average Northbound ECR Weekday Ons/Offs by Stop (October/November 2013) Average Activity Weekday Weekday Weekday Stop # STOP NAME Bus Stop ID On Off Total 1 PALO ALTO CALTRAIN BAY 9 2138386006 362 0 362 2 EL CAMINO REAL & QUARRY 510645081 57 3 61 3 EL CAMINO REAL & CAMBRIDGE AVE 1081070491 6 2 7 4 EL CAMINO REAL & MIDDLE AVE 1651495886 17 11 28 5 EL CAMINO REAL & RAVENSWOOD AVE 1567609868 75 34 109 6 EL CAMINO REAL & OAK GROVE AVE 2070929054 20 16 36 7 EL CAMINO REAL & GLENWOOD AVE 577754227 11 4 15 8 EL CAMINO REAL & ENCINAL AVE 393204895 7 3 11 9 EL CAMINO REAL & WATKINS AVE 1567610061 4 2 6 10 EL CAMINO REAL & ALMENDRAL AVE 141558791 1 1 3 11 EL CAMINO REAL & 5TH AVE 2121258295 50 42 92 12 EL CAMINO REAL & DUMBARTON AVE 1416615313 47 21 69 13 EL CAMINO REAL & NORTHUMBERLAND AVE 1299174866 13 11 24 14 EL CAMINO REAL & CHARTER ST 191878646 71 43 114 15 EL CAMINO REAL & MAIN ST 1064293928 82 48 130 16 EL CAMINO REAL & CEDAR ST 1970198635 125 56 181 17 EL CAMINO REAL & JEFFERSON AVE 2054084791 72 84 156 18 REDWOOD CITY STATION BAY 4 678428898 281 93 375 19 EL CAMINO REAL & WINKLEBLECK ST 40884035 64 11 74 20 EL CAMINO REAL & BREWSTER AVE 779081610 71 20 91 21 EL CAMINO REAL & HOPKINS AVE 1919932332 21 16 37 22 EL CAMINO REAL & EDGEWOOD RD 1047517160 33 18 51 23 EL CAMINO REAL & SAINT FRANCIS WY 510646310 13 10 22 24 EL CAMINO REAL & BELMONT AVE 158324827 23 32 55 25 EL CAMINO REAL & BRITTAN 2138386014 44 33 76 26 EL CAMINO REAL & ARROYO AVE/SAN CAR 946854092 16 25 41 27 EL CAMINO REAL & SAN CARLOS AVE 997361650 106 113 219 28 EL CAMINO REAL & OAK ST 1248844074 12 18 30 29 EL CAMINO REAL & 5TH AVE/BELMONT 1366284634 22 30 52 30 EL CAMINO REAL & HARBOR BLVD 1332730252 47 33 80 31 EL CAMINO REAL & RALSTON AVE 795859394 157 102 259 32 EL CAMINO REAL & DAVEY GLEN RD 124770813 28 27 55 33 EL CAMINO REAL & RUTH AVE 1466948131 5 9 14 34 S EL CAMINO REAL & 42ND AVE 1483725395 68 45 113 35 S EL CAMINO REAL & W 39TH AVE 326097555 19 27 46 36 S EL CAMINO REAL & 37TH AVE 745527986 57 63 120 37 S EL CAMINO REAL & W HILLSDALE BLVD 1903092410 183 171 354 January 13, 2014 Page 15 of 17

Average Activity Weekday Weekday Weekday Stop # STOP NAME Bus Stop ID On Off Total 38 S EL CAMINO REAL & E 31ST AVE 1148181283 101 30 131 39 S EL CAMINO REAL & 27TH AVE 2104482639 35 20 55 40 S EL CAMINO REAL & E 25TH AVE 1685052307 76 55 132 41 S EL CAMINO REAL & E 20TH AVE 24108022 97 67 163 42 S EL CAMINO REAL & 17TH AVE 1517280299 64 74 137 43 S EL CAMINO REAL & 12TH AVE 1584389219 25 20 45 44 S EL CAMINO REAL & E 9TH AVE 1450171545 27 42 69 45 S EL CAMINO REAL & E 5TH AVE 24108228 94 155 250 46 S EL CAMINO REAL & E 2ND AVE 57662734 113 109 222 47 N EL CAMINO REAL & TILTON AVE 1987042629 77 70 148 48 N EL CAMINO REAL & E POPLAR AVE 1064295815 63 64 127 49 N EL CAMINO REAL & GRAND BLVD 527424939 20 27 47 50 N EL CAMINO REAL & STATE ST 846192084 33 27 60 51 EL CAMINO REAL & HOWARD AVE 812637729 73 77 151 52 EL CAMINO REAL & BURLINGAME AVE 91217473 63 30 93 53 EL CAMINO REAL & BELLEVUE AVE 1232068193 11 10 21 54 EL CAMINO REAL & OAK GROVE AVE 544199742 28 5 33 55 EL CAMINO REAL & PALM DR 1768939203 7 7 15 56 EL CAMINO REAL & SANCHEZ AVE 1584389872 13 19 32 57 EL CAMINO REAL & BROADWAY/BURLINGAM 1886379803 74 57 131 58 EL CAMINO REAL & EASTON DR 527425433 8 10 18 59 EL CAMINO REAL & HILLSIDE DR 1164959675 16 22 38 60 EL CAMINO REAL & ADELINE DR 393207777 7 10 16 61 EL CAMINO REAL & ROSEDALE AVE 326098949 9 12 21 62 EL CAMINO REAL & TROUSDALE DR 1785716800 43 59 102 63 EL CAMINO REAL & MURCHISON DR 2020597859 37 50 87 64 MILLBRAE BART ES BAY 5 2035 91 170 260 65 EL CAMINO REAL & LINDEN AVE 1601167516 63 14 77 66 EL CAMINO REAL & HILLCREST BLVD 57663689 37 33 70 67 EL CAMINO REAL & SILVA AVE 2138038520 93 65 158 68 EL CAMINO REAL & MEADOW GLEN AVE 2070929711 31 24 55 69 EL CAMINO REAL & CENTER ST/MILBRAE 644866386 22 24 46 70 EL CAMINO REAL & MILLWOOD DR 1970266484 40 27 67 71 EL CAMINO REAL & SANTA INEZ AVE 2003820966 90 59 149 72 EL CAMINO REAL & SANTA DOMINGA AVE 1953311399 32 26 59 73 EL CAMINO REAL & SAN FELIPE AVE 1080896212 25 31 56 74 EL CAMINO REAL & TAYLOR AVE 1668098831 43 40 83 75 EL CAMINO REAL & JENEVEIN AVE 342698841 64 67 132 76 EL CAMINO REAL & ANGUS AVE W 695020429 33 43 76 77 EL CAMINO REAL & SAN BRUNO AVE W 74263996 96 124 220 78 EL CAMINO REAL & SNEATH LN 242213654 189 217 405 79 EL CAMINO REAL & SPRUCE AVE 510406633 79 64 144 80 EL CAMINO REAL & COUNTRY CLUB DR 1148183435 43 42 86 81 EL CAMINO REAL & W ORANGE AVE 745530299 98 73 171 82 EL CAMINO REAL & 1ST ST 762307556 34 41 75 83 EL CAMINO REAL & ARROYO DR/SSF 1651500051 69 87 156 84 EL CAMINO REAL & KAISER HOSPITAL 930079795 36 18 54 85 EL CAMINO REAL & McLELLAN DR 2138386074 36 118 154 86 EL CAMINO REAL & COSTCO 930079903 24 19 43 87 EL CAMINO REAL & HICKEY BLVD 544203981 41 34 75 88 EL CAMINO REAL & ARLINGTON DR 2070930684 8 6 14 89 EL CAMINO REAL & & OLD MISSION RD 711976233 2 1 3 90 EL CAMINO REAL & SERRAMONTE BLVD 2087707998 24 25 48 91 EL CAMINO REAL & COLMA BLVD 1785718165 7 13 20 January 13, 2014 Page 16 of 17

Average Activity Weekday Weekday Weekday Stop # STOP NAME Bus Stop ID On Off Total 92 COLMA BART & BAY 11 4 133 235 368 93 EL CAMINO REAL & ALBERT M. TEGLIA B 443360060 0 0 1 94 MISSION ST & E MARKET ST 1987044869 38 61 99 95 MISSION ST & PRICE ST 175105623 110 106 216 96 MISSION ST & BISMARK ST 963373160 63 59 122 97 MISSION ST & EASTLAKE AVE 175105739 14 51 65 98 MISSION ST & ALP AVE 829417195 6 34 40 99 MISSION ST & WELLINGTON AVE 1953142906 4 145 149 100 MISSION ST & CROCKER AVE 778736039 2 52 54 101 MISSION ST & EVERGREEN AVE 1349161425 8 245 254 102 SAN JOSE AVE & BEPLER ST 1701484379 8 9 18 103 MISSION ST & JOHN DALY BLVD 1533712260 1 1 2 104 DALY CITY BART BAY 6 560634609 0 128 128 Source: SamTrans, 2013.

January 13, 2014 Page 17 of 17

Figure A1 – Average Weekday Ons + Offs by Stop (October/November 2013)

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – Appendices December 2014

Appendix E.2: Truncated Rapid Stop Selection

Memorandum

To Barrow Emerson, SamTrans Date April 20, 2014

Copies Melissa Reggiardo, SamTrans Reference number 19T

From Corey Wong, Arup File reference Steve Crosley, Fehr & Peers 19T

Subject Stop Selection for Truncated Rapid Service Options

Background

This memo briefly describes how stops were selected for the Truncated Rapid service options as part of SamTrans’s El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Phasing Study. This memo builds on the January 27, 2014 SamTrans ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Rapid Station Selection Memo.

Full Rapid Stop Selection

From the January 27, 2014 SamTrans ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Rapid Station Selection Memo, a stop selection methodology was developed to identify potential Rapid stations along the El Camino Real Corridor. This methodology consisted of a multi-step process integrating factors such as current demand, land use, transit connections, and coverage aspects into the analysis framework. A total of 37 stops was recommended for consideration as Rapid stops for the Full Rapid scenario.

Truncated Rapid Concept

In assessing existing ridership at ECR stops along the corridor, it was observed that some segments of the corridor experienced low ridership – particularly in the very north of the corridor (for instance through Colma) and in the south of the corridor (between Redwood City and Palo Alto). As such, an alternate service plan was developed to assess benefits of “truncating” the corridor to minimize these lower ridership segments at the ends of the corridor. Two concepts were developed as alternates to the Full Rapid concept: Table 1: Truncated Rapid Concepts Truncated Rapid Concepts Rationale Truncated Rapid – Daly City Rapid would operate from Daly City BART to Redwood City Caltrain, BART to Redwood City Caltrain thereby skipping low demand stops south of Redwood City. Truncated Rapid – San Bruno Rapid would operate from San Bruno BART to Redwood City Caltrain, BART to Redwood City Caltrain thereby skipping low demand stops south of Redwood City and north of San Bruno BART (principally Colma).

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX E.2 - ECR BRT - TRUNCATED RAPID STOP SELECTION MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 1 of 5

Memorandum

Truncated Rapid Stop Selection

The Truncated Rapid concepts are assumed to serve the same stops as those proposed for the Full Rapid, although the shorter operating segments for both Truncated Rapid concepts means that the number of stops is correspondingly reduced as follows (as depicted in Table 2): • Truncated Rapid – Daly City BART to Redwood City Caltrain: 32 stops • Truncated Rapid – San Bruno BART to Redwood City Caltrain: 23 stops Table 2: Proposed Truncated Rapid Stops SB NB Avg. Full Truncated Truncated SB NB Southbound Stop Northbound Stop Ons/ Ons/ NB & SB Rapid Rapid Rapid # # Offs Offs Ons/ Offs Stop (DC-RC) (SB-RC) 1 Daly City BART 76 Daly City BART 208 128 168 X X Mission St. & Mission St. & 2 75 473 0 237 X X San Jose St. San Jose St. Mission St & School 3 74 Mission St & Price St 217 216 216 X X St Mission St & Mission St. & 4 73 151 99 125 X X San Pedro Rd. East Market 5 Colma BART 72 Colma BART 363 368 365 X X South San Francisco South San Francisco 6 BART (El Camino & 71 BART (El Camion & 59 154 106 X X McClellan Drive) McClellan Drive) El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 7 70 187 156 172 X X Arroyo Dr/SSF Arroyo Dr/SSF El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 8 69 151 171 161 X X W Orange Ave W Orange Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 9 68 163 144 154 X X Brentwood Dr Spruce Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 10 67 388 405 396 X X X Sneath Lane Sneath Lane El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 11 66 53 0 27 Hwy 380 Hwy 380 El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 12 65 203 220 212 X X X San Bruno Ave W San Bruno Ave W El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 13 64 79 76 77 Angus Ave W Angus Ave W El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 14 63 116 132 124 X X X Jenevein Ave Jenevein Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 15 62 94 83 88 Crystal Springs Rd Taylor Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 16 61 76 56 66 San Felipe Ave San Felipe Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 17 60 149 149 149 X X X Park Pl Santa Inez Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 18 59 56 67 61 Capuchino Dr Millwood Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 19 58 68 46 57 Center St/Millbrae Center St/Millbrae

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX E.2 - ECR BRT - TRUNCATED RAPID STOP SELECTION MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 2 of 5

Memorandum

SB NB Avg. Full Truncated Truncated SB NB Southbound Stop Northbound Stop Ons/ Ons/ NB & SB Rapid Rapid Rapid # # Offs Offs Ons/ Offs Stop (DC-RC) (SB-RC) El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 20 57 53 55 54 Meadow Glen Ave Meadow Glen Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 21 56 140 158 149 X X X Silva Ave Silva Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 22 55 92 70 81 Taylor Ave Hillcrest Blvd El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 23 54 318 260 289 X X X Chadbourne Ave Linden Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 24 53 132 87 110 Murchison Dr Murchison Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 25 52 104 102 103 X X X Trousdale Dr Trousdale Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 26 51 18 21 19 Ray Dr Rosedale Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 27 50 16 16 16 Adeline Dr Adeline Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 28 49 38 38 38 Hillside Dr Hillside Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 29 48 21 18 20 Easton Dr Easton Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 30 47 140 131 135 X X X Broadway/Burlingame Broadway/Burlingame El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 31 46 30 32 31 Sanchez Ave Sanchez Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 32 45 10 15 13 Arc Way Palm Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 33 44 39 33 36 Oak Grove Ave Oak Grove Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 34 43 41 21 31 Bellevue Ave Bellevue Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 35 42 120 93 107 X X X Burlingame Ave Burlingame Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 36 41 86 151 118 Howard Ave Howard Ave N El Camino Real & N El Camino Real & 37 40 67 60 63 Warren Rd State St N El Camino Real & N El Camino Real & 38 39 60 47 53 W Bellevue Ave Grand Blvd N El Camino Real & N El Camino Real & 39 38 124 127 126 X X X W Poplar Ave W Poplar Ave N El Camino Real & N El Camino Real & 40 37 148 148 148 X X X El Cerrito Ave Tilton Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 41 36 213 222 217 X X X W 2nd Ave E 2nd Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 42 35 217 250 234 X X X W 4th Ave E 5th Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 43 34 81 69 75 W 9th Ave E 9th Ave

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX E.2 - ECR BRT - TRUNCATED RAPID STOP SELECTION MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 3 of 5

Memorandum

SB NB Avg. Full Truncated Truncated SB NB Southbound Stop Northbound Stop Ons/ Ons/ NB & SB Rapid Rapid Rapid # # Offs Offs Ons/ Offs Stop (DC-RC) (SB-RC) S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 44 33 51 45 48 Hobart Ave 12th Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 45 32 123 137 130 X X X 17th Ave 17th Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 46 31 147 163 155 X X X W 20th Ave W 20th Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 47 30 143 132 137 X X X W 25th Ave W 25th Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 48 29 57 55 56 27th Ave 27th Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 49 28 236 131 184 W 31st Ave E 31st Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 50 27 318 354 336 X X X W Hillsdale Blvd W Hillsdale Blvd S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 51 26 102 120 111 37the Ave 37th Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 52 25 50 46 48 W 39th Ave W 39th Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 53 24 87 113 100 X X X W 41St Ave 42nd Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 54 23 38 38 43rd Ave 43rd Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 55 22 57 55 56 Davey Glen Rd Davey Glen Rd El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 56 21 256 259 258 X X X Ralston Ave Ralston Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 57 20 83 80 81 Harbor Blvd Harbor Blvd El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 58 19 37 52 45 5th Ave/Belmont 5th Ave/Belmont El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 59 18 38 30 34 Hull Dr Hull Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 60 17 182 219 201 X X X San Carlos Ave San Carlos Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 61 16 39 41 40 Arroyo Ave/San Car Arroyo Ave/San Car El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 62 15 86 76 81 X X X Brittan Ave Brittan Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 63 14 61 55 58 Belmont Ave Belmont Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 64 13 20 22 21 Eaton Ave Saint Francis Wy El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 65 12 54 51 53 X X X Edgewood Rd Edgewood Rd El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 66 11 29 37 33 Hopkins Ave Hopkins Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 67 10 99 91 95 Brewster Ave Brewster Ave

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX E.2 - ECR BRT - TRUNCATED RAPID STOP SELECTION MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 4 of 5

Memorandum

SB NB Avg. Full Truncated Truncated SB NB Southbound Stop Northbound Stop Ons/ Ons/ NB & SB Rapid Rapid Rapid # # Offs Offs Ons/ Offs Stop (DC-RC) (SB-RC) El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 68 9 2 74 38 X X X James Ave James Ave Redwood City Redwood City 69 8 403 375 389 Caltrain Station Caltrain Station El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 70 7 85 156 121 Jefferson Ave Jefferson Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 71 6 131 181 156 X Lincoln Ave Cedar St El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 72 5 145 130 138 Oak Ave Main St El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 73 4 110 114 112 X Center St Charter St El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 74 3 89 92 90 X 5th Ave 5th Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 75 2 76 36 56 X Santa Cruz Ave Ravenswood Ave 76 Palo Alto Caltrain 1 Palo Alto Caltrain 162 362 262 X Total Stops 37 32 23

Proposed stops are depicted in corridor maps below.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX E.2 - ECR BRT - TRUNCATED RAPID STOP SELECTION MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 5 of 5

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – Appendices December 2014

Appendix E.3: Hybrid Rapid Stop Selection

Memorandum

To Barrow Emerson, SamTrans Date July 31, 2014

Copies Melissa Reggiardo, SamTrans Reference number 19T

From Corey Wong, Arup File reference Steve Crosley, Fehr & Peers 19T

Subject Stop Selection for Hybrid Rapid Service Options

Background

This memo briefly describes how stops were selected for the Hybrid Rapid service options as part of SamTrans’s El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Phasing Study. This memo builds on the January 27, 2014 SamTrans ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Rapid Station Selection Memo as well as the April 20, 2014 SamTrans ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Truncated Rapid Station Selection Memo.

Rapid Service Options

As part of the Phasing Study, several Rapid service options (i.e., limited stop service with transit signal priority and other amenities to improve service over the existing ECR) for the near-term were developed to enhance service on the Corridor and to increase ridership. These include:

Table 1: Rapid Service Option Description and Number of Stops Served # of Stops # Service Description Served A • The Full Rapid would overlay the existing ECR and operate along the corridor from Daly City BART to Palo Alto Caltrain. • The Full Rapid would serve 37 stops selected based on high demand (125 combined daily ons/offs in one direction), transit 1 Full Rapid 37 connectivity, location relative to important land uses, and would have stops spaced no more than one-mile apart. • ECR would continue to operate along the entire corridor at 15- minute headways. • Truncated Rapid would overlay the existing ECR and operate along a portion of the corridor to improve productivity and remove low 23 or 32 Truncated 2 productivity segments at the end(s) of the El Camino Real Corridor (depending on Rapid (i.e., Daly City or San Bruno BART to Redwood City Caltrain). concept) • The Truncated Rapid between Daly City BART and Redwood City

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX E.3 - ECR BRT - HYBRID RAPID STOP SELECTION MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 1 of 11

Memorandum

# of Stops # Service Description Served A Caltrain would serve 32 stops. A San Bruno BART to Redwood City variant would serve 23 stops. • ECR would continue to operate along the entire corridor at 15- minute headways. • Peak Rapid would operate similar to the Full Rapid (i.e., from Daly City BART to Palo Alto Caltrain), except only during peak demand hours in the morning and afternoon. 3 Peak Rapid 37 • Peak Rapid would serve 37 stops. • ECR would continue to operate along the entire corridor at 15- minute headways. • Hybrid Rapid would be a variant of the Full Rapid and operate from Daly City BART to Palo Alto Caltrain. However, no local ECR overlay would operate. Therefore, the Hybrid Rapid would be the only route operating on the length of the El Camino Corridor. • In busier, higher demand segments, the Hybrid Rapid would Hybrid Rapid 4 operate similar to a local service to provide greater access and 76 Concept A mobility in these areas. Outside of these higher demand segments, the Hybrid Rapid would stop in selected locations due to high demand, transit connectivity, location relative to important land uses, and minimal one-mile coverage. • The Hybrid Rapid would serve 76 of the 102 ECR stops. Notes: A ECR currently serves 102 stops.

Hybrid Rapid Concept A

As part of the modeling exercise to forecast demand, two service variants of Hybrid Rapid Concept A were tested (i.e., with 10- and 12-minute headways, respectively), each with 76 stops as follows: • All 37 stops served by the Full Rapid would also be served by the Hybrid Rapid. • An additional 39 stops would be served in the “high demand” segment between Brentwood Drive (just north of San Bruno BART) to Center Street (south of Redwood City Caltrain). All ECR stops within this segment would be served by the Hybrid Rapid. It is noted that these 39 additional stops have varying levels of demand (ranging from moderate to low), provide access to civic facilities and institutional uses, and provide minimal coverage. Combined, the 76 Hybrid Rapid Concept A stops over the length of the corridor equates to a stop every 0.33 miles, which is nearly half of the average stop spacing of the Full Rapid service (with 37 stops,

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX E.3 - ECR BRT - HYBRID RAPID STOP SELECTION MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 2 of 11

Memorandum

equating to a stop every 0.69 miles).1 The Hybrid Rapid Concept A would have a stop spacing that is 50% longer than that of the existing ECR (with 102 stops, equating to a stop spacing of 0.25 miles). The 76 Hybrid Rapid Concept A stops are identified in Table 2 below, with the average number of existing weekday ons/offs on Route ECR from October and November 2013 (for the northbound and southbound directions): Table 2: Hybrid Rapid Concept A Hybrid Avg. Full SB NB SB NB Rapid Southbound Stop Northbound Stop NB & SB Rapid # # Ons/Offs Ons/Offs Concept Ons/Offs Stop A Stop 1 Daly City BART 76 Daly City BART 208 128 168 X X Mission St. & Mission St. & 2 75 473 0 237 X X San Jose St. San Jose St. 3 Mission St & School St 74 Mission St & Price St 217 216 216 X X Mission St & Mission St. & 4 73 151 99 125 X X San Pedro Rd. East Market 5 Colma BART 72 Colma BART 363 368 365 X X South San Francisco South San Francisco 6 BART (El Camino Real 71 BART (El Camino Real 59 154 106 X X & McClellan Dr) & McClellan Dr) El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 7 70 187 156 172 X X Arroyo Dr/SSF Arroyo Dr/SSF El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 8 69 151 171 161 X X W Orange Ave W Orange Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 9 68 163 144 154 X X Brentwood Dr Spruce Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 10 67 388 405 396 X X Sneath Lane Sneath Lane El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 11 66 53 0 27 X Hwy 380 Hwy 380 El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 12 65 203 220 212 X X San Bruno Ave W San Bruno Ave W El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 13 64 79 76 77 X Angus Ave W Angus Ave W El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 14 63 116 132 124 X X Jenevein Ave Jenevein Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 15 62 94 83 88 X Crystal Springs Rd Taylor Ave El Camino Real & San El Camino Real & 16 61 76 56 66 X Felipe Ave San Felipe Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 17 60 149 149 149 X X Park Pl Santa Inez Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 18 59 56 67 61 X Capuchino Dr Millwood Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 19 58 68 46 57 X Center St/Millbrae Center St/Millbrae

1 For the Full Rapid, local ECR would still operate. In total, the combined stop spacing of both the Rapid and ECR would be about 0.19 miles (with 139 total stops).

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX E.3 - ECR BRT - HYBRID RAPID STOP SELECTION MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 3 of 11

Memorandum

Hybrid Avg. Full SB NB SB NB Rapid Southbound Stop Northbound Stop NB & SB Rapid # # Ons/Offs Ons/Offs Concept Ons/Offs Stop A Stop El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 20 57 53 55 54 X Meadow Glen Ave Meadow Glen Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 21 56 140 158 149 X X Silva Ave Silva Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 22 55 92 70 81 X Taylor Ave Hillcrest Blvd El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 23 54 318 260 289 X X Chadbourne Ave Linden Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 24 53 132 87 110 X Murchison Dr Murchison Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 25 52 104 102 103 X X Trousdale Dr Trousdale Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 26 51 18 21 19 X Ray Dr Rosedale Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 27 50 16 16 16 X Adeline Dr Adeline Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 28 49 38 38 38 X Hillside Dr Hillside Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 29 48 21 18 20 X Easton Dr Easton Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 30 47 140 131 135 X X Broadway/Burlingame Broadway/Burlingame El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 31 46 30 32 31 X Sanchez Ave Sanchez Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 32 45 10 15 13 X Arc Way Palm Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 33 44 39 33 36 X Oak Grove Ave Oak Grove Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 34 43 41 21 31 X Bellevue Ave Bellevue Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 35 42 120 93 107 X X Burlingame Ave Burlingame Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 36 41 86 151 118 X Howard Ave Howard Ave N El Camino Real & N El Camino Real & 37 40 67 60 63 X Warren Rd State St N El Camino Real & N El Camino Real & 38 39 60 47 53 X W Bellevue Ave Grand Blvd N El Camino Real & N El Camino Real & 39 38 124 127 126 X X W Poplar Ave W Poplar Ave N El Camino Real & N El Camino Real & 40 37 148 148 148 X X El Cerrito Ave Tilton Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 41 36 213 222 217 X X W 2nd Ave E 2nd Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 42 35 217 250 234 X X W 4th Ave E 5th Ave 43 S El Camino Real & 34 S El Camino Real & 81 69 75 X

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX E.3 - ECR BRT - HYBRID RAPID STOP SELECTION MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 4 of 11

Memorandum

Hybrid Avg. Full SB NB SB NB Rapid Southbound Stop Northbound Stop NB & SB Rapid # # Ons/Offs Ons/Offs Concept Ons/Offs Stop A Stop W 9th Ave E 9th Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 44 33 51 45 48 X Hobart Ave 12th Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 45 32 123 137 130 X X 17th Ave 17th Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 46 31 147 163 155 X X W 20th Ave W 20th Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 47 30 143 132 137 X X W 25th Ave W 25th Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 48 29 57 55 56 X 27th Ave 27th Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 49 28 236 131 184 X W 31st Ave E 31st Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 50 27 318 354 336 X X W Hillsdale Blvd W Hillsdale Blvd S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 51 26 102 120 111 X 37the Ave 37th Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 52 25 50 46 48 X W 39th Ave W 39th Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 53 24 87 113 100 X X W 41St Ave 42nd Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 54 23 38 38 X 43rd Ave 43rd Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 55 22 57 55 56 X Davey Glen Rd Davey Glen Rd El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 56 21 256 259 258 X X Ralston Ave Ralston Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 57 20 83 80 81 X Harbor Blvd Harbor Blvd El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 58 19 37 52 45 X 5th Ave/Belmont 5th Ave/Belmont El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 59 18 38 30 34 X Hull Dr Hull Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 60 17 182 219 201 X X San Carlos Ave San Carlos Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 61 16 39 41 40 X Arroyo Ave/San Car Arroyo Ave/San Car El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 62 15 86 76 81 X X Brittan Ave Brittan Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 63 14 61 55 58 X Belmont Ave Belmont Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 64 13 20 22 21 X Eaton Ave Saint Francis Wy El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 65 12 54 51 53 X X Edgewood Rd Edgewood Rd El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 66 11 29 37 33 X Hopkins Ave Hopkins Ave

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX E.3 - ECR BRT - HYBRID RAPID STOP SELECTION MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 5 of 11

Memorandum

Hybrid Avg. Full SB NB SB NB Rapid Southbound Stop Northbound Stop NB & SB Rapid # # Ons/Offs Ons/Offs Concept Ons/Offs Stop A Stop El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 67 10 99 91 95 X Brewster Ave Brewster Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 68 9 2 74 38 X X James Ave James Ave Redwood City Redwood City 69 8 403 375 389 X Caltrain Station Caltrain Station El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 70 7 85 156 121 X Jefferson Ave Jefferson Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 71 6 131 181 156 X X Lincoln Ave Cedar St El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 72 5 145 130 138 X Oak Ave Main St El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 73 4 110 114 112 X X Center St Charter St El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 74 3 89 92 90 X X 5th Ave 5th Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 75 2 76 36 56 X X Santa Cruz Ave Ravenswood Ave 76 Palo Alto Caltrain 1 Palo Alto Caltrain 162 362 262 X X Total Stops 37 76

Hybrid Rapid Concept B

As noted, the 39 additional stops included in the Hybrid Rapid Concept A within the “high demand” segments have varying levels of ridership demand, ranging from moderate to low. Reducing low productivity stops could improve travel time. Thus, to improve operating speed and reduce travel time for the Hybrid Rapid option, a second concept (Hybrid Rapid Concept B) was proposed with fewer stops in the “high demand” segment between Brentwood Drive and Center Street between the cities of South San Francisco and Redwood City. Based on an analysis of existing on-off activity from the ECR (from October and November 2013), approximately half of all 102 stops served by the current ECR generates an average of at least 75 combined daily ons/offs as shown in Figure 1.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX E.3 - ECR BRT - HYBRID RAPID STOP SELECTION MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 6 of 11

Memorandum

Figure 1: Histogram of Stops by Avg. Daily Ons/Offs

Source: SamTrans, ECR Ons/Offs, October/November 2013. Notes: 102 total stops are served in the corridor. The on/off activity depicted represents the average of the northbound and southbound activity for a given stop.

Assuming that all 37 Rapid stops would continue to be served, applying a threshold of 75 combined daily ons/offs within the “high demand” segment between Brentwood Drive and Center Street increased the number of stops by 13 stops to 50 stops. This would equate to a stop spacing of 0.51 miles/stop compared to 0.25 miles/stop for the existing ECR and 0.69 miles/stop for the proposed Full Rapid, respectively. If the average activity threshold was increased to 100 combined daily ons/offs, the number of stops within the “high demand” segment would be increased from the Rapid case by 8 stops for a total of 45 stops. This would equate to a stop spacing of 0.57 miles/stop. Based on these results and to more clearly delineate between the Full Rapid and Hybrid Rapid service, an activity threshold of 75 combined daily ons/offs was selected. Again, this equates to 50 total stops served or a stop spacing of 0.51 miles/stop as opposed to 0.33 miles/stop under the Hybrid Rapid Concept A. Proposed stops for Hybrid Rapid Concept B are presented in the table below:

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX E.3 - ECR BRT - HYBRID RAPID STOP SELECTION MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 7 of 11

Memorandum

Table 3: Hybrid Rapid Concept B Stops Hybrid Hybrid Avg. Full SB NB SB NB Rapid Rapid Southbound Stop Northbound Stop NB & SB Rapid # # Ons/Offs Ons/Offs Concept Concept Ons/Offs Stop A Stop B Stop 1 Daly City BART 76 Daly City BART 208 128 168 X X X Mission St. & Mission St. & 2 75 473 0 237 X X X San Jose St. San Jose St. 3 Mission St & School St 74 Mission St & Price St 217 216 216 X X X Mission St & San Pedro Mission St. & 4 73 151 99 125 X X X Rd. East Market 5 Colma BART 72 Colma BART 363 368 365 X X X South San Francisco South San Francisco 6 71 59 154 106 X X X BART BART El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 7 70 187 156 172 X X X Arroyo Dr/SSF Arroyo Dr/SSF El Camino Real & W El Camino Real & 8 69 151 171 161 X X X Orange Ave W Orange Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 9 68 163 144 154 X X X Brentwood Dr Spruce Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 10 67 388 405 396 X X X Sneath Lane Sneath Lane El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 11 66 53 0 27 X Hwy 380 Hwy 380 El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 12 65 203 220 212 X X X San Bruno Ave W San Bruno Ave W El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 13 64 79 76 77 X X Angus Ave W Angus Ave W El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 14 63 116 132 124 X X X Jenevein Ave Jenevein Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 15 62 94 83 88 X X Crystal Springs Rd Taylor Ave El Camino Real & San El Camino Real & 16 61 76 56 66 X Felipe Ave San Felipe Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 17 60 149 149 149 X X X Park Pl Santa Inez Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 18 59 56 67 61 X Capuchino Dr Millwood Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 19 58 68 46 57 X Center St/Millbrae Center St/Millbrae El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 20 57 53 55 54 X Meadow Glen Ave Meadow Glen Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 21 56 140 158 149 X X X Silva Ave Silva Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 22 55 92 70 81 X X Taylor Ave Hillcrest Blvd El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 23 54 318 260 289 X X X Chadbourne Ave Linden Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 24 53 132 87 110 X X Murchison Dr Murchison Dr 25 El Camino Real & 52 El Camino Real & 104 102 103 X X X

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX E.3 - ECR BRT - HYBRID RAPID STOP SELECTION MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 8 of 11

Memorandum

Hybrid Hybrid Avg. Full SB NB SB NB Rapid Rapid Southbound Stop Northbound Stop NB & SB Rapid # # Ons/Offs Ons/Offs Concept Concept Ons/Offs Stop A Stop B Stop Trousdale Dr Trousdale Dr El Camino Real & Ray El Camino Real & 26 51 18 21 19 X Dr Rosedale Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 27 50 16 16 16 X Adeline Dr Adeline Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 28 49 38 38 38 X Hillside Dr Hillside Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 29 48 21 18 20 X Easton Dr Easton Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 30 47 140 131 135 X X X Broadway/Burlingame Broadway/Burlingame El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 31 46 30 32 31 X Sanchez Ave Sanchez Ave El Camino Real & Arc El Camino Real & 32 45 10 15 13 X Way Palm Dr El Camino Real & Oak El Camino Real & 33 44 39 33 36 X Grove Ave Oak Grove Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 34 43 41 21 31 X Bellevue Ave Bellevue Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 35 42 120 93 107 X X X Burlingame Ave Burlingame Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 36 41 86 151 118 X X Howard Ave Howard Ave N El Camino Real & N El Camino Real & 37 40 67 60 63 X Warren Rd State St N El Camino Real & W N El Camino Real & 38 39 60 47 53 X Bellevue Ave Grand Blvd N El Camino Real & W N El Camino Real & 39 38 124 127 126 X X X Poplar Ave W Poplar Ave N El Camino Real & El N El Camino Real & 40 37 148 148 148 X X X Cerrito Ave Tilton Ave S El Camino Real & W S El Camino Real & 41 36 213 222 217 X X X 2nd Ave E 2nd Ave S El Camino Real & W S El Camino Real & 42 35 217 250 234 X X X 4th Ave E 5th Ave S El Camino Real & W S El Camino Real & 43 34 81 69 75 X X 9th Ave E 9th Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 44 33 51 45 48 X Hobart Ave 12th Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 45 32 123 137 130 X X X 17th Ave 17th Ave S El Camino Real & W S El Camino Real & 46 31 147 163 155 X X X 20th Ave W 20th Ave S El Camino Real & W S El Camino Real & 47 30 143 132 137 X X X 25th Ave W 25th Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 48 29 57 55 56 X 27th Ave 27th Ave

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX E.3 - ECR BRT - HYBRID RAPID STOP SELECTION MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 9 of 11

Memorandum

Hybrid Hybrid Avg. Full SB NB SB NB Rapid Rapid Southbound Stop Northbound Stop NB & SB Rapid # # Ons/Offs Ons/Offs Concept Concept Ons/Offs Stop A Stop B Stop S El Camino Real & W S El Camino Real & 49 28 236 131 184 X X 31st Ave E 31st Ave S El Camino Real & W S El Camino Real & 50 27 318 354 336 X X X Hillsdale Blvd W Hillsdale Blvd S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 51 26 102 120 111 X X 37the Ave 37th Ave S El Camino Real & W S El Camino Real & 52 25 50 46 48 X 39th Ave W 39th Ave S El Camino Real & W S El Camino Real & 53 24 87 113 100 X X X 41St Ave 42nd Ave S El Camino Real & S El Camino Real & 54 23 38 38 X 43rd Ave 43rd Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 55 22 57 55 56 X Davey Glen Rd Davey Glen Rd El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 56 21 256 259 258 X X X Ralston Ave Ralston Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 57 20 83 80 81 X X Harbor Blvd Harbor Blvd El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 58 19 37 52 45 X 5th Ave/Belmont 5th Ave/Belmont El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 59 18 38 30 34 X Hull Dr Hull Dr El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 60 17 182 219 201 X X X San Carlos Ave San Carlos Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 61 16 39 41 40 X Arroyo Ave/San Car Arroyo Ave/San Car El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 62 15 86 76 81 X X X Brittan Ave Brittan Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 63 14 61 55 58 X Belmont Ave Belmont Ave El Camino Real & Eaton El Camino Real & 64 13 20 22 21 X Ave Saint Francis Wy El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 65 12 54 51 53 X X X Edgewood Rd Edgewood Rd El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 66 11 29 37 33 X Hopkins Ave Hopkins Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 67 10 99 91 95 X X Brewster Ave Brewster Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & James 68 9 2 74 38 X X X James Ave Ave Redwood City Redwood City 69 8 403 375 389 X X Caltrain Station Caltrain Station El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 70 7 85 156 121 X X Jefferson Ave Jefferson Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & Cedar 71 6 131 181 156 X X X Lincoln Ave St 72 El Camino Real & 5 El Camino Real & 145 130 138 X X

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX E.3 - ECR BRT - HYBRID RAPID STOP SELECTION MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 10 of 11

Memorandum

Hybrid Hybrid Avg. Full SB NB SB NB Rapid Rapid Southbound Stop Northbound Stop NB & SB Rapid # # Ons/Offs Ons/Offs Concept Concept Ons/Offs Stop A Stop B Stop Oak Ave Main St El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 73 4 110 114 112 X X X Center St Charter St El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 74 3 89 92 90 X X X 5th Ave 5th Ave El Camino Real & El Camino Real & 75 2 76 36 56 X X X Santa Cruz Ave Ravenswood Ave 76 Palo Alto Caltrain 1 Palo Alto Caltrain 162 362 262 X X X Total Stops 37 76 50

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX E.3 - ECR BRT - HYBRID RAPID STOP SELECTION MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 11 of 11

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – Appendices December 2014

Appendix F: Operating Plan

Memorandum

To Barrow Emerson, SamTrans Date August 31, 2014

Copies Melissa Reggiardo, SamTrans Reference number 231810-00

From Corey Wong, Arup File reference Steve Crosley, Fehr + Peers 19T

Subject Operating Plan Memo – Draft v1

1 Introduction

The purpose of this memo is to present proposed operating plans for the various service concepts identified for detailed analysis in the Initial Service Concept Development and Screening Memo (dated November 4, 2013) developed for this study. Overall, operating plans were developed for 10 service concepts, specifying operating details such as headway (or frequency), span of service, day of service, as well as peak vehicle requirements and cost productivity measures. Findings from the operating plans will be used to identify a preferred Rapid service alternative for 2020 as well as a BRT alternative for 2040.

2 Purpose of the Operating Plan

The operating plan defines how SamTrans would provide revenue service for a given service concept. The operating plan defines several key service parameters:

• WHAT - What services would be provided (i.e., Rapid and ECR, Rapid only, Hybrid, etc.); • HOW - How often services would be provided (in terms of operating headway – for instance 15-minute peak service and 30- minute mid-day service); • WHEN - When service would be provided (in terms of service span and operating days – for instance 8:00AM-11:00PM service on Mondays-Fridays); and • WHERE - Where service would be provided (in terms of route alignment and proposed stops).

Based on these “inputs”, resource requirements can be calculated, including cost and productivity metrics that form part of the evaluation framework identified in the September 23, 2013 El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Phasing Plan – Proposed Evaluation Framework, including:

• Revenue Vehicle Hours (RVH) – The number of hours that a vehicle is deployed in revenue hour service in which passengers may board and alight the vehicle. • Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Cost – This represents the total cost to operate a given service. This is calculated by multiplying RVH by the average hourly operating cost per RVH

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 1 of 24

Memorandum

(in this case it is assumed to be $210.00/RVH as per SamTrans staff and as used in the Fiscal Year 2014 National Transit Database). • Vehicle Requirements – The number of vehicles required is a product of the proposed service frequency and the roundtrip cycle time (assuming time for layover). Vehicle requirements during the peak (i.e., the peak vehicle requirements) dictate the maximum number of vehicles that must be assigned to a given service (and the number of drivers required), the ultimate system fleet size, as well as the size of storage yards.

3 Service Concepts

Based on findings from the Initial Service Concept Development and Screening Memo (dated November 4, 2013), four service concepts were recommended for more detailed analysis. Additional service concepts were proposed to test sensitivity to varying headways as well as stop patterns. Operating plans for each of these service concepts were developed. The table below presents these service concepts with key general characteristics (these will be detailed in subsequent sections): Table 1: Proposed Service Concepts # Year Service Description of Service Tier(s) Rationale Concept • ECR (providing 15-minute • ECR operates existing 1 2020 Baseline headways, stopping at existing schedule and serves current 102 NB and 104 SB stops) stop pattern • Rapid (providing 15-minute • Rapid service is introduced, headways, stopping at 37 stops in providing faster service, each direction from Daly City to making less frequent stops 2 2020 Full Rapid Palo Alto) • ECR operates existing • ECR (providing 15-minute schedule and serves the current headways, stopping at existing stop pattern 102 NB and 104 SB stops) • Rapid service is introduced, • Rapid (providing 15-minute providing faster service, headways, stopping at 32 stops in making less frequent stops; no Truncated each direction between Daly City service is provided south of 3 2020 Rapid (DC- and Redwood City) Redwood City (representing a RC) • ECR (providing 15-minute low demand segment) headways, stopping at existing • ECR operates existing 102 NB and 104 SB stops) schedule and serves the current stop pattern • Rapid (providing 15-minute • Rapid service is introduced, Truncated headways, stopping at 23 stops in providing faster service, 4 2020 Rapid each direction between San Bruno making less frequent stops; no (SB-RC) and Redwood City) service is provided north of • ECR (providing 15-minute San Bruno and south of

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 2 of 24

Memorandum

# Year Service Description of Service Tier(s) Rationale Concept headways, stopping at existing Redwood City (representing 102 NB and 104 SB stops) lower demand segments) • ECR operates existing schedule and serves the current stop pattern • Hybrid service will provide faster service than ECR, but • Hybrid Rapid (providing 12- Hybrid A provide more local access than minute service and stopping at 76 5 2020 (76 stops / the Rapid in higher demand stops between Daly City and Palo 12 min) segments (thus 76 stops versus Alto) 37) • ECR service is discontinued • Hybrid Rapid (providing 12- Hybrid B • Similar to Hybrid A, except minute service and stopping at 50 6 2020 (50 stops / fewer stops are served to stops between Daly City and Palo 12 min) increase travel speeds Alto) • Rapid (providing peak 15-minute • Rapid service is introduced in headways, stopping at 37 stops in the peak only, providing faster each direction from Daly City to service, making less frequent 7 2020 Peak Rapid Palo Alto) stops • ECR (providing 15-minute • ECR operates existing headways, stopping at existing schedule and serves the current 102 NB and 104 SB stops) stop pattern • Hybrid Rapid (providing 10- Hybrid A • Similar to Hybrid A, except minute service and stopping at 76 8 2020 (76 stops/ operates at 10-minute stops between Daly City and Palo 10 min) headways to assess sensitivity Alto) • Hybrid Rapid (providing 7.5- Hybrid B • Similar to Hybrid B, except minute service and stopping at 50 9 2020 (50 stops/ operates at 7.5-minute stops between Daly City and Palo 7.5 min) headways to assess sensitivity Alto) • BRT (providing 15-minute • Similar to 2020 Full Rapid headways, stopping at 37 concept, except vehicles enhanced stops in each direction operate in dedicated transit 10 2040 Full BRT from Daly City to Palo Alto) lanes on some corridor • ECR (providing 15-minute segments and serve enhanced headways, stopping at existing BRT stations 102 NB and 104 SB stops)

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 3 of 24

Memorandum

4 Operating Plan Parameters

This section presents key assumptions and parameters that comprise each operating plan. This section includes the following sub-sections for each concept: • Key Assumptions • Headway Parameters • Span of Service Parameters • Route Parameters • Stop Parameters

4.1 Key Assumptions Several key assumptions underpin the development of the operation plan and estimation of various metrics such as RVH and peak vehicle requirements as shown below. These assumptions apply to all operating scenarios and service concepts. Table 2: Key Assumptions for Operating Plan Development # Metric Assumption Description • 2020 Local: 11.0 mph o • Operating speeds based on VTA Rapid (Full, Peak and Truncated o 2020 and 2040 ECR model runs (SB-RC)): 14.21 mph (from 2014) Operating Rapid (Truncated (DC-RC)): o • Operating speeds and the 1 Speed 13.97 mph roundtrip length are used to (mph) Hybrid (76 stop): 11.93 mph o estimate the roundtrip cycle times Hybrid (50 stop): 12.95 mph o and thus estimate the vehicle • 2040 requirements o Local: 10.93 mph o BRT: 18.03 mph • Layover time is the amount of time between when the bus Layover • Assumed to be 15% of roundtrip travel arrives at end of one the trip and 2 Time time the start of the return trip. • This percentage is based on industry practice. Vehicle • All vehicles are assumed to be 60’ • SamTrans operates mostly 60’ 3 Type articulated vehicles vehicles on ECR today O&M Cost • The average cost per revenue per 4 • $210/RVH for 60’ articulated vehicles hour is multiplied by the total Revenue RVH to estimate O&M costs. Hour

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 4 of 24

Memorandum

# Metric Assumption Description • This figure is provided by SamTrans Equivalent • This assumption is used to # of 5 • 300 weekdays/year annualize weekday performance Weekdays over the year per Year

4.2 Headway Parameters Headway represents the duration between consecutive transit vehicle arrivals. Vehicles operate at different headways throughout the day, more frequently in the peaks and less frequently in the mid-day and shoulder periods. It is assumed that a typical weekday is divided into the following time periods (note – these times differ from service span, presented in Section 4.3). Table 3: Weekday Time Period by Start and End Time Period Start End Duration Early AM 4:00AM 7:00AM 3 hours AM Peak 7:00AM 10:00AM 3 hours Mid-Day 10:00AM 4:00PM 6 hours PM Peak 4:00PM 7:00PM 3 hours Late PM 7:00PM 11:00PM 4 hours Owl 11:00PM 4:00AM 5 hours Operating headways under different service concepts are defined below (note service span is defined in the next section): Table 4: Weekday Operating Headway by Time Period by Service Concept (Minutes) Owl Service Early AM AM Peak Mid-Day PM Peak Late PM # Service Concept (11PM- Tier(s) (4-7AM) (7-10AM) (10-4PM) (4-7PM) (7-11PM) 4AM) 1 2020 Baseline ECR 15 15 15 15 30 30 2 Rapid 15 15 15 15 15 - 2020 Full Rapid ECR 15 15 15 15 30 30 3 2020 Truncated Rapid Rapid 15 15 15 15 15 - (DC-RC) ECR 15 15 15 15 30 30 4 2020 Truncated Rapid Rapid 15 15 15 15 15 - (SB-RC) ECR 15 15 15 15 30 30 5 2020 Hybrid A Hybrid 15 12 12 12 15 30 (76 stops / 12 minutes) 6 2020 Hybrid B Hybrid 15 12 12 12 15 30 (50 stops / 12 minutes) 7 Rapid 15 15 - 15 15 - 2020 Peak Rapid ECR 15 15 15 15 30 30 8 2020 Hybrid A Hybrid 15 10 10 10 15 30 (76 stops / 10 minutes) 9 2020 Hybrid B Hybrid 15 7.5 7.5 7.5 15 30

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 5 of 24

Memorandum

Owl Service Early AM AM Peak Mid-Day PM Peak Late PM # Service Concept (11PM- Tier(s) (4-7AM) (7-10AM) (10-4PM) (4-7PM) (7-11PM) 4AM) (50 stops / 7.5 minutes) 10 BRT - 15 15 15 - - 2040 BRT ECR 15 15 15 15 30 30

4.3 Span of Service Parameters Span of service represents the number of hours a vehicle operates, which in turn can determine the revenue hours of service per day when multiplied by frequency. The following table presents the span of service for each service concept and service tier. Table 5: Weekday Span of Service by Service Concept Service First Last Operating # Service Concept Tier(s) Departure Departure Duration 1 2020 Baseline ECR 4:00AM 1:00AM 21 hours Rapid 6:00AM 8:00PM 14 hours 2 2020 Full Rapid ECR 4:00AM 1:00AM 21 hours Rapid 6:00AM 8:00PM 14 hours 3 2020 Truncated Rapid (DC-RC) ECR 4:00AM 1:00AM 21 hours Rapid 6:00AM 8:00PM 14 hours 4 2020 Truncated Rapid (SB-RC) ECR 4:00AM 1:00AM 21 hours 5 2020 Hybrid A (76 stops / 12 minutes) Hybrid 4:00AM 1:00AM 21 hours 6 2020 Hybrid B (50 stops / 12 minutes) Hybrid 4:00AM 1:00AM 21 hours Rapid 6:00AM 8:00PM 8 hours 7 2020 Peak Rapid ECR 4:00AM 1:00AM 21 hours 8 2020 Hybrid A (76 stops / 10 minutes) Hybrid 4:00AM 1:00AM 21 hours 9 2020 Hybrid B (50 stops / 7.5 minutes) Hybrid 4:00AM 1:00AM 21 hours BRT 6:00AM 8:00PM 14 hours 10 2040 BRT ECR 4:00AM 1:00AM 21 hours Note: Peak Rapid operates in the designated peak periods, with one additional hour in the morning and one in the afternoon (thus from 6:00-10:00AM and from 4:00-8:00PM).

4.4 Route Parameters The total corridor travel time depends on the alignment and route length. The ECR currently operates between Daly City BART and Palo Alto Caltrain. Some proposed service concepts differ slightly from this routing: Table 6: One-Way Route Length Route Service # Service Concept Length Tier(s) (Miles) 1 2020 Baseline ECR 25.66 Rapid 25.66 2 2020 Full Rapid ECR 25.66 Rapid 20.81 3 2020 Truncated Rapid (DC-RC) ECR 25.66

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 6 of 24

Memorandum

Route Service # Service Concept Length Tier(s) (Miles) Rapid 14.86 4 2020 Truncated Rapid (SB-RC) ECR 25.66 5 2020 Hybrid A (76 stops / 12 minutes) Hybrid 25.66 6 2020 Hybrid B (50 stops / 12 minutes) Hybrid 25.66 Rapid 25.66 7 2020 Peak Rapid ECR 25.66 8 2020 Hybrid A (76 stops / 10 minutes) Hybrid 25.66 9 2020 Hybrid B (50 stops / 7.5 minutes) Hybrid 25.66 BRT 25.66 10 2040 BRT ECR 25.66

4.5 Stop Parameters The current ECR serves over 100 stops from Daly City BART to Palo Alto Caltrain. To reduce travel times and improve reliability, several of the service concepts propose reduced stops. Based on the following three documents (the January 27, 2014 SamTrans ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Rapid Station Selection Memo, the April 20, 2014 Stop Selection for Truncated Rapid Service Options Memo, and the July 31, 2014 Stop Selection for Hybrid Rapid Service Options Memo), the table below presents the number of stops by service concept and tier. Please refer to these three memos for a more detailed description of the stop selection process and the particular stops being served in each concept. Table 7: Number of Stops Served by Service Concept # of Stop Service # Service Concept (Each Tier(s) Direction) 1 2020 Baseline ECR 102 Rapid 37 2 2020 Full Rapid ECR 102 Rapid 32 3 2020 Truncated Rapid (DC-RC) ECR 102 Rapid 23 4 2020 Truncated Rapid (SB-RC) ECR 102 5 2020 Hybrid A (76 stops / 12 minutes) Hybrid 76 6 2020 Hybrid B (50 stops / 12 minutes) Hybrid 50 Rapid 37 7 2020 Peak Rapid ECR 102 8 2020 Hybrid A (76 stops / 10 minutes) Hybrid 76 9 2020 Hybrid B (50 stops / 7.5 minutes) Hybrid 50 BRT 37 10 2040 BRT ECR 102

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 7 of 24

Memorandum

5 Resource Requirements (RVH, O&M Costs, and Vehicles)

Given the route length, headways by time period, and assumed operating speeds, the roundtrip cycle time can be estimated and thus the vehicle requirements during different time periods and the peak. Based on the schedule and number of trips per day, total RVHs can be estimated as well and thus the operating costs. This section presents the estimated RVH, O&M cost, and peak vehicle requirements for each service concept.

5.1 Revenue Vehicle Hours (RVH) RVH are an important metric in estimating the total resources that an operator must provide, as well as in determining overall operating costs (when multiplied by the average cost per RVH). RVH is calculated multiplying overall round trip time per trip (thus round trip distance divided by the average operating speed) by the total number of daily trips (multiply number of trips by hours by span of service). The following table and figure present the total RVH by service concept and tier (note – service concepts have been re-ordered based on service grouping): Table 8: Estimated Daily Revenue Vehicle Hours (RVH) by Service Concept and Tier Daily RVH by Service Tier Increase Service vs. 2020 % Service Concept Rapid/ Peak Grouping Hybrid ECR Total Base Increase BRT Rapid Case ECR Only Concept 1 - 2020 Base Case 0.0 0.0 0.0 336.0 336.0 Concept 2 - 2020 Full Rapid 202.3 0.0 0.0 336.0 538.2 202.3 60% Rapid + Concept 3 - 2020 Truncated (DC-RC) 166.9 0.0 0.0 336.0 502.8 166.9 50% ECR Concept 4 - 2020 Truncated (SB-RC) 117.1 0.0 0.0 336.0 453.1 117.1 35% Overlay Concept 7 - 2020 Peak Rapid 0.0 0.0 115.6 336.0 451.5 115.6 34% Concept 5 - 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 12 Min) 0.0 395.9 0.0 0.0 395.9 59.9 18% Concept 6 - 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 12 Min) 0.0 364.6 0.0 0.0 364.6 28.6 9% Hybrid Only Concept 8 - 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 10 Min) 0.0 447.5 0.0 0.0 447.5 111.6 33% Concept 9 - 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 7.5 Min) 0.0 507.2 0.0 0.0 507.2 171.3 51% BRT + ECR Concept 10 - 2040 BRT 159.3 0.0 0.0 338.1 497.4 161.4 48% Overlay Note: It is assumed that the 2040 Base Case for comparison to Concept 10 – 2040 BRT has the same operating plan and resource requirements as the 2020 Base Case (Concept 1). In general, concepts with higher RVH requirements operate more frequent service along the full corridor length, operate an ECR overlay, and stop more frequently. Key findings are as follows: • 2020 Rapid + ECR Overlay – All concepts consisting of a 15-minute Rapid and ECR overlay (i.e., Concepts 2, 3, 4 and 7) would require between 450-540 RVH – collectively this represents an increase of between 34%-60% in daily RVH served or between 110-200 RVH above the 2020 Base Case (with ECR only service). As expected, Concept 2 (the Full Rapid) would require the most RVH since the service would operate the full length of the corridor from Daly City to Palo Alto compared to the Truncated concepts (Concepts 3 and 4) and would operate all day compared to the Peak Rapid concept (Concept 7).

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 8 of 24

Memorandum

• 2020 Hybrid – RVH requirements for Hybrid concepts vary based on the proposed service headway – those with shorter headways (i.e., more frequent service) would require more RVH than those with longer headways (or less frequent service). Hybrid concepts making fewer stops along the route would operate marginally faster than those making more stops, thus resulting in fewer RVH required as well. As Table 8 shows, Concept 9 (Hybrid B with 7.5-minute service) would require the most service (about 510 RVH), representing an increase of 170 RVH (a 51% increase) over the 2020 Base Case. Next, Concept 8 (Hybrid A with 10-minute service) would require about 450 RVH or 110 RVH more (a 33% increase) than the 2020 Base Case. Concepts 5 and 6 with relatively longer headways require between 360-400 RVH, or 30-60 RVH more than the 2020 Base Case (a 9-18% increase). • 2040 BRT + ECR Overlay – The proposed 2040 BRT service (operating in segments of dedicated bus lanes along the corridor) would require about 500 RVH, an increase of 160 RVH (48%) over the 2020 ECR Base Case (which can be assumed to be the same as what would be provided in 2040). The 2040 BRT service would operate about 25% faster than the 2020 Rapid concepts due to reduced vehicle conflicts from operating in the bus lanes – thus resulting in a nearly commensurate lower volume of RVH than that required than Concept 1 – 2020 Full Rapid.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 9 of 24

Memorandum

Figure 1: Estimated Revenue Vehicle Hours (RVH) by Service Concept and Tier

Note: It is assumed that the 2040 Base Case for comparison to Concept 10 – 2040 BRT has the same operating plan and resource requirements as the 2020 Base Case (Concept 1).

5.2 O&M Costs (excluding Fixed Infrastructure Costs) O&M costs related solely to provision of transit service (i.e., the operation of the buses themselves) include driver salaries and fringe benefits, bus maintenance fees, as well as fueling costs, etc. Assuming an hourly O&M cost of $210.00/RVH (from SamTrans staff and as used in the Fiscal Year 2014 National Transit Database), O&M costs are estimated by multiplying estimated RVH from Table 8 by this unit cost. Projected O&M costs are shown in Table 9. It is noted that additional O&M costs related to upkeep and maintenance of fixed infrastructure including bus lanes, transit signal priority, and bus stations will be discussed in a separate memo.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 10 of 24

Memorandum

Table 9: Estimated O&M Costs by Service Concept/Tier (excludes Fixed Infrastructure Costs) Daily O&M Costs by Service Tier Annual O&M Costs % Increase Service Increase Service Concept Rapid/ Peak vs. 2020 Annual Increase vs. Grouping Hybrid ECR Total vs. 2020 BRT Rapid Base O&M Costs 2020 ECR Base Case Case ECR Only Concept 1 - 2020 Base Case $- $- $- $71,000 $71,000 $21,300,000 Concept 2 - 2020 Full Rapid $42,000 $- $- $71,000 $113,000 $42,000 59% $33,900,000 $12,600,000 Concept 3 -2020 Truncated Rapid + (DC-RC) $35,000 $- $- $71,000 $106,000 $35,000 49% $31,800,000 $10,500,000 ECR Concept 4 -2020 Truncated Overlay (SB-RC) $25,000 $- $- $71,000 $96,000 $25,000 35% $28,800,000 $7,500,000 Concept 7 -2020 Peak Rapid $- $- $24,000 $71,000 $95,000 $24,000 34% $28,500,000 $7,200,000 Concept 5 -2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 12 Min) $- $83,000 $- $- $83,000 $12,000 17% $24,900,000 $3,600,000 Concept 6 -2020 Hybrid B Hybrid (50 Stops - 12 Min) $- $77,000 $- $- $77,000 $6,000 8% $23,100,000 $1,800,000 Only Concept 8 -2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 10 Min) $- $94,000 $- $- $94,000 $23,000 32% $28,200,000 $6,900,000 Concept 9 -2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 7.5 Min) $- $107,000 $- $- $107,000 $36,000 51% $32,100,000 $10,800,000 BRT + ECR Concept 10 - 2040 BRT Overlay $33,000 $- $- $71,000 $104,000 $33,000 46% $31,200,000 $9,900,000 Note: Costs are rounded to the nearest thousand, thus the percentage increase versus the 2020 Base Case does not exactly match those percentages from Table 8. It is assumed that the 2040 Base Case for comparison to Concept 10 – 2040 BRT has the same operating plan and resource requirements as the 2020 Base Case (Concept 1).

In general, concepts with higher O&M costs operate more frequently and along the full corridor length, make more frequent stops, and operate an ECR overlay service. Key findings are as follows: • 2020 Rapid + ECR Overlay – These four concepts (Concepts 2, 3, 4 and 7) would require some $95,000-$113,000 to operate each day – representing an increase of $24,000-$42,000 over the 2020 Base Case. On a percentage-wise basis, this would be a cost increase of between 34%- 59%. On an annualized basis, Concept 2 (the Full Rapid) would require an additional $12.6 million over the 2020 Base Case at the high end, while Concept 7 (the Peak Rapid) would require an additional $7.2 million. million annually at the low end. • 2020 Hybrid – Hybrid options would require fewer RVH and thus have lower O&M than other options which have an ECR overlay. Hybrid-only concepts would require $77,000-$107,000 on a daily basis to operate, or an increase of $6,000-$36,000 (8-51%) per day. On an annualized basis, Concept 6, the least costly hybrid concept (with 50 stops at 12-minute service), would require an additional $1.8 million each year over the 2020 Base Case, while Concept 9, the most costly hybrid service, would require an additional $10.8 million per year. • 2040 BRT + ECR Overlay – The 2040 BRT would cost about $104,000, or $33,000 more each day (a 46% increase) than the 2020/2040 Base Case. This amounts to $9.9 million on an annualized basis.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 11 of 24

Memorandum

Figure 2: Estimated O&M Service Costs by Service Concept and Tier

Note: Excludes O&M costs for fixed infrastructure. Note: It is assumed that the 2040 Base Case for comparison to Concept 10 – 2040 BRT has the same operating plan and resource requirements as the 2020 Base Case (Concept 1).

5.3 Peak Vehicles Requirements Operating speed (with consideration for number of stops) and round trip route distance (which may also account for recovery or layover time) produce travel time estimates. The peak vehicle requirements can thus be calculated by dividing the round trip travel time by the proposed service headway. The number of peak buses dictates overall fleet size and number of drivers, the number of spares to be maintained, and the size of bus storage and maintenance facilities. Table 10 presents peak vehicle requirements. It is assumed that all buses are 60’ articulated vehicles.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 12 of 24

Memorandum

Table 10: Estimated Peak Vehicles Required by Service Concept/ Tier (60’ Articulated Vehicles) Increase % Peak Vehicles Required by Service Tier Service vs. 2020 Increase Service Concept Grouping Rapid/ Peak Base Hybrid ECR Total BRT Rapid Case ECR Only Concept 1 - 2020 Base Case 0 0 0 22 22 Concept 2 - 2020 Full Rapid 17 0 0 22 39 17 77% Rapid + Concept 3 - 2020 Truncated (DC-RC) 14 0 0 22 36 14 64% ECR Concept 4 - 2020 Truncated (SB-RC) 10 0 0 22 32 10 45% Overlay Concept 7 - 2020 Peak Rapid 0 0 17 22 39 17 77% Concept 5 - 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 12 Min) 0 25 0 0 25 3 14% Hybrid Concept 6 - 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 12 Min) 0 23 0 0 23 1 5% Only Concept 8 - 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 10 Min) 0 30 0 0 30 8 36% Concept 9 - 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 7.5 Min) 0 37 0 0 37 15 68% BRT + ECR Concept 10 - 2040 BRT 14 0 0 22 36 14 64% Overlay Note: It is assumed that the 2040 Base Case for comparison to Concept 10 – 2040 BRT has the same operating plan and resource requirements as the 2020 Base Case (Concept 1). These estimates also exclude spare vehicle requirements. In general, concepts with larger peak vehicle requirements have longer cycle times due to operating along the full corridor length, make more frequent stops, operate a concurrent ECR overlay, and have more frequent service. Key findings are as follows (note these estimates do not include spare vehicles, which typically represent 10-15% of the fleet): • 2020 Rapid + ECR Overlay – These four concepts (Concepts 2, 3, 4 and 7) would require between 32-39 peak vehicles, an increase of 10-17 vehicles (45-77%) from the 2020 Base Case. • 2020 Hybrid – Hybrid concepts would require fewer peak vehicles (between 23-37 depending on the concept) due to the absence of an ECR overlay, less frequent stops and thus faster operating speeds and shorter roundtrip cycle times along the corridor. Hybrid options with less frequent service (i.e., Concepts 5 and 6) would require 23-25 peak vehicles, an increase of 1-3 vehicles (5-14%) over the 2020 Base Case. • 2040 BRT + ECR Overlay – The 2040 BRT would require 36 peak vehicles, or 14 more than the 2020/2040 Base Case. This equates to a 64% increase.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 13 of 24

Memorandum

Figure 3: Peak Vehicle Requirements by Service Concept and Tier (60’ Articulated Vehicles)

Note: Estimates exclude spare vehicle requirements.

6 Next Steps

The information generated by these operating plans (specifically the RVH, O&M cost, and the peak vehicle requirements) will be used to develop operating cost and capital cost estimates for each service concept and also be used as part of the detailed evaluation of service concepts.

7 Appendix A – Detailed Operating Plans by Concept

This appendix contains the detailed operating plans by concept (sources for assumptions included in these plans are presented in Table 2. Note that operating plan sheets also contain details about projected ridership, estimated fare revenues and subsidies. This information will be discussed in later memos and is not presented or analyzed as part of this operating plan memo.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 14 of 24

Memorandum

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 15 of 24

Memorandum

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 16 of 24

Memorandum

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 17 of 24

Memorandum

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 18 of 24

Memorandum

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 19 of 24

Memorandum

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 20 of 24

Memorandum

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 21 of 24

Memorandum

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 22 of 24

Memorandum

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 23 of 24

Memorandum

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX F - ECR BRT - OPERATING PLAN MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 24 of 24

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – Appendices December 2014

Appendix G: Operating & Maintenance Costs

Memorandum

To Barrow Emerson, SamTrans Date Melissa Reggiardo, SamTrans 9/13/2014

Copies Reference number

From Corey Wong, Arup File reference Steve Crosley, Fehr + Peers

Subject ECR BRT Phasing Plan – O&M Costs

1 Introduction

This memo presents the estimated operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for the various service concepts proposed in previous memos. This memo builds on findings for each service concept from the August 31, 2014 Operating Plan Memo – Draft v1 and the September 13, 2014 ECR Capital Cost Memo.

2 O&M Cost Elements

O&M costs can be divided into two elements: • Service O&M Costs – Service costs relate solely to provision of transit service (i.e., the operation and maintenance of the buses themselves for revenue service). Service costs include driver salaries and fringe benefits, bus maintenance fees, as well as fueling costs, etc. Service O&M costs were estimated in the August 31, 2014 Operating Plan Memo – Draft v1. • Fixed Infrastructure O&M Costs – These costs relate to the upkeep and maintenance of fixed infrastructure including bus lanes, transit signal priority, and bus stations.

2.1 Service O&M Costs From the August 31, 2014 Operating Plan Memo – Draft v1, service O&M costs were as follows in Table 1. The cost estimates found that service options that operated overlay ECR service, had more frequent service, and operated along the entire corridor generally had higher annual operating costs. Table 1: Annual Service O&M Costs by Service Concept Service Service Concept O&M Costs Concept 1 - 2020 Base Case $21,300,000 Concept 2 - 2020 Full Rapid $33,900,000 Concept 3 - 2020 Truncated (DC-RC) $31,800,000 Concept 4 - 2020 Truncated (SB-RC) $28,800,000 Concept 5 - 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 12 Min) $24,900,000

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX G - ECR BRT - O&M COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 1 of 10

Memorandum

Service Service Concept O&M Costs Concept 6 - 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 12 Min) $23,100,000 Concept 7 - 2020 Peak Rapid $28,500,000 Concept 8 - 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 10 Min) $28,200,000 Concept 9 - 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 7.5 Min) $32,100,000 Concept 10 - 2040 BRT $31,200,000 Source: Operating Plan Memo – Draft v1, August 31, 2014.

2.2 Fixed Infrastructure O&M Costs Besides costs to operate the vehicles in revenue service, there will also be O&M costs related to upkeep and maintenance of fixed infrastructure purposely implemented for the Rapid, Hybrid, or BRT concepts including: • Stations • Real-time passenger information systems • Transit signal priority (TSP) • Ticket vending machines (TVM) • Mixed flow lane enhancements • Dedicated bus lane segments • Queue jump lanes O&M costs for these elements are estimated by multiplying overall capital costs by an assumed percentage rate for annual O&M costs. Table 2 presents these assumed percentages for particular infrastructure elements – these assumptions are based on industry practice as well as Arup experience in similar projects. Please refer to the descriptions of these fixed infrastructure elements for each service concept in the September 13, ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Capital Costs Memo. Table 2: Assumed Percent of Capital Costs Attributed to Annual O&M Costs Assumed % of Capital Fixed Infrastructure Element Costs Attributed to Annual O&M Costs Enhanced stop, stop with minor 5% enhancements, or BRT station Real-time passenger information 5% Ticket vending machines (TVM) 5% Pavement improvements to existing 3% lanes (for mixed flow operation) Bus lanes (center- or side-running) 3% TSP in vehicles 5% TSP at intersections 5% Queue jump lanes 3% Note: O&M for vehicles is already covered in the service O&M costs. Based on these assumptions, O&M costs for fixed infrastructure by service concept is shown below (note that these costs include contingency, overhead and profit, and other soft costs as estimated in

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX G - ECR BRT - O&M COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 2 of 10

Memorandum

the September 13, 2014 ECR Capital Cost Memo). For 2020 service concepts, the Hybrid only concepts generally have higher costs than the Rapid/ECR concepts since additional stops outside of the 74 high demand stops must be maintained. The 2040 Full BRT concept (Concept 10) generates the largest fixed infrastructure O&M costs due to the need to maintain dedicated bus lanes as well as maintain mixed flow lanes that the BRT would operate in. Table 3: Annual Fixed Infrastructure O&M Costs by Service Concept Fixed Service Concept Infrastructure O&M Costs Concept 1 - 2020 Base Case $- Concept 2 - 2020 Full Rapid $707,000 Concept 3 - 2020 Truncated (DC-RC) $616,000 Concept 4 - 2020 Truncated (SB-RC) $459,000 Concept 5 - 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 12 Min) $806,000 Concept 6 - 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 12 Min) $742,000 Concept 7 - 2020 Peak Rapid $707,000 Concept 8 - 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 10 Min) $809,000 Concept 9 - 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 7.5 Min) $749,000 Concept 10 - 2040 BRT $5,686,000

2.3 Combined Annual O&M Costs Table 4 and Figure 1 depicts the combined annual O&M costs by concept, inclusive of both service and fixed infrastructure O&M costs. Major findings are as follows: • For all 2020 service concepts, service O&M costs comprise at least 96% of the total annual O&M costs. Thus service costs predominate over fixed infrastructure O&M costs. Service O&M costs account for 83% of total O&M costs for the 2040 BRT concept, which is not surprising given the amount of fixed infrastructure included under this concept. • For 2020 service concepts, Concept 2 (2020 Full Rapid) generates the highest annual O&M costs at $30.24 million, while Concept 9 (2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops – 7.5 Min)) follows closely at $28.6 million annually. Both concepts propose extensive service throughout the corridor. The concept generating the lowest annual O&M costs is Concept 6 (2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops – 12 Min)) at about $20.5 million per year. • The 2040 BRT concept generates the highest annual O&M cost overall at $2.8 million because it proposes extensive service in the corridor and requires the most fixed infrastructure. Table 4: Annual Combined O&M Costs by Service Concept Annual O&M Annual O&M % of Costs to Costs to Total Annual Service Service Concept Provide Maintain Fixed O&M Costs O&M Costs Service Infrastructure to Total Concept 1 - 2020 Base Case $21,300,000 $- $21,300,000 100% Concept 2 - 2020 Full Rapid $33,900,000 $707,000 $34,607,000 98% Concept 3 - 2020 Truncated (DC-RC) $31,800,000 $616,000 $32,416,000 98% Concept 4 - 2020 Truncated (SB-RC) $28,800,000 $459,000 $29,259,000 98% Concept 5 - 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 12 Min) $24,900,000 $806,000 $25,706,000 97%

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX G - ECR BRT - O&M COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 3 of 10

Memorandum

Annual O&M Annual O&M % of Costs to Costs to Total Annual Service Service Concept Provide Maintain Fixed O&M Costs O&M Costs Service Infrastructure to Total Concept 6 - 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 12 Min) $23,100,000 $742,000 $23,842,000 97% Concept 7 - 2020 Peak Rapid $28,500,000 $707,000 $29,207,000 98% Concept 8 - 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 10 Min) $28,200,000 $809,000 $29,009,000 97% Concept 9 - 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 7.5 Min) $32,100,000 $749,000 $32,849,000 98% Concept 10 - 2040 BRT $31,200,000 $5,686,000 $36,886,000 85%

Figure 1: Annual O&M Costs for Various Future Service Concepts

2.4 Difference in Annual O&M Costs vs. 2020 Base Case Table 5 and Figure 2 depict the increase in annual 2020 O&M costs over the 2020 Base Case (ECR only, generating $21.3 million in annual O&M costs), and in the case of Concept 10, the assumed increase in costs over the presumed 2040 Base Case. Among 2020 Rapid concepts (i.e., Concepts 2, 3, 4, and 7), Concept 2 (2020 Full Rapid) has the largest increase in annual O&M costs relative to the 2020 Base Case at nearly $13.3 million or 38% more the 2020 Base Case. Concept 7 (2020 Peak Rapid) has the smallest difference in annual O&M costs at $7.9 million or 27% more than the 2020 Base Case. Among 2020 Hybrid concepts, Concept 6 (2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops – 12 Min)) has the lowest increase in annual O&M costs over the 2020 Base Case ($2.5 million or a 11% increase), while Concept 9 (2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops – 12 Min)) has the largest annual increase at $11.5 million or a 35% increase. Concept 10 (2040 Full BRT) is expected to generate annual costs of $15.6 million over the 2040 Base Case or a 44% increase.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX G - ECR BRT - O&M COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 4 of 10

Memorandum

Table 5: Increase in Annual Combined O&M Costs vs. 2020 Base Case Increase over 2020 % Increase over # Concept Base Case 2020 Base Case 1 Concept 1: 2020 Base Case $- 0% 2 Concept 2: 2020 Full Rapid $13,307,000 38% 3 Concept 3: 2020 Truncated Rapid (DC-RC) $11,116,000 34% 4 Concept 4: 2020 Truncated Rapid (SB-RC) $7,959,000 27% 5 Concept 5: 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 12 Min) $4,406,000 17% 6 Concept 6: 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 12 Min) $2,542,000 11% 7 Concept 7: 2020 Peak Rapid $7,907,000 27% 8 Concept 8: 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 10 Min) $7,709,000 27% 9 Concept 9: 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 7.5 Min) $11,549,000 35% 10 Concept 10: 2040 Full BRT $15,586,000 42% Note: It is assumed that the 2040 Base Case for comparison to Concept 10 – 2040 BRT has the same operating plan and resource requirements as the 2020 Base Case (Concept 1).

Figure 2: Increase in Annual O&M Costs vs. 2020 Base Case

Note: It is assumed that the 2040 Base Case for comparison to Concept 10 – 2040 BRT has the same operating plan and resource requirements as the 2020 Base Case (Concept 1).

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX G - ECR BRT - O&M COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 5 of 10

Memorandum

3 Appendix A – Service Concept Fixed Infrastructure O&M Cost Summaries

This appendix contains fixed infrastructure O&M cost summaries for the proposed service concepts (note final O&M cost is rounded up to the nearest thousand). Capital costs presented in this appendix are the same as those in the September 13, 2014 ECR Capital Cost Memo. No fixed infrastructure O&M costs are assumed for Concept 1 – 2020 Base Case. Note that: • Annual O&M costs are based on the total project cost including overhead, profit, contingency, and soft costs; and • No O&M costs are attributed to the new vehicles, as such costs are already included in the $210/hour cost used to calculated the service O&M costs.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX G - ECR BRT - O&M COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 6 of 10

Memorandum

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX G - ECR BRT - O&M COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 7 of 10

Memorandum

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX G - ECR BRT - O&M COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 8 of 10

Memorandum

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX G - ECR BRT - O&M COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 9 of 10

Memorandum

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX G - ECR BRT - O&M COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 10 of 10

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – Appendices December 2014

Appendix H: Capital Costs

Memorandum

To Barrow Emerson, SamTrans Date Melissa Reggiardo, SamTrans 9/13/2014

Copies Reference number

From Corey Wong, Arup File reference Wira Ramanto, Arup Steve Crosley, Fehr & Peers

Subject ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Capital Costs

1 Introduction

This memo presents the estimated capital costs for the various service concepts proposed in previous memos. This memo builds on findings for each service concept from the August 31, 2014 Operating Plan Memo – Draft v1, in particular the peak vehicle requirements. This memo will first present the capital costs associated with different service concepts. Capital costs will largely consist of implementation of fixed infrastructure elements including physical enhancements such as bus lanes, transit signal priority, enhanced bus stops, and new vehicles. Operating costs will be developed in a separate memo.

2 Capital Costs

The capital cost estimates presented in this memo are rough order-of-magnitude estimates that are based on broad assumptions for future fixed infrastructure implementation. The cost estimates are intended to identify relative cost differences between service concepts, as well as to establish a baseline to identify future funding sources and availability. More detailed cost estimates should be conducted once additional details are finalized for these service concepts – particularly for Concept 10 – 2040 Full Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

2.1 Level of Accuracy The Arup Estimate Classification Matrix presented below explains the hierarchy of cost estimating based on the design and scope development. Given different levels of available information, El Camino Real (ECR) estimates are classified in different levels, with various levels of accuracy. This estimate is classified as a Level 5 within the Arup Cost Estimate Classification Matrix and was generated by means of widely used and accepted estimating practices. The estimate is based on program requirements for each option and includes all construction costs associated with that option. All estimates are based on the same methodology, algorithm, and have been generated considering the assumptions and exclusions noted in the following sections.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 1 of 25

Memorandum

Table 1: Types of Capital Cost Estimates and Associated Level of Accuracy

2.2 Basis for Estimate This section identifies key assumptions and exclusions within the cost build-up.

2.2.1 Assumptions The following assumptions are applicable to each of the cost estimates: Table 2: Key Cost Assumptions # Category Assumption • Costs are reported in Quarter 3 (Q3) 2014 dollars. 1 Year of Estimate • No allowance has been included for inflation. • Unit costs were derived from similar projects, including previous cost estimates developed by Arup from the Van Ness BRT Environmental Review as well as the El Camino Real BRT Corridor (from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) BRT Strategic Plan). Unit Costs and 2 • Unit costs were then escalated to Q3 2014 dollars using the Escalation Engineering News Record’s Construction Cost Index. • Additional costs were supplemented from relevant vendors. • Appendix C depicts the assumptions used to escalate individual unit costs to Q3 2014 dollars. 3 Scope of Contingency • Contingency does not cover changes in scope. • The estimate assumes normal ground conditions. • No allowances have been included for rock excavation, ground 4 Ground Conditions decontamination, or discovery of archaeological artefacts and their consequential effect on the project.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 2 of 25

Memorandum

2.2.2 Exclusions The following are excluded from the cost estimates: • Costs or impacts of latent environmental issues that result in litigations or development delays; • Right-of-way acquisitions; • Planning and enquiry costs including legal expenses and fees; • Financing charges; • Cost escalation beyond the date of this estimate; and • Tree removal or scope done by an arborist or landscape architect.

2.3 Capital Cost Elements Capital costs are divided into two types: • Direct Costs – These costs include labour, equipment, and material necessary for the contractor to place a permanent unit of work in the field; and • Other Costs – Other costs include indirect costs related to workforce mobilization, contingency, soft costs, overhead, as well as profit. These cost elements are described below.

2.3.1 Direct Cost Elements Direct costs include costs to build and implement fixed infrastructure and to procure new vehicles. Table 3 presents the direct cost elements for each service concept. Table 3: Direct Capital Cost Elements by Service Concept Category Service Concept Direct Cost Elements ECR Only Concept 1: 2020 Base Case • No capital improvements assumed Concept 2: 2020 Full Rapid Concept 3: 2020 Truncated Rapid (Daly City- • Enhanced stations Rapid + Redwood City) • Real-time passenger information ECR Concept 4: 2020 Truncated Rapid (San Bruno- • New, additional vehicles Overlay Redwood City) • Transit signal priority (TSP) Concept 7: 2020 Peak Rapid Concept 5: 2020 Hybrid A (76 stops / 12 minutes) Concept 6: 2020 Hybrid B (50 stops / 12 • Enhanced stations minutes) • Real-time passenger information Hybrid Only Concept 8: 2020 Hybrid A (76 stops / 10 • New, additional vehicles minutes) • TSP Concept 9: 2020 Hybrid B (50 stops / 7.5 minutes) • Enhanced stations BRT + ECR • Real-time passenger information Concept 10: 2040 Full BRT Overlay • Ticket vending machines (TVM) • New, additional vehicles

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 3 of 25

Memorandum

Category Service Concept Direct Cost Elements • Pavement improvements to existing lanes (for mixed flow operation) • Bus lanes (center or side running) • TSP • Queue jump lanes

2.3.2 Other Cost Elements All non-direct cost elements are categorized as “other” costs. These costs include indirect costs, soft costs, contingency, overhead and profit, etc. These costs are estimated to be some percent of total direct costs. Table 4 presents the “other” cost elements that are uniformly applied to each service concept. Table 4: “Other” Cost Elements Common to All Service Concepts Other Cost Description Assumption Source Type • Indirect costs are estimated as a percentage of Direct Costs. • Indirect costs represent likely costs related to placement of • 15% of • Van Ness Indirect Costs a permanent unit of work such as site management, Direct Costs BRT mobilization, demobilization, temporary facilities, and other miscellaneous costs. • MOT costs are typically considered indirect costs, but are identified separately. • MOT costs are estimated as a percentage of Direct Costs Maintenance and represent costs to maintain and control traffic around • 4% of Direct • Van Ness of Traffic work areas. Costs BRT (MOT) • MOT costs include costs related to hiring of control officers to direct traffic as well as temporary signage and barriers. • Construction Cost = Direct + Indirect + MOT • Overhead and profit represent the mark-up on construction costs to account for operating the business, employee fringe benefits as well as profit. • 10% of Overhead and • Van Ness • Overhead and profit are both estimated as a percentage of Construction Profit BRT the Construction Cost. Cost • Construction Price = Construction Cost + Overhead + Profit • Contingency is intended to cover the likely variability in construction costs related to the defined construction • 25% of activities. • Van Ness Contingency Construction • Contingency is estimated as a percentage of the BRT Price Construction Price. • Contingency excludes changes in scope. • Soft costs represent likely costs for design, engineering, survey, site investigation, geotechnical, owners’ • 30% of construction management, permits, fees, and inspections. Construction • Van Ness Soft Costs • Soft costs are estimated as a percentage of the Construction Price + BRT Price. Contingency • Project Price = Construction Price + Contingency + Soft Costs

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 4 of 25

Memorandum

3 Costs for 2020 Rapid Service Options

Rapid service concepts include all concepts in which 2020 Rapid service is paired with an ECR service providing local access – this includes: • Concept 2: 2020 Full Rapid • Concept 3: 2020 Truncated Rapid (Daly City-Redwood City) • Concept 4: 2020 Truncated Rapid (San Bruno-Redwood City) • Concept 7: 2020 Peak Rapid For these concepts, Rapid service operates exclusively in mixed flow lanes, thus no bus lanes would be proposed. Fixed infrastructure for this family of concepts would be proposed to improve passenger amenities and improve operating speeds and reliability. This infrastructure enhancements would include: • Stops

o Enhanced Stops – The number of enhanced stops would vary by service concept as outlined in the Operating Plan Memo (between 46 and 74 stops). Each enhanced stop would cost $62,660 and would include the following enhancements: one three-seat bench, 66 ft2 canopy structure, removal and replacement of concrete platform, display cases, windscreens, lighting, signage, electrical and PG&E service. Costs and quantities have been adjusted downward from proposed BRT stops included in the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA)’s Van Ness BRT. It noted that ECR enhanced stops would be less robust and about one-third the size of the Van Ness BRT stops.

o Real-Time Passenger Information – Real-time arrival displays and underlying infrastructure would be implemented at all enhanced stops (thus between 46 and 74 stops, depending on the service concept). Costs include those for the displays themselves as well as related system costs. Costs and quantities are based on discussions with an industry vendor (Luminator Technology Group). • New Additional Vehicles – The number of additional vehicles would vary by service concept as outlined in the Operating Plan Memo (thus between 10-17 additional vehicles). It is assumed that two vehicle types would be available – either a 60 ft. diesel or diesel-hybrid low floor bus. These buses would be equipped with a fare box (assumed to cost $15,000), and Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) / Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) System (about $30,000). Collectivley, a single bus would cost between $543,000 for a diesel vehicle to $770,000 for the diesel-hybrid (based on discussions with New Flyer). Vehicle costs would also include fire suppression, methane detection, cameras, destination signs, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) equipment. For this estimate, it is assumed that diesel-hybrid vehicles would be procured. • TSP at Intersections – TSP would be implemented at up to 120 signalized intersections, depending on the service concept (with truncated concepts requiring fewer TSP enabled signals). Cost would include installation, system costs and a 25% contingency. All-in TSP costs would include equipment costs ($4,500/intersection), installation costs ($1,500/intersection), and an all-encompassing systems integration and implementation cost

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 5 of 25

Memorandum

of $445,500 – these are based on Caltrans estimates and exclude costs for TSP equipment and implementation aboard buses.1 • TSP on Vehicles – TSP would be implemented on all buses operating Rapid service (whether new or existing – thus a total of between 10-17 vehicles). TSP costs for equipment and installation would be $5,000 per vehicle, based on a Caltrans estimate. A summary of the estimated costs for one Rapid Option (Concept 2 – Full Rapid) is shown in Table 5 as an example, with Table 6 showing capital costs for all four Rapid service concepts. Overall, total costs range from $26-$42 million, or a cost of $1.6-$1.7 million per mile. Concepts operating Rapid service along the entirety of the corridor generate the highest costs as these require more additional vehicles than truncated concepts.2 Table 5: Capital Cost Estimate for Concept 2 – 2020 Full Rapid

Note: Final costs are rounded up to the nearest thousand.

1 For the purposes of this estimate, it is assumed that TSP costs are based on the costs for a distributed TSP system (whereby TSP equipment is placed aboard each bus and installed in signal cabinets), which is marginally more expensive than a centralized TSP system to provide a more conservative estimate. Please refer to the appendices for details on cost elements included in distributed and centralized systems. 2 Please refer to Appendix A for the cost summary for individual service concepts and to Appendix B for a detailed breakdown of how individual cost elements (for instance the station or the real-time passenger information) have been built up.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 6 of 25

Memorandum

Table 6: Capital Cost Estimates for 2020 Rapid Service Concepts Stops with Total Enhanced Minor Vehicles Diesel- Stops Improve- Diesel Inter- Cost / # Service Concept Length Providing Hybrid Total Cost (Both ments Vehicles sections Mile Rapid Vehicles Directions) (Both Service Directions) Concept 2: 2020 2 25.66 74 0 17 0 17 120 $41,975,000 $1,635,800 Full Rapid Concept 3: 2020 3 Truncated Rapid 20.81 64 0 14 0 14 102 $35,249,000 $1,693,800 (DC-RC) Concept 4: 4 2020Truncated 14.86 46 0 10 0 10 77 $25,545,000 $1,719,000 Rapid (SB-RC) Concept 7: 2020 7 25.66 74 0 17 0 17 120 $41,975,000 $1,635,800 Peak Rapid Note: Final costs are rounded up to the nearest thousand.

4 Costs for 2020 Hybrid Service Options

Hybrid service concepts include the following: • Concept 5: 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 12 Min) • Concept 6: 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 12 Min) • Concept 8: 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 10 Min) • Concept 9: 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 7.5 Min) Hybrid service would operate exclusively in mixed flow lanes, thus no bus lanes would be implemented (thus no capital improvements to the existing roadway would be proposed). Fixed infrastructure enhancements would be made to improve passenger amenities, operating speeds, and reliability. This infrastructure enhancements would include: • Stops

o Enhanced Stops – The number of enhanced stops would be the same for each Hybrid concept – 74 stops in total. These 74 stops represent the highest demand stops along the corridor and match those stops featured in the Full Rapid concept. Each enhanced stop would cost $62,660 and would include the following enhancements: one three-seat bench, 66 ft2 canopy structure, removal and replacement of concrete platform, display cases, windscreens, lighting, signage, electrical and PG&E service. Costs and quantities have been adjusted downward from proposed BRT stops included in the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA)’s Van Ness BRT. It noted that ECR enhanced stops would be less robust and about one-third the size of the Van Ness BRT stops.

o Stops with Minor Improvements – Hybrid Concepts 5 and 8 serve a total of 152 stops along the corridor. Minor improvements would be made at all non-enhanced stops – thus 78 stops. Hybrid Concepts 6 and 9 serve a total of 100 stops along the corridor. Minor improvements would be made at all non-enhanced stops – thus 26 stops. Improvements would be less robust than those at enhanced stops and would

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 7 of 25

Memorandum

include a three-person bench, a 32 ft2 canopy structure, and signage. The average cost for minor improvements would be about $11,500 per stop.

o Real-Time Passenger Information – Real-time arrival displays and underlying infrastructure would be implemented at all enhanced stops (thus 74 stops). Costs would include the displays themselves and related system costs. These costs and quantities are based on discussions with an industry vendor (Luminator Technology Group). • New Additional Vehicles – The number of additional vehicles would vary by service concept as outlined in the Operating Plan Memo (thus between 1-15 additional vehicles). It is assumed that two vehicle types would be available – either a 60 ft. diesel or diesel-hybrid low floor bus. These buses would be equipped with a fare box (assumed to cost $15,000), and CAD/AVL System (about $30,000). Collectively, a single bus would cost between $543,000 for a diesel vehicle to $770,000 for the diesel-hybrid (based on discussions with New Flyer). Vehicle costs would also include fire suppression, methane detection, cameras, destination signs, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) equipment. For this estimate, it is assumed that diesel-hybrid vehicles would be procured. • TSP at Intersections – TSP would be implemented at up to 120 signalized intersections, depending on the service concept (with truncated concepts requiring fewer TSP enabled signals). Cost would include installation, system costs and a 25% contingency. All-in TSP costs would include equipment costs ($4,500/intersection), installation costs ($1,500/intersection), and an all-encompassing systems integration and implementation cost of $445,500 – these are based on Caltrans estimates and exclude costs for TSP equipment and implementation aboard buses.3 • TSP on Vehicles – TSP would be implemented on all buses operating Hybrid service (whether new or existing – thus a total of between 23-37 vehicles). TSP costs for equipment and installation would be $5,000 per vehicle, based on a Caltrans estimate. A summary of the estimated costs for one Hybrid Concept (Concept 5 – 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 12 Min)) is shown in Table 7 as an example, with Table 8 showing capital costs for all four Hybrid service concepts. Overall, Hybrid concepts would cost $16-$40 million overall, equating to a cost per mile of $642,000-$1.54 million. Those concepts with more frequent service generate higher peak vehicle requirements, which would increase the total capital cost of the concept (i.e., such as Concepts 8 and 9, with 10- and 7.5-minute headways, respectively).4

3 For the purposes of this estimate, it is assumed that TSP costs are based on the costs for a distributed TSP system (whereby TSP equipment is placed aboard each bus and installed in signal cabinets), which is marginally more expensive than a centralized TSP system to provide a more conservative estimate. Please refer to the appendices for details on cost elements included in distributed and centralized systems. 4 Please refer to Appendix A for the cost summary for individual service concepts and to Appendix B for a detailed breakdown of how individual cost elements (for instance the station or the real-time passenger information) have been built up.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 8 of 25

Memorandum

Table 7: Capital Cost Estimate for Concept 5 – 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops – 12 Min)

Note: Final costs are rounded up to the nearest thousand.

Table 8: Capital Cost Estimates for 2020 Hybrid Service Concepts Stops with Total Enhanced Minor Vehicles Diesel- Stops Improve- Diesel Inter- Cost / # Service Concept Length Providing Hybrid Total Cost (Both ments Vehicles sections Mile Rapid Vehicles Directions) (Both Service Directions) Concept 5: 2020 5 Hybrid A (76 25.66 74 78 25 0 3 120 $21,025,000 $819,400 Stops - 12 Min) Concept 6: 2020 6 Hybrid B (50 25.66 74 26 23 0 1 120 $16,464,000 $641,600 Stops - 12 Min) Concept 8: 2020

8 Hybrid A (76 25.66 74 78 30 0 8 120 $29,268,000 $1,140,600 Stops - 10 Min) Concept 9: 2020 9 Hybrid B (50 25.66 74 26 37 0 15 120 $39,544,000 $1,541,100 Stops - 7.5 Min) Note: Final costs are rounded up to the nearest thousand.

5 Costs for 2040 BRT Service Options

The full BRT concept assumes that vehicles would operate in dedicated bus lanes for 10.9 miles and in mixed flow traffic lanes for 14.76 miles. More robust enhancements would be implemented at stations and along the corridor to significantly improve the passenger experience and improve travel speeds and reliability. Infrastructure would include:

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 9 of 25

Memorandum

• Runningway

o Mixed Flow Enhancements – Vehicles would operate in a combination of bus lanes (either center-running or side-running) and in mixed flow lanes (outside bus lanes). Road improvements for mixed flow operation would be limited to restriping and signage enhancements (for instance restriping and signage to indicate bus lane transition areas and prohibited entry to bus lanes by normal vehicles). Per mile improvements would cost $77,000/mile.

o Dedicated Bus Lanes – The BRT would operate in 10.9 miles of dedicated bus lanes (in three distinct segments along the corridor). At this time, no recommendation has been made on whether buses should operate in median or side lanes. Median bus lanes would cost about $4.2 million/mile and include costs associated with pavement improvements, excavating a 4 ft. wide median each way, striping, signage, and concrete curb replacement. Side lanes would cost about $3.9 million/mile and include costs associated with pavement improvements, striping, signage, and concrete curb replacement. Per mile costs are based on the VTA El Camino BRT costs (from the VTA BRT Strategic Plan). For this estimate, it is assumed that all bus lanes would be median bus lanes.

o Queue Jump Lanes – Queue jump lanes allow vehicles to bypass queues at intersections and to either enter the intersection prior to other traffic lanes. For this estimate, queue jump lanes are assumed to be 180-feet long and would be placed at the start of bus lane segments to facilitate faster and more efficient access. Six (6) queue jump lanes would be installed, at a cost of $63,000 per location (based on the VTA BRT Strategic Plan). Queue jump lane cost would include costs for pavement improvements, excavation of a 12 ft. wide curb each way, striping, signage, and concrete curb replacement.

o Drainage and Utility Relocation - 5% drainage system relocation and 10% public utilities relocation have been included in the cost of bus lanes, mixed flow lanes and queue jump lanes. • Stations

o Enhanced Stations – A total of 74 enhanced 60-ft. long BRT stations would be proposed. These stations would have significantly more robust amenities than enhanced stops proposed for the 2020 Rapid or Hybrid concepts. Each BRT station would include three three-seat seating, a 360 ft2 canopy structure, removal and replacement of concrete platform, display cases, windscreens, lighting, signage, other finishes, electrical broadband, and PG&E service. Each enhanced station would cost $211,000 each (based on the VTA BRT Strategic Plan costs).

o TVMs – Each station would include one TVM, which would cost $96,000 each (based on the VTA BRT Strategic Plan). TVMs would allow for off-boarding fare payment to reduce dwell time and increase total corridor travel speeds.

o Real-Time Passenger Information – Real-time arrival displays and underlying infrastructure would be implemented at all BRT stations. Costs include those for the displays themselves as well as related system costs. Costs and quantities are based on discussions with an industry vendor (Luminator Technology Group).

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 10 of 25

Memorandum

• New Additional Vehicles – Fourteen (14) additional vehicles would be required for 2040 Full BRT service as outlined in the Operating Plan Memo. It is assumed that two vehicle types would be available – either a 60 ft. diesel or diesel-hybrid low floor bus. These buses would be equipped with a fare box (assumed to cost $15,000), and CAD/AVL System (about $30,000). Collectively, a single bus would cost between $543,000 for a diesel vehicle to $770,000 for the diesel-hybrid (based on discussions with New Flyer). Vehicle costs would also include fire suppression, methane detection, cameras, destination signs, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) equipment. For this estimate, it is assumed that diesel-hybrid vehicles would be procured. • TSP at Intersections – TSP would be implemented at up to 120 signalized intersections, depending on the service concept (with truncated concepts requiring fewer TSP enabled signals). Cost would include installation, system costs and a 25% contingency. All-in TSP costs would include equipment costs ($4,500/intersection), installation costs ($1,500/intersection), and an all-encompassing systems integration and implementation cost of $445,500 – these are based on Caltrans estimates and exclude costs for TSP equipment and implementation aboard buses.5 • TSP on Vehicles – TSP would be implemented on all buses operating BRT service (whether new or existing – thus a total of 14 vehicles). TSP costs for equipment and installation would be $5,000 per vehicle, based on a Caltrans estimate. A summary of the estimated costs for Concept 10 – 2040 Full BRT is shown in Table 9. Overall, the 2040 Full BRT concept would cost about $176.9 million or $6.9 million per mile.6 For comparison, the Van Ness BRT in San Francisco is estimated to cost about $125 million for a 2.28 mile corridor (equating to nearly $55.0 million per mile) with dual dedicated bus lanes along the length of the corridor.7 Also, VTA’s El Camino BRT is expected to cost between $200-$240 million over a 20-plus-mile corridor with segments of dedicated bus lanes – equating to about $10.0 million per mile.8

5 For the purposes of this estimate, it is assumed that TSP costs are based on the costs for a distributed TSP system (whereby TSP equipment is placed aboard each bus and installed in signal cabinets), which is marginally more expensive than a centralized TSP system to provide a more conservative estimate. Please refer to the appendices for details on cost elements included in distributed and centralized systems. 6 Please refer to Appendix A for the cost summary for individual service concepts and to Appendix B for a detailed breakdown of how individual cost elements (for instance the station or the real-time passenger information) have been built up. 7 Source for Van Ness BRT: http://www.sfcta.org/van-ness-avenue-bus-rapid-transit-about 8 Source for El Camino BRT: http://www.vta.org/sfc/servlet.shepherd/document/download/069A0000001Otb0IAC

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 11 of 25

Memorandum

Table 9: Capital Cost Estimate for Concept 10 – 2040 Full BRT

Note: Final costs are rounded up to the nearest thousand.

6 Summary

Table 10 below summarizes total capital costs and costs per mile for all ECR service concepts, while Figure 1 depicts this information graphically for all 2020 concepts. Key findings are as follows: • Rapid concepts that operate along the entire corridor with overlay ECR service generate the largest capital costs for 2020 concepts, at about $42.0 million, equating to about $1.64 million per mile. Truncated Rapid concepts with overlay ECR service are less costly from $25.6-$35.3 million, but equate to a similar per mile cost of $1.7 million. • Hybrid concepts at 12-minute headways generate the lowest total capital costs and are the most efficient in terms of capital cost per mile. Concepts 5 and 6 both would cost $16.5- $21.0 million to build, equating to a per mile cost of $642,000-$819,000. Hybrid concepts at more frequent headways would generate higher capital costs - $29.3- $39.5 million or $1.1- $1.5 million per mile. • The 2040 BRT concept would generate the largest capital costs and the highest costs per mile, due to the implementation of over 10 miles of dedicated bus lanes. The BRT concept would cost $176.9 million with a per mile cost of $6.9 million.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 12 of 25

Memorandum

Table 10: Capital Cost and Cost per Mile for ECR Service Concepts # Concept Capital Cost Cost per Mile 1 Concept 1: 2020 Base Case - - 2 Concept 2: 2020 Full Rapid $41,975,000 $1,635,800 3 Concept 3: 2020 Truncated Rapid (DC-RC) $35,249,000 $1,693,800 4 Concept 4: 2020 Truncated Rapid (SB-RC) $25,545,000 $1,719,000 5 Concept 5: 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 12 Min) $21,025,000 $819,400 6 Concept 6: 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 12 Min) $16,464,000 $641,600 7 Concept 7: 2020 Peak Rapid $41,975,000 $1,635,800 8 Concept 8: 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 10 Min) $29,268,000 $1,140,600 9 Concept 9: 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 7.5 Min) $39,544,000 $1,541,100 10 Concept 10: 2040 Full BRT $176,850,000 $6,892,000

Figure 1: Capital Costs and Cost per Mile for 2020 Service Concepts

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 13 of 25

Memorandum

7 Appendix A – Service Concept Cost Summaries

This appendix contains cost summaries for the proposed service concepts. Note that no capital costs are expected for Concept 1 – 2020 Base Case and that the final cost per concept is rounded to the nearest thousand.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 14 of 25

Memorandum

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 15 of 25

Memorandum

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 16 of 25

Memorandum

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 17 of 25

Memorandum

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 18 of 25

Memorandum

8 Appendix B – Detailed Cost Summary

This appendix contains detailed cost summaries for the Rapid, Hybrid, and BRT concepts.

8.1 Rapid Concept The following table presents the detailed cost summary for a typical Rapid concept (Concept 2 – 2020 Full Rapid):

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 19 of 25

Memorandum

8.2 Hybrid Concept The following table presents the detailed cost summary for a typical Hybrid concept (Concept 5 – 2020 Hybrid (76 Stops – 12 Min):

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 20 of 25

Memorandum

8.3 BRT Concept The following table presents the detailed cost summary for Concept 10 – 2040 Full BRT:

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 21 of 25

Memorandum

9 Appendix C – Cost Escalation and Assumptions for Individual Cost Elements

This appendix presents the various sources for cost elements and details how unit costs were escalated to Q3 2014 dollars.

9.1 Stations and TVMs

9.2 Transit Signal Priority (TSP)

9.2.1 Distributed Transit Signal Priority (TSP) The TSP cost estimates included in the main text assume a distributed system with the following: (i) vehicle-related costs (i.e., $4,000/vehicle equipment costs and $1,000/vehicle installation costs; (ii) intersection equipment costs ($4,500/intersection) and installation costs ($1,500/intersection) are specifically called out as concepts differ in the number of intersections to be upgraded; and (iii) an all-encompassing systems integration and installation cost of $445,500. These costs are based on

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 22 of 25

Memorandum

Caltrans estimates. Note that in the table below, the number of vehicles and intersections (and thus the associated costs) has been left blank as these quantities differ by service concept.

Source: Caltrans, 2014.

9.2.2 Centralized Transit Signal Priority (TSP) TSP costs for this estimate are based on distributed TSP. Centralized TSP cost estimates are included for information only.

Source: Caltrans, 2014.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 23 of 25

Memorandum

9.3 Real-Time Passenger Information Systems

9.4 Vehicles

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 24 of 25

Memorandum

9.5 Bus Lanes

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX H - ECR BRT - CAPITAL COST MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 25 of 25

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – Appendices December 2014

Appendix I: BRT Bus-Only Lane Analysis

Memorandum

To Barrow Emerson, SamTrans Date July 18, 2014

Copies Melissa Reggiardo, SamTrans Reference number Click here to enter text.

From Corey Wong, Arup File reference Steve Crosley, Fehr & Peers Click here to enter text.

Subject Bus Lanes for ECR BRT Scenario

This memo highlights the proposed sections of dedicated bus lanes and queue jump lanes that are recommended for the long-range ECR BRT.

Key Assumptions

• Segments with bus lanes are assumed to have two bus lanes – one in each direction, each 12 feet wide at a minimum (thus requiring a combined width of 24 feet for two lanes). While it is possible to implement a single bus lane (operated either in a single direction or bi-directionally with signal control) in width constrained segments to provide some degree of transit priority, dual lanes would allow vehicles to operate faster and more reliably in both directions of travel during all periods of the day. Identification of such single bus lane segments is assumed to occur at later stages of BRT project development, if warranted. • Bus lanes are assumed to be specially demarcated with pavement markings, colored pavement, or with bollards/barriers to discourage and/or prevent general traffic from entering or using the bus lane. No assumption, however, is made on the type of bus lane (i.e., situated in the median or alongside the curb lane or parking lane). • Bus lanes are augmented by queue jump lanes that are located at the start of each bus lane stretch to facilitate entry into the bus lanes. • Transit signal priority is implemented at all signals along the entire corridor, regardless of location of bus lanes. • This scenario represents a balanced bus lane approach that seeks to provide time competitive travel speeds where lanes are geometrically feasible and where existing land uses, travel volumes, and demand warrant, but also considers the high capital cost associated with implementing dedicated lanes along such a long corridor.

Selection Rationale

The proposed bus lane segments described in this memo represent a future, hypothetical 2040 situation. Segments were identified as physically feasible for bus lanes if sufficient existing right-of-way exists for 24 feet of new bus lanes (i.e., two bus lanes, one in each direction), assuming no widening of the street from the current configuration (i.e., the sidewalks will not be narrowed and the existing curb-to-curb distance will not change).

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX I - ECR BRT - BUS LANE MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 1 of 12

Memorandum

Additional right-of-way (ROW) would be obtained by converting existing medians and/or parking lanes, and narrowing of existing general purpose (GP) travel lanes. It is recognized that such strategies may be politically controversial and subject to extensive public comment, thus additional analysis will be needed in the future if a BRT scenario is to move forward in the future for additional study. For the purposes of this hypothetical analysis, it is assumed that the community and cities would allow the conversion of medians, parking lanes, and some GP travel lanes when necessary for dual bus lanes.

Screening 1: Geometric Feasibility Screening

Where bus lanes are implemented, two bus lanes (totaling a width of 24 feet) need to be accommodated within the existing curb-to-curb ROW. There are a total of 298 block segments comprising the El Camino Real corridor from Daly City BART to Palo Alto Caltrain Station. Segments meeting one or more of the following criteria were identified as being geometrically “feasible” for bus lanes:

• Criteria 1: The median is 24.0 feet or wider; • Criteria 2: The northbound and southbound parking lanes are 24.0 feet or wider combined; • Criteria 3: The median, northbound, and southbound parking lanes are 24.0 feet or wider combined; and/or • Criteria 4: At least two 12.0 foot lanes in each direction are maintained on all segments for general traffic, if roadway width from general purposes lanes is converted to provide dual bus lanes.

All segments meeting one or more of these four criteria pass the initial geometric screening criteria.

Screening 2: Contextual Feasibility Screening

A secondary contextual screening is then applied to those block segments passing Screening 1, with the following criteria:

• Criteria 5: If parking lanes need to be converted to implement dual bus lanes, this may only occur along segments that currently possess adjacent off-street parking to serve street-fronting retail uses (this is a qualitative assessment, based on a visual survey of parking availability); • Criteria 6: Bus lanes should be implemented within segments in which transit vehicles experience delay and congestion (and thus operate slower than in other corridor segments). As available traffic congestion and delay data is limited, existing ECR scheduled running times between timepoints are used as proxies to represent relative congestion. Estimated ECR travel speeds between segments (based on the 2014 schedule) are presented in Table 1 (color-coded by relative speed, with faster speeds in green and slower speeds in darker orange).

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX I - ECR BRT - BUS LANE MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 2 of 12

Memorandum

Table 1: ECR Travel Speeds (based on 2014 Schedule) Segment Speed Speed Avg. # Segment # Segment (mph) (mph) Speed (mph) 1 Daly City BART -- Mission/ Goethe 9.72 13 Mission/ Wellington -- Daly City BART 10.30 10.01 2 Mission/ Goethe -- Colma BART 9.23 12 Colma BART -- Mission/ Wellington 11.39 10.31 3 Colma BART -- El Camino/ McLellan (SSF 17.37 11 El Camino / SSF BART -- Colma BART 14.45 15.91 BART) 4 El Camino/ McLellan (SSF BART) -- San 11.13 10 San Bruno BART -- El Camino / SSF 13.31 12.22 Bruno BART BART 5 San Bruno BART -- El Camino/ Victoria 10.79 9 El Camino/ Linden -- San Bruno BART 11.19 10.99 6 El Camino/ Victoria -- El Camino/ 13.16 8 El Camino/ Burlingame -- El Camino/ 11.90 12.53 Burlingame Linden 7 El Camino/ Burlingame -- El Camino/ 4th 10.35 7 El Camino/ 5th -- El Camino/ Burlingame 11.37 10.86 8 El Camino/ 4th -- El Camino/ Hillsdale 11.30 6 El Camino/ Hillsdale -- El Camino/ 5th 11.78 11.54 9 El Camino/ Hillsdale -- El Camino/ Ralston 12.88 5 El Camino/ Ralston -- El Camino/ 12.14 12.51 Hillsdale 10 El Camino/ Ralston -- El Camino/ San 13.33 4 El Camino/ San Carlos -- El Camino/ 11.82 12.57 Carlos Ralston 11 El Camino/ San Carlos -- Redwood City 11.36 3 Redwood City Transit Center -- El 13.24 12.30 Transit Center Camino/ San Carlos 12 Redwood City Transit Center -- El Camino/ 12.14 2 El Camino Amherst -- Redwood City 9.76 10.95 5th Transit Center 13 El Camino/ 5th -- Palo Alto Transit Center 14.84 1 Palo Alto Transit Center -- El Camino 15.09 14.97 Amherst

Proposed bus lane segments are comprised of adjacent (consecutive) block segments that pass both Screening 1 and Screening 2.

Screening 3: Continuous Bus Lane Feasibility Screening

A final third screening is applied to ensure that potential bus lane segments (from Screening 2) collectively comprise long, unimpeded stretches to facilitate faster and more reliable transit operating speeds. This screening criterion is as follows:

• Criteria 7: Proposed bus lane segments should be at least 1.5 mile in length to minimize weaving into and out of the lanes, which generates delays and conflicts with general purpose traffic. A segment of 1.5 miles of bus lane would typically take between 4-6 minutes to traverse at an average speed of about 15- 16 mph without stopping. If an isolated segment of bus lane is less than 1.5 miles, no bus lanes are proposed.

Proposed Bus Lane Segments

Figure 1 below presents the evaluation flowchart and process. Based on this evaluation, the proposed bus lane segments along El Camino Real (heading southbound) are as follows:

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX I - ECR BRT - BUS LANE MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 3 of 12

Memorandum

• Segment 1: McClellan Dr. (South San Francisco, milepost 3.62) to Rosedale Ave. (Burlingame, milepost 9.78), a total distance of 6.16 miles. • Segment 2: Baywood Ave. (San Mateo, milepost 13.32) to 43rd Ave. (Belmont, milepost 16.47), a total distance of 3.15 miles. • Segment 3: Holly St. (San Carlos, milepost 18.61) to Claremont Ave. (Redwood City, milepost 20.20), a total distance of 1.59 miles. • In total, 10.9 miles out of the corridor are proposed for dual bus lanes for BRT operations. • Six queue jump lanes are proposed to access the bus lanes (three in each direction). Three would be located at the near-side of the following southbound intersections: McClellan Dr., Baywood Ave., and Holly St. Three would be located at the near-side of the following northbound intersections: Claremont Ave., 43rd Ave., and Rosedale Ave.

It should be noted that:

• No bus lanes are proposed in Daly City due to the street- fronting retail and need to maintain curbside parking; • No bus lanes south of Redwood City Caltrain Station are proposed due to the low level of traffic congestion Figure 1: Bus Lane Feasibility between Redwood City and Palo Alto in the segment; and Screening Process • No bus lane segments are proposed south of the Colma BART Station due to the low level of traffic congestion between Colma BART and San Bruno BART.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX I - ECR BRT - BUS LANE MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 4 of 12

Memorandum

Table 2: Block-by-Block Analysis for Dedicated Bus Lanes for BRT (Blocks Highlighted in Green Are Proposed for Dedicated Bus Lanes) Evaluation Criteria (A Block Segment Meeting the Criteria Receives a “1”) BLOCK-TO-BLOCK SEGMENT (SOUTHBOUND DIRECTION) AVG. TRANSIT TRAVEL SPEED RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH (FT) Crit. 1 Crit. 2 Crit. 3 Crit. 4 Crit. 5 Crit. 6 Crit. 7 Feasible as Travel Lane Not Width (At Not Proposed Avg. SB Bus Avg. NB Feasible as Least 24 Proposed due to Low Travel Bus Travel Avg. SB NB NB Right- Feasible as Not SB Right- Average NB TOTAL Feasible as Median + Feet of as Street Level of Block Speed Speed Segment SB Parking Through Through Turn NB + SB Proposed # Block ID FROM TO City Milepost Turn Lane Median Parking ROW Median > NB + SB Lanes is Fronting Existing Length (based on (based on Bus Travel Width Lanes Lanes Lanes Parking > as Isolated Width Width Width WIDTH 24.0 feet Parking > Maintaine Retail Congestion 2014 ECR 2014 ECR Speed Width Width Width 24.0 feet Segment 24.0 feet d in Each Requiring (based on Schedule) Schedule) Direction If Parking 2014 ECR GP Lanes Schedule) Need to Be Narrowed) 1 21642 DELONG ST SANTA BARBARA AVE Daly City 0 0.21 9.23 11.39 10.31 0 12 24 11 24 0 0 71 1 2 3850 SANTA BARBARA AVE EL CAMINO REAL Daly City 0.21 0.10 9.23 11.39 10.31 0 12 12 17 24 12 0 77 1 3 3973 HILLSIDE BLVD THETA AVE Daly City 0.31 0.06 9.23 11.39 10.31 10 0 24 11 36 0 10 91 1 1 4 23015 THETA AVE VISTA GRANDE AVE Daly City 0.37 0.07 9.23 11.39 10.31 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 5 3757 VISTA GRANDE AVE ALP AVE Daly City 0.44 0.11 9.23 11.39 10.31 10 0 24 17 24 12 10 97 1 1 6 3777 ALP AVE N PARKVIEW AVE Daly City 0.55 0.02 9.23 11.39 10.31 10 0 24 5 24 0 10 73 1 1 7 3792 N PARKVIEW AVE BETA AVE Daly City 0.57 0.03 9.23 11.39 10.31 10 0 24 5 24 0 10 73 1 1 8 4466 BETA AVE COMO AVE Daly City 0.60 0.05 9.23 11.39 10.31 10 0 24 17 24 0 10 85 1 1 9 4637 COMO AVE WESTLAKE AVE Daly City 0.65 0.05 9.23 11.39 10.31 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 10 4697 EASTLAKE AVE GAMBETTA ST Daly City 0.70 0.04 9.23 11.39 10.31 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 11 4784 GAMBETTA ST CITRUS AVE Daly City 0.74 0.08 9.23 11.39 10.31 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 12 5110 CITRUS AVE BISMARK ST Daly City 0.83 0.13 9.23 11.39 10.31 10 0 24 17 24 12 10 97 1 1 13 4299 BISMARK ST E CAVOUR ST Daly City 0.96 0.05 9.23 11.39 10.31 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 14 4535 E CAVOUR ST W MOLTKE ST Daly City 1.00 0.04 9.23 11.39 10.31 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 15 4659 W MOLTKE ST SCHOOL ST Daly City 1.05 0.07 9.23 11.39 10.31 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 9.23 11.39 10.31 10 0 24 5 24 0 10 73 1 1

16 4846 SCHOOL ST PRICE ST Daly City 1.12 0.03 9.23 11.39 10.31 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 17 12867 PRICE ST VALE ST Daly City 1.16 0.09 9.23 11.39 10.31 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 18 12927 CASTLE ST W MARKET ST Daly City 1.25 0.13 9.23 11.39 10.31 10 0 36 11 24 0 10 91 1 1 Daly City/ 9.23 11.39 10.31 19 12948 E MARKET ST SAN PEDRO RD Unincorporated Colma 1.38 0.03 0 0 36 0 36 0 0 72 1 1 Daly City/ 9.23 11.39 10.31 20 25069 SAN PEDRO RD VALLEY ST Unincorporated Colma 1.41 0.10 10 0 36 17 36 0 10 109 1 1 Daly City/ 9.23 11.39 10.31 21 422 VALLEY ST A ST Unincorporated Colma 1.51 0.14 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 1 22 430 A ST B ST Unincorporated Colma 1.65 0.05 9.23 11.39 10.31 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 1 Colma/ 9.23 11.39 10.31 23 433 B ST C ST Unincorporated Colma 1.70 0.05 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 1 Colma/ 17.37 14.45 15.91 24 439 C ST COLMA STATION Unincorporated Colma 1.76 0.04 10 0 36 5 36 0 0 87 1 1 Colma/ 17.37 14.45 15.91 25 439 COLMA STATION F ST Unincorporated Colma 1.79 0.11 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 1 17.37 14.45 15.91 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1 1

26 448 F ST COLMA BLVD Colma 1.91 0.20 17.37 14.45 15.91 10 0 36 17 36 0 10 109 1 1 27 449 COLMA BLVD VILLA AVE Colma 2.10 0.12 17.37 14.45 15.91 10 0 36 17 36 0 10 109 1 1 28 450 VILLA AVE OLIVET PKWY Colma 2.22 0.06 17.37 14.45 15.91 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1 1 29 454 OLIVET PKWY SERRAMONTE BLVD Colma 2.28 0.12 17.37 14.45 15.91 10 12 36 11 36 0 10 115 1 1

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX I - ECR BRT - BUS LANE MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 5 of 12

Memorandum

Evaluation Criteria (A Block Segment Meeting the Criteria Receives a “1”) BLOCK-TO-BLOCK SEGMENT (SOUTHBOUND DIRECTION) AVG. TRANSIT TRAVEL SPEED RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH (FT) Crit. 1 Crit. 2 Crit. 3 Crit. 4 Crit. 5 Crit. 6 Crit. 7 Feasible as Travel Lane Not Width (At Not Proposed Avg. SB Bus Avg. NB Feasible as Least 24 Proposed due to Low Travel Bus Travel Avg. SB NB NB Right- Feasible as Not SB Right- Average NB TOTAL Feasible as Median + Feet of as Street Level of Block Speed Speed Segment SB Parking Through Through Turn NB + SB Proposed # Block ID FROM TO City Milepost Turn Lane Median Parking ROW Median > NB + SB Lanes is Fronting Existing Length (based on (based on Bus Travel Width Lanes Lanes Lanes Parking > as Isolated Width Width Width WIDTH 24.0 feet Parking > Maintaine Retail Congestion 2014 ECR 2014 ECR Speed Width Width Width 24.0 feet Segment 24.0 feet d in Each Requiring (based on Schedule) Schedule) Direction If Parking 2014 ECR GP Lanes Schedule) Need to Be Narrowed) 30 455 5TH AVE COLLINS AVE Colma 2.40 0.18 17.37 14.45 15.91 10 0 36 11 36 12 10 115 1 1 31 459 COLLINS AVE MISSION RD Colma 2.58 0.19 17.37 14.45 15.91 10 0 24 17 36 0 10 97 1 1 32 478 MISSION RD ARLINGTON DR Colma/South San Francisco 2.77 0.16 17.37 14.45 15.91 0 0 24 2.5 24 0 0 50.5 33 11151 ARLINGTON DR HICKEY BLVD Colma/South San Francisco 2.93 0.32 17.37 14.45 15.91 0 0 24 8.5 24 0 0 56.5 34 22353 HICKEY BLVD MCLELLAN DR South San Francisco 3.25 0.37 11.13 13.31 12.22 0 0 24 23 24 0 0 71 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 11.13 13.31 12.22 35 24000 MCLELLAN DR South San Francisco STATION 3.62 0.18 0 0 36 17 36 12 0 101 1 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 11.13 13.31 12.22 36 24001 ARROYO DR South San Francisco STATION 3.80 0.56 10 0 36 17 36 0 10 109 1 37 12119 ARROYO DR WESTBOROUGH BLVD South San Francisco 4.36 0.14 11.13 13.31 12.22 0 12 36 23 36 0 0 107 1 38 20938 WESTBOROUGH BLVD 1ST ST South San Francisco 4.50 0.18 11.13 13.31 12.22 0 0 36 23 24 12 10 105 1 39 12031 1ST ST 2ND ST South San Francisco 4.68 0.09 11.13 13.31 12.22 10 0 36 17 36 0 10 109 1 40 21243 2ND ST W ORANGE AVE South San Francisco 4.77 0.12 11.13 13.31 12.22 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 41 20471 W ORANGE AVE PONDEROSA RD South San Francisco 4.90 0.12 11.13 13.31 12.22 10 0 36 17 36 0 10 109 1 42 19990 PONDEROSA RD COUNTRY CLUB DR South San Francisco 5.02 0.22 11.13 13.31 12.22 10 0 36 17 36 0 0 99 1 43 20902 COUNTRY CLUB DR S SPRUCE AVE South San Francisco 5.23 0.27 11.13 13.31 12.22 10 0 36 17 36 0 0 99 1 44 20982 S SPRUCE AVE BRENTWOOD DR South San Francisco 5.50 0.05 11.13 13.31 12.22 0 0 36 11 36 12 0 95 1 45 20712 BRENTWOOD DR NOOR AVE South San Francisco 5.55 0.12 11.13 13.31 12.22 10 0 36 11 36 0 0 93 1 South San Francisco/San 11.13 13.31 12.22 46 1723 NOOR AVE SNEATH LN Bruno 5.68 0.27 0 0 36 17 36 0 0 89 1 47 10073 SNEATH LN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 380 San Bruno 5.95 0.21 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 12 36 17 36 12 0 123 1 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 380 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 380 10.79 11.19 10.99 48 10185 San Bruno WB SLIP OFF-RAMP WB SLIP ON-RAMP 6.16 0.01 0 0 36 5 36 0 0 77 1 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 380 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 380 10.79 11.19 10.99 49 18938 San Bruno WB SLIP ON-RAMP WB LOOP ON-RAMP 6.17 0.05 0 0 36 5 36 0 0 77 1 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 380 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 380 10.79 11.19 10.99 50 18770 San Bruno EB LOOP ON-RAMP WB LOOP ON-RAMP 6.23 0.05 0 0 36 5 36 0 0 77 1 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 380 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 380 10.79 11.19 10.99 51 18769 San Bruno EB LOOP ON-RAMP EB SLIP ON-RAMP 6.27 0.04 0 0 36 5 36 0 0 77 1 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 380 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 380 10.79 11.19 10.99 52 18767 San Bruno EB SLIP OFF-RAMP EB SLIP ON-RAMP 6.31 0.02 0 0 36 5 36 0 10 87 1 53 18768 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 380 BAYHILL DR San Bruno 6.33 0.08 10.79 11.19 10.99 0 0 36 5 36 0 10 87 1 54 10159 BAYHILL DR EUCLID AVE San Bruno 6.41 0.01 10.79 11.19 10.99 0 0 36 11 36 0 0 83 1 55 9737 EUCLID AVE W SAN BRUNO AVE San Bruno 6.42 0.14 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 12 36 17 36 0 10 121 1 56 9794 W SAN BRUNO AVE KAINS AVE (N) San Bruno 6.56 0.11 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 17 36 12 0 111 1 57 9816 KAINS AVE (N) KAINS AVE (S) San Bruno 6.68 0.04 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 11 36 0 0 93 1 58 10417 KAINS AVE (S) W ANGUS AVE (N) San Bruno 6.72 0.10 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1 59 10494 W ANGUS AVE (N) W ANGUS AVE (S) San Bruno 6.81 0.03 10.79 11.19 10.99 0 0 36 11 36 0 10 93 1 60 10724 W ANGUS AVE (S) SYLVAN AVE San Bruno 6.84 0.13 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1 61 10793 SYLVAN AVE JENEVEIN AVE San Bruno 6.97 0.05 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 12 36 11 36 0 10 115 1 62 22377 JENEVEIN AVE TAYLOR AVE San Bruno 7.02 0.15 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 17 36 0 10 109 1 63 25099 TAYLOR AVE CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD San Bruno 7.17 0.07 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1 64 10796 CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD CHAPMAN AVE San Bruno 7.24 0.06 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 65 10438 CHAPMAN AVE SAN FELIPE AVE San Bruno 7.30 0.14 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 66 10515 SAN FELIPE AVE SAN LUIS AVE San Bruno 7.44 0.06 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 67 10558 SAN LUIS AVE SAN MARCO AVE San Bruno 7.50 0.07 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX I - ECR BRT - BUS LANE MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 6 of 12

Memorandum

Evaluation Criteria (A Block Segment Meeting the Criteria Receives a “1”) BLOCK-TO-BLOCK SEGMENT (SOUTHBOUND DIRECTION) AVG. TRANSIT TRAVEL SPEED RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH (FT) Crit. 1 Crit. 2 Crit. 3 Crit. 4 Crit. 5 Crit. 6 Crit. 7 Feasible as Travel Lane Not Width (At Not Proposed Avg. SB Bus Avg. NB Feasible as Least 24 Proposed due to Low Travel Bus Travel Avg. SB NB NB Right- Feasible as Not SB Right- Average NB TOTAL Feasible as Median + Feet of as Street Level of Block Speed Speed Segment SB Parking Through Through Turn NB + SB Proposed # Block ID FROM TO City Milepost Turn Lane Median Parking ROW Median > NB + SB Lanes is Fronting Existing Length (based on (based on Bus Travel Width Lanes Lanes Lanes Parking > as Isolated Width Width Width WIDTH 24.0 feet Parking > Maintaine Retail Congestion 2014 ECR 2014 ECR Speed Width Width Width 24.0 feet Segment 24.0 feet d in Each Requiring (based on Schedule) Schedule) Direction If Parking 2014 ECR GP Lanes Schedule) Need to Be Narrowed) 68 10610 SAN MARCO AVE SANTA DOMINGO AVE San Bruno 7.57 0.05 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 8.5 36 0 10 100.5 1 69 10633 SANTA DOMINGO AVE SANTA LUCIA AVE (N) San Bruno 7.62 0.02 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1 70 10642 SANTA LUCIA AVE (N) SANTA LUCIA AVE (S) San Bruno 7.64 0.04 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 71 10675 SANTA LUCIA AVE (S) SAN BENITO AVE Millbrae 7.68 0.05 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1 72 10709 SAN BENITO AVE SANTA INEZ AVE Millbrae 7.73 0.04 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 73 10749 SANTA INEZ AVE SANTA CLARA AVE Millbrae 7.78 0.06 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 74 10810 SANTA CLARA AVE SAN DIEGO AVE Millbrae 7.84 0.06 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 75 10818 SAN DIEGO AVE SANTA MARIA AVE Millbrae 7.89 0.04 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 76 10855 SANTA MARIA AVE SANTA HELENA AVE Millbrae 7.94 0.06 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 77 19022 SANTA HELENA AVE CAPUCHINO DR Millbrae 7.99 0.03 10.79 11.19 10.99 0 0 36 5 36 0 10 87 1 78 18789 CAPUCHINO DR SAN JUAN AVE Millbrae 8.02 0.03 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 79 7651 SAN JUAN AVE MILLWOOD DR Millbrae 8.05 0.03 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1 80 7650 MILLWOOD DR LUDEMAN LN Millbrae 8.09 0.16 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 17 36 0 10 109 1 81 7620 LUDEMAN LN CENTER ST Millbrae 8.25 0.07 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 17 36 0 10 109 1 82 24620 CENTER ST MEADOW GLEN AVE Millbrae 8.32 0.17 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 17 36 0 10 109 1 83 7618 MEADOW GLEN AVE MATEO AVE Millbrae 8.49 0.13 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 84 7617 MATEO AVE SILVA AVE Millbrae 8.62 0.05 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 85 24619 SILVA AVE HERMOSA AVE Millbrae 8.67 0.05 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 86 7616 HERMOSA AVE TAYLOR BLVD Millbrae 8.72 0.05 10.79 11.19 10.99 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1 87 7615 TAYLOR BLVD E HILLCREST BLVD Millbrae 8.78 0.09 10.79 11.19 10.99 0 0 36 17 36 0 10 99 1 88 7614 E HILLCREST BLVD LA CRUZ AVE Millbrae 8.87 0.07 10.79 11.19 10.99 0 0 36 11 36 0 10 93 1 89 7613 LA CRUZ AVE VICTORIA AVE Millbrae 8.94 0.10 10.79 11.19 10.99 0 0 36 11 36 0 10 93 1 90 7611 VICTORIA AVE CHADBOURNE AVE Millbrae 9.04 0.10 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 36 11 36 0 10 93 1 91 906 CHADBOURNE AVE LINDEN AVE Millbrae 9.14 0.03 13.16 11.90 12.53 10 0 36 5 36 0 0 87 1 92 7610 LINDEN AVE MILLBRAE AVE Millbrae 9.17 0.05 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 36 17 36 0 0 89 1 93 7707 MILLBRAE AVE MURCHISON DR Millbrae 9.22 0.16 13.16 11.90 12.53 10 12 36 17 36 12 0 123 1 94 3532 MURCHISON DR TROUSDALE DR Burlingame 9.37 0.20 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 12 36 17 36 12 0 113 1 95 3583 TROUSDALE DR FRONTAGE RD Burlingame 9.58 0.18 13.16 11.90 12.53 10 0 36 11 36 12 10 115 1 96 3584 FRONTAGE RD DUFFERIN AVE Burlingame 9.75 0.03 13.16 11.90 12.53 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 97 3585 DUFFERIN AVE ROSEDALE AVE Burlingame 9.78 0.18 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 5 36 0 10 75 1 98 3529 ROSEDALE AVE ADELINE DR Burlingame 9.96 0.20 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 10 58 99 2575 ADELINE DR CAMBRIDGE RD Burlingame 10.17 0.02 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 100 3278 CAMBRIDGE RD MILLS AVE Burlingame 10.19 0.08 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 101 3279 MILLS AVE HILLSIDE DR Burlingame 10.27 0.10 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 102 3251 HILLSIDE DR GROVE AVE Burlingame 10.37 0.06 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 103 3280 GROVE AVE EASTON DR Burlingame 10.42 0.10 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 104 3281 EASTON DR LINCOLN AVE Burlingame 10.52 0.05 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 105 23030 LINCOLN AVE SHERMAN AVE Burlingame 10.58 0.06 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 106 3276 SHERMAN AVE BROADWAY Burlingame 10.63 0.12 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 107 3277 BROADWAY CARMELITA AVE Burlingame 10.75 0.15 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 12 0 60 108 3015 CARMELITA AVE SANCHEZ AVE (N) Burlingame 10.90 0.13 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 109 3239 SANCHEZ AVE (N) SANCHEZ AVE (S) Burlingame 11.03 0.03 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 110 3593 SANCHEZ AVE (S) EDGEHILL DR Burlingame 11.05 0.04 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 111 3592 EDGEHILL DR FOREST VIEW AVE Burlingame 11.09 0.03 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 112 3591 FOREST VIEW AVE PALM DR Burlingame 11.13 0.09 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX I - ECR BRT - BUS LANE MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 7 of 12

Memorandum

Evaluation Criteria (A Block Segment Meeting the Criteria Receives a “1”) BLOCK-TO-BLOCK SEGMENT (SOUTHBOUND DIRECTION) AVG. TRANSIT TRAVEL SPEED RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH (FT) Crit. 1 Crit. 2 Crit. 3 Crit. 4 Crit. 5 Crit. 6 Crit. 7 Feasible as Travel Lane Not Width (At Not Proposed Avg. SB Bus Avg. NB Feasible as Least 24 Proposed due to Low Travel Bus Travel Avg. SB NB NB Right- Feasible as Not SB Right- Average NB TOTAL Feasible as Median + Feet of as Street Level of Block Speed Speed Segment SB Parking Through Through Turn NB + SB Proposed # Block ID FROM TO City Milepost Turn Lane Median Parking ROW Median > NB + SB Lanes is Fronting Existing Length (based on (based on Bus Travel Width Lanes Lanes Lanes Parking > as Isolated Width Width Width WIDTH 24.0 feet Parking > Maintaine Retail Congestion 2014 ECR 2014 ECR Speed Width Width Width 24.0 feet Segment 24.0 feet d in Each Requiring (based on Schedule) Schedule) Direction If Parking 2014 ECR GP Lanes Schedule) Need to Be Narrowed) 113 3590 PALM DR ARC WAY Burlingame 11.21 0.01 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 114 3561 ARC WAY WILLOW AVE Burlingame 11.23 0.08 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 115 3560 WILLOW AVE FAIRFIELD RD Burlingame 11.31 0.07 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 116 3559 FAIRFIELD RD OAK GROVE AVE Burlingame 11.38 0.04 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 117 3558 OAK GROVE AVE FLORIBUNDA AVE Burlingame 11.42 0.06 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 118 24398 FLORIBUNDA AVE BELLEVUE AVE Burlingame/Hillsborough 11.48 0.17 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 119 21769 BELLEVUE AVE CHAPIN AVE Burlingame 11.65 0.08 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 120 3421 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME AVE Burlingame 11.72 0.07 13.16 11.90 12.53 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 121 3447 BURLINGAME AVE RALSTON AVE Burlingame 11.80 0.07 10.35 11.37 10.86 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 122 3448 RALSTON AVE HOWARD AVE Burlingame 11.87 0.06 10.35 11.37 10.86 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 123 3449 HOWARD AVE NEWLANDS AVE Burlingame 11.93 0.07 10.35 11.37 10.86 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 124 3450 NEWLANDS AVE BAYSWATER AVE Burlingame 12.01 0.07 10.35 11.37 10.86 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 125 3422 BAYSWATER AVE PENINSULA AVE Burlingame 12.07 0.14 10.35 11.37 10.86 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 126 348 PENINSULA AVE BARROILHET AVE San Mateo 12.21 0.05 10.35 11.37 10.86 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 127 18834 BARROILHET AVE WARREN RD San Mateo 12.26 0.04 10.35 11.37 10.86 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 128 11104 WARREN RD STATE ST San Mateo 12.31 0.06 10.35 11.37 10.86 0 0 24 0 24 0 10 58 129 11099 STATE ST ST JOHN CT San Mateo 12.36 0.04 10.35 11.37 10.86 0 0 24 0 24 0 10 58 130 11048 ST JOHN CT CLARK DR San Mateo 12.40 0.08 10.35 11.37 10.86 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 131 11595 CLARK DR BELLEVUE AVE San Mateo 12.49 0.10 10.35 11.37 10.86 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 132 11532 BELLEVUE AVE HILLTOP RD San Mateo 12.59 0.06 10.35 11.37 10.86 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 133 11491 HILLTOP RD POPLAR AVE San Mateo 12.65 0.09 10.35 11.37 10.86 10 0 24 6 24 0 0 64 134 11444 POPLAR AVE ENGLE RD San Mateo 12.74 0.04 10.35 11.37 10.86 0 0 24 6 24 0 0 54 135 11437 ENGLE RD W SANTA INEZ AVE San Mateo 12.78 0.03 10.35 11.37 10.86 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 136 11396 W SANTA INEZ AVE E SANTA INEZ AVE San Mateo 12.81 0.04 10.35 11.37 10.86 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 137 11385 E SANTA INEZ AVE CHESTERTON PL San Mateo 12.84 0.06 10.35 11.37 10.86 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 48 138 11282 CHESTERTON PL MONTE DIABLO AVE San Mateo 12.91 0.06 10.35 11.37 10.86 10 0 24 0 24 0 10 68 139 11144 MONTE DIABLO AVE EL CERRITO AVE San Mateo 12.97 0.13 10.35 11.37 10.86 10 0 24 0 24 0 10 68 140 18545 EL CERRITO AVE ST MATTHEWS AVE San Mateo 13.09 0.09 10.35 11.37 10.86 10 0 24 0 24 0 10 68 141 18554 ST MATTHEWS AVE BALDWIN AVE San Mateo 13.18 0.06 10.35 11.37 10.86 10 0 24 0 24 0 10 68 142 11575 BALDWIN AVE BAYWOOD AVE San Mateo 13.25 0.08 10.35 11.37 10.86 10 0 24 0 24 0 10 68 143 11521 BAYWOOD AVE 2ND AVE San Mateo 13.32 0.06 10.35 11.37 10.86 10 0 24 12 24 0 10 80 1 144 11473 2ND AVE ARROYO CT San Mateo 13.39 0.03 10.35 11.37 10.86 10 0 24 5 24 12 10 85 1 145 11426 ARROYO CT 3RD AVE San Mateo 13.42 0.03 10.35 11.37 10.86 0 0 24 11 36 0 0 71 1 146 11380 3RD AVE 4TH AVE San Mateo 13.45 0.07 10.35 11.37 10.86 0 0 36 17 36 0 0 89 1 147 11370 4TH AVE 5TH AVE San Mateo 13.52 0.06 11.30 11.78 11.54 0 0 36 17 36 0 0 89 1 148 11325 5TH AVE MISSION DR San Mateo 13.57 0.08 11.30 11.78 11.54 0 0 36 11 36 0 0 83 1 149 11272 MISSION DR NOTRE DAME AVE San Mateo 13.65 0.12 11.30 11.78 11.54 10 0 36 4 36 0 10 96 1 150 11232 NOTRE DAME AVE 9TH AVE San Mateo 13.78 0.02 11.30 11.78 11.54 0 0 36 6 36 0 0 78 1 151 11221 9TH AVE HAYWARD AVE San Mateo 13.80 0.09 11.30 11.78 11.54 0 0 36 4.5 36 0 0 76.5 1 152 11173 HAYWARD AVE 10TH AVE San Mateo 13.89 0.09 11.30 11.78 11.54 10 0 36 2 36 0 10 94 1 153 11131 10TH AVE 11TH AVE San Mateo 13.98 0.06 11.30 11.78 11.54 10 0 36 2 36 0 10 94 1 154 11081 11TH AVE 12TH AVE San Mateo 14.03 0.06 11.30 11.78 11.54 10 0 36 2 36 0 10 94 1 155 11029 12TH AVE 13TH AVE San Mateo 14.09 0.06 11.30 11.78 11.54 10 0 36 2 36 0 10 94 1 156 11026 13TH AVE MADISON AVE San Mateo 14.15 0.01 11.30 11.78 11.54 0 0 36 0 36 0 0 72 1 157 1561 MADISON AVE 14TH AVE San Mateo 14.16 0.05 11.30 11.78 11.54 10 0 36 4 36 0 10 96 1

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX I - ECR BRT - BUS LANE MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 8 of 12

Memorandum

Evaluation Criteria (A Block Segment Meeting the Criteria Receives a “1”) BLOCK-TO-BLOCK SEGMENT (SOUTHBOUND DIRECTION) AVG. TRANSIT TRAVEL SPEED RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH (FT) Crit. 1 Crit. 2 Crit. 3 Crit. 4 Crit. 5 Crit. 6 Crit. 7 Feasible as Travel Lane Not Width (At Not Proposed Avg. SB Bus Avg. NB Feasible as Least 24 Proposed due to Low Travel Bus Travel Avg. SB NB NB Right- Feasible as Not SB Right- Average NB TOTAL Feasible as Median + Feet of as Street Level of Block Speed Speed Segment SB Parking Through Through Turn NB + SB Proposed # Block ID FROM TO City Milepost Turn Lane Median Parking ROW Median > NB + SB Lanes is Fronting Existing Length (based on (based on Bus Travel Width Lanes Lanes Lanes Parking > as Isolated Width Width Width WIDTH 24.0 feet Parking > Maintaine Retail Congestion 2014 ECR 2014 ECR Speed Width Width Width 24.0 feet Segment 24.0 feet d in Each Requiring (based on Schedule) Schedule) Direction If Parking 2014 ECR GP Lanes Schedule) Need to Be Narrowed) 158 19126 14TH AVE BARNESON AVE San Mateo 14.21 0.02 11.30 11.78 11.54 10 0 36 4 36 0 10 96 1 159 19122 BARNESON AVE 15TH AVE San Mateo 14.24 0.04 11.30 11.78 11.54 10 0 36 4 36 0 10 96 1 160 19111 15TH AVE 16TH AVE San Mateo 14.28 0.06 11.30 11.78 11.54 10 0 36 4 36 0 10 96 1 161 19103 16TH AVE BOREL AVE San Mateo 14.34 0.06 11.30 11.78 11.54 10 0 36 4 36 0 10 96 1 162 19100 BOREL AVE 17TH AVE San Mateo 14.40 0.04 11.30 11.78 11.54 0 0 36 12 36 0 0 84 1 163 19087 17TH AVE STATE HIGHWAY 92 San Mateo 14.44 0.08 11.30 11.78 11.54 0 0 36 11 36 0 0 83 1 STATE HIGHWAY 92 WB STATE HIGHWAY 92 WB 11.30 11.78 11.54 164 19080 San Mateo SLIP RAMPS LOOP RAMPS 14.52 0.09 0 0 36 5 36 0 0 77 1 STATE HIGHWAY 92 WB STATE HIGHWAY 92 EB 11.30 11.78 11.54 165 20080 San Mateo LOOP RAMPS LOOP RAMPS 14.61 0.01 0 0 36 5 36 0 0 77 1 STATE HIGHWAY 92 EB STATE HIGHWAY 92 EB SLIP 11.30 11.78 11.54 166 25531 San Mateo LOOP RAMPS RAMPS 14.62 0.08 0 0 36 5 36 0 0 77 1 167 19787 STATE HIGHWAY 92 W 20TH AVE San Mateo 14.70 0.09 11.30 11.78 11.54 0 0 36 11 36 0 0 83 1 168 19727 W 20TH AVE 21ST AVE San Mateo 14.79 0.07 11.30 11.78 11.54 0 0 36 11 36 0 0 83 1 169 19686 21ST AVE LODATO AVE San Mateo 14.86 0.03 11.30 11.78 11.54 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1 170 19631 LODATO AVE 22ND AVE San Mateo 14.90 0.07 11.30 11.78 11.54 10 0 36 4 36 0 10 96 1 171 19591 22ND AVE 23RD AVE San Mateo 14.97 0.06 11.30 11.78 11.54 10 0 36 4 36 0 10 96 1 172 19538 23RD AVE 24TH AVE San Mateo 15.04 0.07 11.30 11.78 11.54 10 0 36 4 36 0 10 96 1 173 19483 24TH AVE E 25TH AVE San Mateo 15.10 0.04 11.30 11.78 11.54 10 0 36 8 36 0 10 100 1 174 19441 E 25TH AVE W 25TH AVE San Mateo 15.14 0.02 11.30 11.78 11.54 0 0 36 0 36 0 0 72 1 175 19375 W 25TH AVE 27TH AVE San Mateo 15.16 0.16 11.30 11.78 11.54 10 0 36 14.5 36 0 10 107 1 176 19323 27TH AVE 28TH AVE San Mateo 15.31 0.08 11.30 11.78 11.54 0 0 36 12 36 0 0 84 1 177 25216 28TH AVE 31ST AVE San Mateo 15.39 0.23 11.30 11.78 11.54 0 0 48 17 36 0 0 101 1 178 19583 31ST AVE W HILLSDALE BLVD San Mateo 15.62 0.20 11.30 11.78 11.54 0 12 36 23 48 0 0 119 1 179 19359 W HILLSDALE BLVD 36TH AVE San Mateo 15.82 0.18 12.88 12.14 12.51 0 0 36 17 36 12 0 101 1 180 19309 36TH AVE 37TH AVE San Mateo 16.01 0.06 12.88 12.14 12.51 10 0 36 17 24 0 10 97 1 181 19039 37TH AVE W 38TH AVE San Mateo 16.06 0.09 12.88 12.14 12.51 10 0 36 12 24 0 10 92 1 182 19759 W 38TH AVE W 39TH AVE San Mateo 16.15 0.06 12.88 12.14 12.51 10 0 36 12 24 0 10 92 1 183 19560 W 39TH AVE 41ST AVE San Mateo 16.22 0.19 12.88 12.14 12.51 10 0 36 8.5 24 0 10 89 1 184 19462 41ST AVE 42ND AVE San Mateo 16.41 0.06 12.88 12.14 12.51 0 0 36 12 24 0 0 72 1 185 22287 42ND AVE 43RD AVE San Mateo 16.47 0.08 12.88 12.14 12.51 0 0 36 12 24 12 0 84 1 186 19246 43RD AVE NORTH RD San Mateo/Belmont 16.56 0.04 12.88 12.14 12.51 0 0 24 5 24 0 0 53 187 231 NORTH RD RUTH AVE Belmont 16.60 0.05 12.88 12.14 12.51 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 188 129 RUTH AVE ANITA AVE Belmont 16.65 0.06 12.88 12.14 12.51 10 0 36 11 24 0 10 91 1 1 189 23122 ANITA AVE BELMONT AVE Belmont 16.70 0.08 12.88 12.14 12.51 10 0 24 17 24 0 10 85 1 1 190 242 BELMONT AVE DAVEY GLEN RD Belmont 16.78 0.09 12.88 12.14 12.51 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 191 24225 DAVEY GLEN RD MIDDLE RD Belmont 16.87 0.44 12.88 12.14 12.51 10 0 24 17 24 0 10 85 1 1 192 2162 MIDDLE RD HILL ST Belmont 17.31 0.07 12.88 12.14 12.51 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 193 2305 HILL ST FLASHNER LN Belmont 17.38 0.05 12.88 12.14 12.51 10 0 24 5 24 0 10 73 1 1 194 2410 FLASHNER LN RALSTON AVE Belmont 17.43 0.05 12.88 12.14 12.51 0 12 24 11 24 0 0 71 195 1962 RALSTON AVE EMMETT AVE Belmont 17.48 0.06 13.33 11.82 12.57 10 0 24 11 24 12 10 81 1 1 196 2024 EMMETT AVE WALTERMIRE ST Belmont 17.54 0.05 13.33 11.82 12.57 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 197 2074 WALTERMIRE ST ONEILL AVE Belmont 17.59 0.05 13.33 11.82 12.57 0 0 24 17 24 0 0 65 198 2222 ONEILL AVE BROADWAY Belmont 17.65 0.11 13.33 11.82 12.57 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 199 2267 BROADWAY HARBOR BLVD (N) Belmont 17.75 0.04 13.33 11.82 12.57 10 0 24 17 24 0 10 85 1 1

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX I - ECR BRT - BUS LANE MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 9 of 12

Memorandum

Evaluation Criteria (A Block Segment Meeting the Criteria Receives a “1”) BLOCK-TO-BLOCK SEGMENT (SOUTHBOUND DIRECTION) AVG. TRANSIT TRAVEL SPEED RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH (FT) Crit. 1 Crit. 2 Crit. 3 Crit. 4 Crit. 5 Crit. 6 Crit. 7 Feasible as Travel Lane Not Width (At Not Proposed Avg. SB Bus Avg. NB Feasible as Least 24 Proposed due to Low Travel Bus Travel Avg. SB NB NB Right- Feasible as Not SB Right- Average NB TOTAL Feasible as Median + Feet of as Street Level of Block Speed Speed Segment SB Parking Through Through Turn NB + SB Proposed # Block ID FROM TO City Milepost Turn Lane Median Parking ROW Median > NB + SB Lanes is Fronting Existing Length (based on (based on Bus Travel Width Lanes Lanes Lanes Parking > as Isolated Width Width Width WIDTH 24.0 feet Parking > Maintaine Retail Congestion 2014 ECR 2014 ECR Speed Width Width Width 24.0 feet Segment 24.0 feet d in Each Requiring (based on Schedule) Schedule) Direction If Parking 2014 ECR GP Lanes Schedule) Need to Be Narrowed) 200 2366 HARBOR BLVD (N) HARBOR BLVD (S) Belmont 17.79 0.07 13.33 11.82 12.57 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 201 1827 HARBOR BLVD (S) 5TH AVE Belmont/San Carlos 17.86 0.21 13.33 11.82 12.57 10 0 24 17 24 0 10 85 1 1 202 1845 5TH AVE F ST San Carlos 18.08 0.04 13.33 11.82 12.57 0 0 24 11 24 0 0 59 203 2627 F ST SPRING ST San Carlos 18.12 0.05 13.33 11.82 12.57 10 0 36 11 24 0 10 91 1 1 204 23049 SPRING ST HULL DR San Carlos 18.17 0.10 13.33 11.82 12.57 10 0 36 17 24 0 10 97 1 1 205 2674 HULL DR OAK ST San Carlos 18.27 0.13 13.33 11.82 12.57 10 0 24 17 24 0 10 85 1 1 206 2880 OAK ST BUSH ST San Carlos 18.40 0.14 13.33 11.82 12.57 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 207 2936 BUSH ST HOLLY ST San Carlos 18.54 0.06 13.33 11.82 12.57 0 0 24 17 24 0 0 65 208 2725 HOLLY ST SAN CARLOS AVE San Carlos 18.61 0.13 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 12 24 17 24 24 10 101 1 209 11650 SAN CARLOS AVE CHERRY ST San Carlos 18.73 0.12 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 0 36 11 24 0 10 91 1 210 11690 CHERRY ST OLIVE ST San Carlos 18.86 0.14 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 0 36 11 24 0 10 91 1 211 12457 OLIVE ST ARROYO AVE San Carlos 19.00 0.12 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 0 36 17 24 0 10 97 1 212 12603 ARROYO AVE MORSE BLVD San Carlos 19.12 0.12 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 0 36 11 24 0 10 91 1 213 12750 MORSE BLVD BRITTAN AVE San Carlos 19.24 0.12 11.36 13.24 12.30 0 0 36 18 24 0 0 78 1 214 12509 BRITTAN AVE GREENWOOD AVE San Carlos 19.36 0.13 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 0 36 6 24 12 10 88 1 215 12614 GREENWOOD AVE HOWARD AVE San Carlos 19.48 0.06 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 0 36 8 24 0 10 88 1 216 12404 HOWARD AVE BELMONT AVE San Carlos 19.54 0.11 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 0 36 8 24 12 10 90 1 217 12556 BELMONT AVE WHITE OAK WAY San Carlos 19.65 0.09 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 0 36 11 24 0 10 91 1 218 12735 WHITE OAK WAY CENTRAL AVE San Carlos 19.74 0.09 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 0 36 11 24 0 10 91 1 219 12413 CENTRAL AVE FRANCIS WAY San Carlos 19.83 0.09 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 0 36 11 24 0 10 91 1 220 12636 FRANCIS WAY EATON AVE San Carlos 19.92 0.07 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 0 36 11 24 0 10 91 1 221 9937 EATON AVE FINGER AVE San Carlos 19.99 0.07 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 0 36 5 24 0 10 85 1 222 9987 FINGER AVE AVONDALE AVE San Carlos/Redwood City 20.07 0.07 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 0 36 11 24 0 10 91 1 223 10027 AVONDALE AVE EDGEWOOD RD Redwood City 20.13 0.07 11.36 13.24 12.30 0 0 36 11 24 0 0 71 1 224 24802 EDGEWOOD RD CLAREMONT AVE Redwood City 20.20 0.07 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 0 24 17 24 0 10 85 1 225 10134 CLAREMONT AVE WHIPPLE AVE Redwood City 20.27 0.08 11.36 13.24 12.30 0 0 24 17 24 0 0 65 226 10245 WHIPPLE AVE HOPKINS AVE Redwood City 20.35 0.14 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 12 24 17 24 12 10 89 1 1 227 17019 HOPKINS AVE BREWSTER AVE Redwood City 20.50 0.16 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 12 24 17 24 0 10 87 1 1 228 17179 BREWSTER AVE BROADWAY Redwood City 20.66 0.09 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 12 24 11 24 12 10 83 1 1 229 17291 BROADWAY WINKLEBLECK ST Redwood City 20.75 0.06 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 0 24 11 24 12 10 81 1 1 230 16839 WINKLEBLECK ST JAMES AVE Redwood City 20.81 0.10 11.36 13.24 12.30 10 12 24 11 24 0 10 81 1 1 231 17036 JAMES AVE HARRISON AVE Redwood City 20.90 0.12 12.14 9.76 10.95 10 0 24 11 24 12 10 81 1 1 232 17202 HARRISON AVE JEFFERSON AVE Redwood City 21.02 0.07 12.14 9.76 10.95 0 12 24 11 24 0 0 71 233 17305 JEFFERSON AVE WILSON AVE Redwood City 21.09 0.05 12.14 9.76 10.95 10 0 36 11 24 12 10 93 1 1 234 17310 WILSON AVE JACKSON AVE Redwood City 21.14 0.01 12.14 9.76 10.95 0 0 24 5 24 12 0 65 235 16754 JACKSON AVE DILLER ST Redwood City 21.15 0.04 12.14 9.76 10.95 10 0 24 5 24 0 10 73 1 1 236 16796 DILLER ST MADISON AVE Redwood City 21.19 0.03 12.14 9.76 10.95 10 0 24 11 24 12 10 81 1 1 237 16856 MADISON AVE VERA AVE Redwood City 21.22 0.09 12.14 9.76 10.95 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 238 17050 VERA AVE MAPLE ST Redwood City 21.31 0.03 12.14 9.76 10.95 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 239 17107 MAPLE ST BEECH ST Redwood City 21.34 0.02 12.14 9.76 10.95 10 0 24 11 24 12 10 81 1 1 240 17157 BEECH ST LINCOLN AVE Redwood City 21.37 0.02 12.14 9.76 10.95 0 12 24 0 24 0 0 60 241 17262 LINCOLN AVE CEDAR ST Redwood City 21.38 0.05 12.14 9.76 10.95 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 242 17328 CEDAR ST ROOSEVELT AVE Redwood City 21.43 0.03 12.14 9.76 10.95 0 12 24 11 24 0 0 71 243 25452 ROOSEVELT AVE LATHROP ST Redwood City 21.46 0.10 12.14 9.76 10.95 10 0 24 11 24 0 10 79 1 1 244 16651 LATHROP ST OAK AVE Redwood City 21.56 0.05 12.14 9.76 10.95 0 0 36 11 24 0 0 71 1 1

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX I - ECR BRT - BUS LANE MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 10 of 12

Memorandum

Evaluation Criteria (A Block Segment Meeting the Criteria Receives a “1”) BLOCK-TO-BLOCK SEGMENT (SOUTHBOUND DIRECTION) AVG. TRANSIT TRAVEL SPEED RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH (FT) Crit. 1 Crit. 2 Crit. 3 Crit. 4 Crit. 5 Crit. 6 Crit. 7 Feasible as Travel Lane Not Width (At Not Proposed Avg. SB Bus Avg. NB Feasible as Least 24 Proposed due to Low Travel Bus Travel Avg. SB NB NB Right- Feasible as Not SB Right- Average NB TOTAL Feasible as Median + Feet of as Street Level of Block Speed Speed Segment SB Parking Through Through Turn NB + SB Proposed # Block ID FROM TO City Milepost Turn Lane Median Parking ROW Median > NB + SB Lanes is Fronting Existing Length (based on (based on Bus Travel Width Lanes Lanes Lanes Parking > as Isolated Width Width Width WIDTH 24.0 feet Parking > Maintaine Retail Congestion 2014 ECR 2014 ECR Speed Width Width Width 24.0 feet Segment 24.0 feet d in Each Requiring (based on Schedule) Schedule) Direction If Parking 2014 ECR GP Lanes Schedule) Need to Be Narrowed) 245 16716 OAK AVE REDWOOD AVE Redwood City 21.61 0.09 12.14 9.76 10.95 0 12 24 11 24 0 0 71 246 18974 REDWOOD AVE MANZANITA ST Redwood City 21.70 0.05 12.14 9.76 10.95 0 0 36 5 24 12 0 77 1 1 247 17580 MANZANITA ST LAUREL ST Redwood City 21.75 0.05 12.14 9.76 10.95 0 0 36 5 36 0 0 77 1 1 248 17664 LAUREL ST HAZEL AVE Redwood City 21.79 0.03 12.14 9.76 10.95 0 0 36 5 36 0 0 77 1 1 249 17668 HAZEL AVE WILLOW ST Redwood City 21.83 0.02 12.14 9.76 10.95 0 0 36 5 36 0 0 77 1 1 250 17753 WILLOW ST HEMLOCK AVE Redwood City 21.84 0.03 12.14 9.76 10.95 0 0 36 5 36 0 0 77 1 1 251 23139 HEMLOCK AVE CHARTER ST Redwood City 21.88 0.04 12.14 9.76 10.95 0 0 36 11 36 0 0 83 1 1 252 17346 CHARTER ST CENTER ST Redwood City 21.92 0.09 12.14 9.76 10.95 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 1 253 17683 CENTER ST NORTHUMBERLAND AVE Redwood City 22.00 0.10 12.14 9.76 10.95 10 0 36 17 36 12 10 111 1 1 Redwood City/North Fair 12.14 9.76 10.95 254 17852 NORTHUMBERLAND AVE NOTTINGHAM AVE Oaks (Unincorporated) 22.10 0.05 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1 1 Redwood City/North Fair 12.14 9.76 10.95 255 17947 NOTTINGHAM AVE CARLOS AVE Oaks (Unincorporated) 22.16 0.03 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1 1 Redwood City/North Fair 12.14 9.76 10.95 256 17989 CARLOS AVE BUCKINGHAM AVE Oaks (Unincorporated) 22.19 0.02 0 0 36 5 36 0 0 77 1 1 Redwood City/North Fair 12.14 9.76 10.95 257 17777 BUCKINGHAM AVE DUMBARTON AVE Oaks (Unincorporated) 22.21 0.12 0 0 36 11 36 0 0 83 1 1 Redwood City/North Fair 12.14 9.76 10.95 258 17361 DUMBARTON AVE RENATO CT Oaks (Unincorporated) 22.33 0.07 0 0 36 11 36 0 0 83 1 1 Redwood City/North Fair 12.14 9.76 10.95 259 17619 RENATO CT BERKSHIRE AVE Oaks (Unincorporated) 22.40 0.07 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1 1 North Fair Oaks 12.14 9.76 10.95 260 17878 BERKSHIRE AVE SELBY LN (Unincorporated)/ Atherton 22.47 0.08 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 1 North Fair Oaks 12.14 9.76 10.95 261 17392 SELBY LN COLUMBIA AVE (Unincorporated)/ Atherton 22.56 0.07 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 1 North Fair Oaks 12.14 9.76 10.95 262 17432 COLUMBIA AVE 5TH AVE (Unincorporated)/ Atherton 22.63 0.06 10 0 36 17 36 0 10 109 1 1 North Fair Oaks 14.84 15.09 14.97 263 18156 5TH AVE AMHERST AVE (Unincorporated)/ Atherton 22.68 0.08 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1 1 North Fair Oaks 14.84 15.09 14.97 264 22614 AMHERST AVE STOCKBRIDGE AVE (Unincorporated)/ Atherton 22.76 0.02 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1 1 North Fair Oaks 14.84 15.09 14.97 265 22615 STOCKBRIDGE AVE LOYOLA AVE (Unincorporated)/ Atherton 22.79 0.06 10 0 36 17 36 0 10 109 1 1 North Fair Oaks 14.84 15.09 14.97 266 209 LOYOLA AVE WILBURN AVE (Unincorporated)/ Atherton 22.85 0.08 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1 1 267 23121 WILBURN AVE ALMENDRAL AVE Atherton 22.93 0.06 14.84 15.09 14.97 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1 1 268 1145 ALMENDRAL AVE LLOYDEN DR Atherton 22.99 0.11 14.84 15.09 14.97 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 1 269 23106 LLOYDEN DR TUSCALOOSA AVE Atherton 23.10 0.04 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 0 36 5 36 0 0 77 1 1 270 1440 TUSCALOOSA AVE REDWOOD WAY Atherton 23.14 0.07 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 0 36 17 36 0 0 89 1 1 271 1441 REDWOOD WAY ATHERTON AVE Atherton 23.21 0.05 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 0 36 11 36 0 0 83 1 1

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX I - ECR BRT - BUS LANE MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 11 of 12

Memorandum

Evaluation Criteria (A Block Segment Meeting the Criteria Receives a “1”) BLOCK-TO-BLOCK SEGMENT (SOUTHBOUND DIRECTION) AVG. TRANSIT TRAVEL SPEED RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH (FT) Crit. 1 Crit. 2 Crit. 3 Crit. 4 Crit. 5 Crit. 6 Crit. 7 Feasible as Travel Lane Not Width (At Not Proposed Avg. SB Bus Avg. NB Feasible as Least 24 Proposed due to Low Travel Bus Travel Avg. SB NB NB Right- Feasible as Not SB Right- Average NB TOTAL Feasible as Median + Feet of as Street Level of Block Speed Speed Segment SB Parking Through Through Turn NB + SB Proposed # Block ID FROM TO City Milepost Turn Lane Median Parking ROW Median > NB + SB Lanes is Fronting Existing Length (based on (based on Bus Travel Width Lanes Lanes Lanes Parking > as Isolated Width Width Width WIDTH 24.0 feet Parking > Maintaine Retail Congestion 2014 ECR 2014 ECR Speed Width Width Width 24.0 feet Segment 24.0 feet d in Each Requiring (based on Schedule) Schedule) Direction If Parking 2014 ECR GP Lanes Schedule) Need to Be Narrowed) 272 1442 ATHERTON AVE FAIR OAKS LN Atherton 23.27 0.03 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 0 36 0 36 0 0 72 1 1 273 23794 FAIR OAKS LN ASHFIELD RD Atherton 23.29 0.10 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 0 36 17 36 0 0 89 1 1 274 1446 ASHFIELD RD MAPLE AVE Atherton 23.39 0.07 14.84 15.09 14.97 10 0 36 17 36 0 10 109 1 1 275 23795 MAPLE AVE WALNUT AVE Atherton 23.46 0.06 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 0 36 17 36 0 0 89 1 1 276 1448 WALNUT AVE ISABELLA AVE Atherton 23.52 0.02 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 0 36 5 36 0 0 77 1 1 277 1449 ISABELLA AVE WATKINS AVE Atherton 23.54 0.04 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 0 36 17 36 0 0 89 1 1 278 15781 WATKINS AVE SPRUCE AVE Atherton/Menlo Park 23.58 0.06 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 0 36 11 36 0 0 83 1 1 279 15328 SPRUCE AVE BUCKTHORN WAY Atherton/Menlo Park 23.64 0.06 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 0 36 11 24 12 0 83 1 1 280 15677 BUCKTHORN WAY ALEJANDRA AVE Atherton/Menlo Park 23.70 0.07 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 0 36 5 24 0 0 65 1 1 281 15325 ALEJANDRA AVE STONE PINE LN Atherton/Menlo Park 23.77 0.04 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 0 36 11 24 0 0 71 1 1 282 15327 STONE PINE LN ENCINAL AVE Atherton/Menlo Park 23.81 0.08 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 0 36 11 24 0 0 71 1 1 283 25270 ENCINAL AVE GLENWOOD AVE Atherton/Menlo Park 23.90 0.21 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 12 24 17 24 12 0 89 284 15290 GLENWOOD AVE OAK GROVE AVE Menlo Park 24.10 0.20 14.84 15.09 14.97 10 0 24 11 24 12 10 81 1 1 285 15298 OAK GROVE AVE SANTA CRUZ AVE Menlo Park 24.31 0.09 14.84 15.09 14.97 10 12 24 11 24 12 10 83 1 1 286 15294 SANTA CRUZ AVE RAVENSWOOD AVE Menlo Park 24.40 0.08 14.84 15.09 14.97 10 12 24 5 24 12 10 77 1 1 287 7307 RAVENSWOOD AVE LIVE OAK AVE Menlo Park 24.48 0.07 14.84 15.09 14.97 10 0 24 11 24 12 10 81 1 1 288 15292 LIVE OAK AVE ROBLE AVE Menlo Park 24.55 0.05 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 0 36 11 36 0 0 83 1 1 289 6833 ROBLE AVE MIDDLE AVE Menlo Park 24.61 0.18 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 0 36 11 36 0 0 83 1 1 290 6832 MIDDLE AVE COLLEGE AVE Menlo Park 24.78 0.07 14.84 15.09 14.97 10 0 36 6 36 0 10 98 1 1 291 6829 COLLEGE AVE PARTRIDGE AVE Menlo Park 24.85 0.08 14.84 15.09 14.97 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1 1 292 6827 PARTRIDGE AVE CAMBRIDGE AVE Menlo Park 24.93 0.07 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 0 36 11 36 0 0 83 1 1 293 6824 CAMBRIDGE AVE HARVARD AVE Menlo Park 25.00 0.06 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 0 36 11 36 0 0 83 1 1 294 6680 HARVARD AVE CREEK DR Menlo Park 25.07 0.09 14.84 15.09 14.97 10 0 36 5 36 0 10 97 1 1 295 15937 CREEK DR SANTA CLARA COUNTY LINE Menlo Park 25.15 0.01 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 0 36 5 36 0 0 77 1 1 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14.84 15.09 14.97 296 25535 SAND HILL RD Menlo Park/Palo Alto LINE 25.16 0.07 0 12 36 11 36 0 0 95 1 1 297 25536 SAND HILL RD PALM DR RAMPS Palo Alto 25.23 0.26 14.84 15.09 14.97 10 0 36 11 36 0 10 103 1 1 298 25537 PALM DR RAMPS PALO ALTO STATION Palo Alto 25.49 0.17 14.84 15.09 14.97 0 12 36 23 24 0 0 95 1 1 Source: Average travel speeds based on 2014 ECR schedule travel time between timepoints.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX I - ECR BRT - BUS LANE MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 12 of 12

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – Appendices December 2014

Appendix J: Ridership and Revenues

Memorandum

To Barrow Emerson, SamTrans Date Melissa Reggiardo, SamTrans 10/1/2014

Copies Reference number

From Corey Wong, Arup File reference Steve Crosley, Fehr + Peers

Subject ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Ridership and Productivity

1 Introduction

This memo presents the forecast ridership as well as productivity for the various service concepts proposed in the previous memos. Forecast ridership was modelled by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for the SamTrans Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Phasing Study in the summer of 2014. Revenue vehicle hour and operating costs referenced in this memo and used to calculate service productivity are from the August 31, 2014 Operating Plan Memo – Draft v1 and the September 13, 2014 ECR BRT Phasing Plan – O&M Costs Memo, respectively. Detailed stop- by-stop ridership forecasts are included in Appendix A.

2 Forecast Ridership and Fare Revenues

This section presents total ridership for each service concept, as well as several other statistics, including the total increase in corridor ridership, the total increase in system ridership, and the total number of new transit riders (i.e., those that previously used another non-transit mode to travel). Table 1 presents the forecast corridor-level ridership (by service tier) as well as the system-level ridership (and associated changes from the 2020 Base Case (Concept 1)). Figure 1 presents the daily corridor ridership and percentage growth over the 2020 Base Case (Concept 1). Key findings are as follows: • Daily Tier-Level Ridership

o Among concepts with Rapid and ECR service, Concept 2 (2020 Full Rapid) generates the highest daily ridership at 10,600, compared to about 8,100 for Concept 3 (2020 Truncated Rapid (DC-RC). Concept 4 (2020 Truncated (SB-RC)) generates half the ridership of Concept 2 at 5,000 daily riders. Concept 7 (2020 Peak Rapid) generates slightly more riders at 5,500 daily riders.

o Daily ridership for Hybrid-only concepts ranges from 17,700 to 22,500. Concept 9 (2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops – 7.5 Min) generates the highest daily ridership at 22,500, closely followed by Concept 8 (2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops – 10 Min)) at 21,200. Concept 5 (2020 Hybrid B (76 Stops – 12 Min)) produces daily ridership of 19,500. Concept 6, (2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops – 12 Min)), with the fewest stops and the

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX J - ECR BRT - RIDERSHIP & REVENUES MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 1 of 19

Memorandum

longest headway among the Hybrid-only concepts, generates over 17,700 daily riders.

o Concept 10 (2040 BRT) generates about 20,800 riders, so nearly double that of Concept 2 (2020 Full Rapid). • Daily Corridor-Level Ridership

o Corridor-level ridership includes all routes that operate along El Camino Real Blvd. – thus the Rapid (or Peak Rapid), Hybrid, and ECR services. Daily corridor-level ridership for Concept 1 (2020 Base Case) is about 16,600 riders.

o Among 2020 service concepts with Rapid and ECR, corridor totals run from about 19,700-22,200 daily riders, representing an increase of between 19-34% over Concept 1 (2020 Base Case). Concept 2 (2020 Full Rapid) generates the highest daily ridership at 22,200, while Concept 4 (2020 Truncated (SB-RC) generates the lowest at 19,700.

o For 2020 service concepts with Hybrid-only operations, total corridor daily ridership ranges from 17,700-22,500 riders. This represents an increase of between 6-35% over Concept 1 (2020 Base Case). Concept 9 (2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops – 7.5 Min)) generates the highest ridership at 22,500 riders, compared to Concept 6 (2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops – 12 Min), which generates the lowest ridership at 17,700.

o Concept 10 (2040 BRT) generates about 33,700 daily riders in the corridor, or about a 103% increase over Concept 1 (2020 Base Case). • Daily System-Level Ridership

o System-level ridership includes not only bus services along El Camino Real Blvd., but also that on other SamTrans-operated bus services within the SamTrans operating jurisdiction. Daily system-level ridership for Concept 1 (2020 Base Case) is about 57,600 riders.

o Among 2020 service concepts with Rapid and ECR, system totals run from about 63,000-65,000 daily riders, representing an increase of between 10-13% over Concept 1 (2020 Base Case). Concept 2 (2020 Full Rapid) generates the highest system ridership at 65,000 daily riders or 13% more than Concept 1 (2020 Base Case), while Concept 4 (2020 Truncated (SB-RC) generates the lowest system ridership at 63,200.

o For 2020 service concepts with Hybrid-only operations, total system ridership ranges from 59,000-62,000 riders. This represents an increase of between 2-8% over Concept 1 (2020 Base Case). Concept 9 (2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops – 7.5 Min)) generates the highest ridership at 62,300 riders, compared to both 12-minute Hybrid concepts (Concepts 5 and 6) at roughly 58,800.

o Concept 10 (2040 BRT) generates about 91,000 daily riders in the system, or about a 58% increase over Concept 1 (2020 Base Case).

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX J - ECR BRT - RIDERSHIP & REVENUES MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 2 of 19

Memorandum

Table 1: Daily Corridor and System-Level Ridership by Service Concept (Ordered by Service Tier) Daily Corridor-Level Ridership Daily System-Level Ridership % % Increase Increase Peak Total Increase Increase Tier Service Concept Rapid Hybrid ECR vs. 2020 Riders vs. 2020 Rapid Corridor vs. 2020 vs. 2020 ECR ECR ECR ECR ECR Only Concept 1 - 2020 Base Case 0 0 0 16,598 16,598 - - 57,613 - - Concept 2 - 2020 Full Rapid 10,581 0 0 11,623 22,204 5,606 34% 64,975 7,362 13% Rapid + Concept 3 - 2020 Truncated (DC-RC) 8,148 0 0 13,008 21,156 4,558 27% 64,183 6,570 11% ECR Concept 4 - 2020 Truncated (SB-RC) 5,031 0 0 14,655 19,686 3,088 19% 63,152 5,539 10% Overlay Concept 7 - 2020 Peak Rapid 0 5,460 0 14,745 20,205 3,607 22% 63,343 5,730 10% Concept 5 - 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 12 Min) 0 0 19,513 0 19,513 2,915 18% 58,769 1,156 2% Hybrid Concept 6 - 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 12 Min) 0 0 17,675 0 17,675 1,077 6% 58,833 1,220 2% Only Concept 8 - 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 10 Min) 0 0 21,238 0 21,238 4,640 28% 60,220 2,607 5% Concept 9 - 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 7.5 Min) 0 0 22,468 0 22,468 5,870 35% 62,326 4,713 8% BRT + ECR Concept 10 - 2040 BRT 20,755 0 0 12,977 33,732 17,134 103% 90,968 33,355 58% Overlay Source: VTA, 2014.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX J - ECR BRT - RIDERSHIP & REVENUES MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 3 of 19

Memorandum

Figure 1: Corridor-Level Daily Ridership Forecast by Service Concept

3 Service Productivity

This section assesses service productivity of the service concepts using three typical metrics: (i) farebox recovery; (ii) subsidy per passenger; and (iii) incremental cost per new passenger. Note – operating costs used for service productivity calculations are based on “service” O&M costs or those costs to operate the vehicles and not costs to maintain fixed infrastructure.

3.1 Corridor Farebox Recovery Farebox recovery measures how much of the operating costs can be paid for through fare revenues. Thus, farebox recovery is estimated by dividing fare revenues by operating costs. A higher farebox recovery rate means that a service concept is able to recoup more of its operating costs from fare revenues than another concept. Using operating costs already developed from the noted Operating Cost Memo (with revenue vehicle hour costs at $210/hour) and assuming fare revenues are simply the product of the average fare per customer ($1.37/rider based on SamTrans information) and daily ridership, Table 2 presents the daily corridor-level fare revenues and estimated farebox recovery rate. It is noted that the operating costs used in this calculation are the “service” O&M costs and not any fixed infrastructure related O&M costs. Key corridor findings (i.e., only those routes operating on El Camino Real Blvd.) are as follows: • Concept 1 (2020 Base Case) generates a corridor 32% farebox recovery rate. • All 2020 service concepts generate slightly lower corridor farebox recovery rates (between 27-31%), except for Concept 5 (2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops – 12 Min) with a 33% farebox recovery rate. Among service concepts with both Rapid and ECR service, Concept 7 (2020 Peak Rapid) generates the highest recovery rate at 29%. Among service concepts with Hybrid-only service, the noted Concept 5 generates the highest recovery at 32%. • Concept 10 (2040 BRT) generates a farebox recovery rate of 45%.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX J - ECR BRT - RIDERSHIP & REVENUES MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 4 of 19

Memorandum

Table 2: Corridor-Level Fare Revenues and Farebox Recovery Rate Corridor Corridor Corridor Farebox Tier Service Concept Fare Service Recovery Revenue O&M Cost Rate ECR Only Concept 1 - 2020 Base Case $23,000 $71,000 32% Concept 2 - 2020 Full Rapid $31,000 $113,000 27% Rapid + ECR Concept 3 - 2020 Truncated (DC-RC) $29,000 $106,000 27% Overlay Concept 4 - 2020 Truncated (SB-RC) $27,000 $96,000 28% Concept 7 - 2020 Peak Rapid $28,000 $95,000 29% Concept 5 - 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 12 Min) $27,000 $83,000 33% Concept 6 - 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 12 Min) $25,000 $77,000 32% Hybrid Only Concept 8 - 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 10 Min) $30,000 $94,000 32% Concept 9 - 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 7.5 Min) $31,000 $107,000 29% BRT + ECR Concept 10 - 2040 BRT Overlay $47,000 $104,000 45% Source: VTA, 2014.

Note: Corridor revenues and costs are rounded up to the nearest $0,000.

3.2 Corridor O&M Costs per Passenger and Incremental Cost per New Corridor Passenger Farebox recovery can be a misleading evaluation of a new service. In the case of an existing corridor, the fluctuations in revenue and operating costs are sometimes too minute to discern significant differences in performance. Two additional metrics are often used to help differentiate the viability of different service concepts: • Subsidy per Passenger – Subsidy is the difference between operating costs and fare revenues (thus the amount that cannot be covered by fare revenues and must be paid for by the public). This metric measures the subsidy required to transport one passenger (calculated by dividing total subsidy by total passengers in the corridor). A lower subsidy per passenger indicates that a service concept is more self-sustaining than another. • Incremental Cost per New Passenger – This metric measures what the marginal cost is (above what service costs to operate now) in order to capture and service a new passenger. Incremental costs are determined by subtracting expected O&M service costs from those O&M costs for Concept 1 (2020 Base Case). This incremental cost is then divided by the volume of new passengers (i.e., forecast passengers subtracted from the 2020 Base Case demand). A lower incremental cost per new passenger means that the service concept can generate and carry new riders at a lower cost than another concept. Table 3 and Figure 2 presents the average subsidy per passenger and incremental cost per new passenger within the ECR corridor. Key findings are as follows: • Subsidy per Passenger

o Concept 1 (2020 Base Case) has a subsidy per passenger of $2.89. o Future 2020 service concepts require subsidies per passenger of between $2.87- $3.69. Hybrid-only concepts appear to generate lower subsidies per passenger figures, likely due to the lower operating costs from running a single service on the corridor (instead of the Rapid and ECR combination concepts).

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX J - ECR BRT - RIDERSHIP & REVENUES MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 5 of 19

Memorandum

o Among these 2020 concepts, Concept 5 (2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops – 12 Min)) requires a subsidy of $2.87, which is the only concept with a figure lower than that of Concept 1. Concept 2 (2020 Full Rapid) performs the worst at $3.69/passenger.

o The Full 2040 concept (Concept 10) has a subsidy of $1.69/passenger, which is the lowest of any of the 2020 service concepts and about 40% less than Concept 1 (2020 Base Case). • Incremental Cost per New Passenger

o Future 2020 service concepts generate incremental costs per new passenger of between $4.12-$8.10 approximately. Hybrid-only concepts appear to generate lower incremental costs per new passenger, which is likely due to the lower operating costs from running a single service in the corridor (instead of the Rapid and ECR combination concepts).

o Among these 2020 concepts, Concept 5 (2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops – 12 Min)) performs the best with an incremental cost of $4.12 per new passenger. Concept 4 (2020 Truncated (SB-RC)) performs the worst at $8.10 per new passenger, likely due to the fact that this concept does not serve higher ridership stops north of San Bruno BART Station, but still provides substantial amounts of service throughout the day in the corridor (with both a truncated Rapid and ECR).

o The Full 2040 concept (Concept 10) has an incremental cost per new passenger of $1.93, which is half as much as that for any of the 2020 concepts. Table 3: Corridor-Level Subsidy per Passenger and Incremental Cost per New Passenger Incremental Subsidy per Cost per New Tier Service Concept Passenger Corridor Passenger ECR Only Concept 1 - 2020 Base Case $2.89 - Concept 2 - 2020 Full Rapid $3.69 $7.49 Rapid + Concept 3 - 2020 Truncated (DC-RC) $3.64 $7.68 ECR Concept 4 - 2020 Truncated (SB-RC) $3.51 $8.10 Overlay Concept 7 - 2020 Peak Rapid $3.32 $6.65 Concept 5 - 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 12 Min) $2.87 $4.12 Concept 6 - 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 12 Min) $2.94 $5.57 Hybrid Only Concept 8 - 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 10 Min) $3.01 $4.96 Concept 9 - 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 7.5 Min) $3.38 $6.13 BRT + ECR Concept 10 - 2040 BRT $1.69 $1.93 Overlay Source: VTA, 2014.

Note: Corridor revenues and costs are rounded up to the nearest $0,000.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX J - ECR BRT - RIDERSHIP & REVENUES MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 6 of 19

Memorandum

Figure 2: Corridor-Level Subsidy per Passenger and Incremental Cost per New Passenger

4 Next Steps

The ridership and productivity metrics presented in this memo will be used in the detailed evaluation of the service concepts.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX J - ECR BRT - RIDERSHIP & REVENUES MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 7 of 19

Memorandum

5 Appendix A – Rapid/Hybrid/BRT Ridership by Station by Service Concept

Ridership by station by service concept (in terms of total boardings) are presented below for Rapid/Hybrid/BRT services only (stop-level ECR boardings are not presented in this memo). It is also noted that: • Stop locations indicated in the tables below are approximate and may not match the exact stop name used in previous memos; and • Ridership estimates presented earlier in this memo may not match cumulative stop-level boardings in the tables below due to rounding.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX J - ECR BRT - RIDERSHIP & REVENUES MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 8 of 19

Memorandum

Table 4: Total Rapid Boardings – Concept 2 - 2020 Full Rapid Total Peak Off-Peak Node Stop Name Boardings Boardings Boardings 25492 Daly City BART 546 293 253 25481 John Daly/Mission Blvd 462 259 203 25485 ECR/School Street/Mission 255 181 74 11744 Colma BART 144 86 58 55336 ECR/McClellan 128 119 9 25395 ECR/Arroyo 122 62 60 25256 ECR/Orange 151 100 51 25370 ECR/Brentwood 305 169 136 25264 ECR/Sneath 568 220 348 25262 San Bruno Ave 546 270 276 55261 ECR/Jenevein 272 121 151 12172 ECR/Park Pl 234 114 120 12523 ECR/Silva 148 59 89 25311 Millbrae Intermodal 734 352 382 12165 ECR/Trousdale 85 33 52 25323 ECR/Broadway 156 106 50 12503 ECR/Burlingame 49 46 3 25194 ECR/Poplar 231 112 119 11684 ECR/El Cerrito 216 105 111 11679 ECR/W. 2nd 346 150 196 55028 ECR/4th San Mateo 104 48 56 55562 ECR/17th 249 147 102 12391 ECR/20th 268 121 147 25144 ECR/25th 156 69 87 25146 ECR/Hillsdale Blvd 655 398 257 25147 ECR/41st 142 65 77 24966 ECR/Ralston Ave 301 147 154 24945 ECR/San Carlos Caltrain 294 152 142 24956 ECR/Brittan 55 45 10 24915 ECR/Edgewood 118 57 61 24914 ECR/James 0 0 0 12566 Redwood City Caltrain 614 302 312 24905 ECR/Lincoln 350 215 135 12528 ECR/Center Street 222 96 126 24785 ECR/5th 146 78 68 12357 ECR/Atherton 8 3 5 24763 Menlo Park Caltrain/Oakgrove 179 105 74 8916 Palo Alto Caltrain 752 454 298 Total 10,311 5,459 4,852

Source: VTA, 2014.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX J - ECR BRT - RIDERSHIP & REVENUES MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 9 of 19

Memorandum

Table 5: Total Rapid Boardings – Concept 3 - 2020 Truncated (DC-RC) Total Peak Off-Peak Node Stop Name Boardings Boardings Boardings 25492 Daly City BART 491 268 223 25481 John Daly/Mission Blvd 396 227 169 25485 ECR/School Street/Mission 302 177 125 11744 Colma BART 156 83 73 55336 ECR/McClellan 237 117 120 25395 ECR/Arroyo 125 59 66 25256 ECR/Orange 228 98 130 25370 ECR/Brentwood 335 161 174 25264 ECR/Sneath 469 217 252 25262 San Bruno Ave 497 265 232 55261 ECR/Jenevein 216 118 98 12172 ECR/Park Pl 219 110 109 12523 ECR/Silva 124 56 68 25311 Millbrae Intermodal 689 336 353 12165 ECR/Trousdale 60 31 29 25323 ECR/Broadway 198 89 109 12503 ECR/Burlingame 109 44 65 25194 ECR/Poplar 228 103 125 11684 ECR/El Cerrito 196 96 100 11679 ECR/W. 2nd 324 143 181 55028 ECR/4th San Mateo 103 43 60 55562 ECR/17th 265 135 130 12391 ECR/20th 217 115 102 25144 ECR/25th 152 63 89 25146 ECR/Hillsdale Blvd 661 352 309 25147 ECR/41st 130 60 70 24966 ECR/Ralston Ave 239 129 110 24945 ECR/San Carlos Caltrain 224 121 103 24956 ECR/Brittan 66 38 28 24915 ECR/Edgewood 97 52 45 24914 ECR/James 0 0 0 12566 Redwood City Caltrain 393 198 195 Total 8,146 4,104 4,042 Source: VTA, 2014.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX J - ECR BRT - RIDERSHIP & REVENUES MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 10 of 19

Memorandum

Table 6: Total Rapid Boardings – Concept 4 - 2020 Truncated (SB-RC) Total Peak Off-Peak Node Stop Name Boardings Boardings Boardings 25264 ECR/Sneath 430 206 224 25262 San Bruno Ave 330 169 161 55261 ECR/Jenevein 158 86 72 12172 ECR/Park Pl 163 82 81 12523 ECR/Silva 94 42 52 25311 Millbrae Intermodal 668 323 345 12165 ECR/Trousdale 40 20 20 25323 ECR/Broadway 192 84 108 12503 ECR/Burlingame 94 37 57 25194 ECR/Poplar 204 91 113 11684 ECR/El Cerrito 181 89 92 11679 ECR/W. 2nd 292 126 166 55028 ECR/4th San Mateo 88 36 52 55562 ECR/17th 246 123 123 12391 ECR/20th 202 108 94 25144 ECR/25th 139 57 82 25146 ECR/Hillsdale Blvd 594 309 285 25147 ECR/41st 122 57 65 24966 ECR/Ralston Ave 216 115 101 24945 ECR/San Carlos Caltrain 197 106 91 24956 ECR/Brittan 42 21 21 24915 ECR/Edgewood 74 40 34 24914 ECR/James 0 0 0 12566 Redwood City Caltrain 254 115 139 24905 ECR/Lincoln 0 0 0 12528 ECR/Center Street 0 0 0 24785 ECR/5th 0 0 0 12357 ECR/Atherton 0 0 0 24763 Menlo Park Caltrain/Oakgrove 0 0 0 8916 Palo Alto Caltrain 0 0 0 Total 5,020 2,442 2,578

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX J - ECR BRT - RIDERSHIP & REVENUES MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 11 of 19

Memorandum

Table 7: Total Hybrid Boardings – Concept 5 - 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 12 Min) Total Peak Off-Peak Node Stop Name Boardings Boardings Boardings 25492 Daly City BART 830 490 340 25481 John Daly/Mission Blvd 663 382 281 25485 ECR/School Street 501 310 191 25472 535 262 273 11744 Colma BART 361 162 199 55336 SSF BART 479 248 231 25395 ECR/Westborough 183 94 89 25256 ECR/Orange 518 236 282 25370 ECR/Brentwood 609 282 327 25264 San Bruno/Sneath 780 359 421 55292 Hwy 380 148 78 70 25262 San Bruno Ave 723 385 338 12303 Angus Ave 110 46 64 55261 ECR/Jenevein 362 193 169 12065 Crystal Springs 173 99 74 12520 San Felipe 72 29 43 12172 ECR/Park Pl 189 106 83 12517 Capuchino 133 57 76 11691 Center/Millbrae 218 100 118 12523 Meadow Glen 338 153 185 25309 Silva / Taylor 111 43 68 25311 Millbrae BART 1,076 532 544 25315 Murchison 176 91 85 25205 Trousdale 22 7 15 11688 Ray 43 20 23 25324 Adeline 123 56 67 11649 Hillside / Easton 235 106 129 25323 Broadway 134 59 75 12508 Sanchez 122 57 65 25016 Arc Way 57 25 32 11677 Oak Grove / Bellevue 450 200 250 12503 Burlingame Ave 72 31 41 25195 Howard 127 54 73 12500 Warren 1 1 -1 12457 W. Bellevue 312 137 175 25194 W Poplar 222 97 125 11684 El Cerrito 338 162 176 11679 W 2nd 580 248 332 55028 W 4th 54 24 30 55175 W 9th 84 32 52 31814 Hobart 100 45 55 55563 143 80 63 55562 W 17th 376 178 198 12391 W 20th 372 194 178 25144 W 25th 166 65 101 31823 W 27th 142 58 85 55378 W 31st 319 125 195 25146 Hillsdale 799 455 344 12499 37th / 39th 241 102 139 25147 41st 154 72 82

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX J - ECR BRT - RIDERSHIP & REVENUES MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 12 of 19

Memorandum

Total Peak Off-Peak Node Stop Name Boardings Boardings Boardings 12378 43rd 139 63 76 31788 Davey Glen 14 7 7 24966 Ralston 428 221 207 12032 Harbor Blvd 205 91 114 12527 5th Ave/Belmont 54 20 34 12302 Hull Drive 47 19 28 24945 San Carlos Ave / Arroyo Ave 530 267 263 24956 Brittan 16 6 10 55426 Belmont 267 140 127 25093 Eaton 66 33 33 12367 Edgewood 84 55 29 24915 Hopkins 403 245 158 11859 Brewster 198 93 105 24914 RWC Caltrain 722 475 247 31804 Jefferson 49 21 28 24909 Lincoln 275 151 124 24907 Oak Grove 71 32 39 24905 ECR/Pine 225 141 84 55656 230 118 112 24791 65 40 25 12528 ECR/Center Street 334 169 165 24785 ECR/5th 157 85 72 12357 Atherton 38 14 24 24763 Menlo Park Caltrain 355 154 201 8916 Palo Alto Caltrain 1,164 612 552 Total 21,195 10,697 10,498 Source: VTA, 2014.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX J - ECR BRT - RIDERSHIP & REVENUES MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 13 of 19

Memorandum

Table 8: Total Hybrid Boardings – Concept 6 - 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 12 Min) Total Peak Off-Peak Node Stop Name Boardings Boardings Boardings 25492 Daly City BART 1,017 600 417 25485 ECR/School Street 404 245 159 25472 1,110 572 538 11744 Colma BART 1,044 536 508 55336 SSF BART 504 253 251 25395 ECR/Westborough 235 119 116 25256 ECR/Orange 466 205 261 25370 ECR/Brentwood 709 335 374 25264 San Bruno/Sneath 867 392 475 25262 San Bruno Ave 859 466 394 12303 Angus Ave 117 48 70 12065 Crystal Springs 424 230 194 12172 ECR/Park Pl 520 260 260 12523 Meadow Glen 428 199 229 25309 Silva 126 50 77 25311 Millbrae BART 1,085 535 550 25315 Murchison 186 97 90 25205 Trousdale 58 24 34 25323 Broadway 538 253 285 12503 Burlingame Ave 486 218 268 25195 Howard 144 63 81 25194 W Poplar 509 228.5 281 11684 El Cerrito 410 195 215 11679 W 2nd 568 246 322 55175 W 9th 219 101 118 31814 Hobart 130 63 67 55562 W 17th 447 209 238 12391 W 20th 395 201 194 25144 W 25th 312 125.5 186 55378 W 31st 367 141 226 25146 Hillsdale 852 485 368 12499 37th 254 110 144 25147 41st 251 115 137 24966 Ralston 479 238.5 240 12032 Harbor Blvd 215 95 120 24945 San Carlos Ave 349 178 171 24956 Brittan 250 138 112 24915 Hopkins 465 279 187 24914 RWC Caltrain 914 563 351 31804 Jefferson 71 31 40 24909 Lincoln 181 106 75 24906 Center 173 103 70 24905 ECR/Pine 215 131 84 24791 237 116 122 12528 ECR/Center Street 352 177 175 24785 ECR/5th 222 131 91 24763 Menlo Park Caltrain 677 380 298 8916 Palo Alto Caltrain 1,454 807 647 Total 22,281 11,382 10,899 Source: VTA, 2014.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX J - ECR BRT - RIDERSHIP & REVENUES MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 14 of 19

Memorandum

Table 9: Total Rapid Boardings – Concept 7 - 2020 Peak Rapid Total Peak Off-Peak Node Stop Name Boardings Boardings Boardings 25492 Daly City BART 293 293 25481 John Daly/Mission Blvd 259 259 25485 ECR/School Street/Mission 181 181 11744 Colma BART 86 86 55336 ECR/McClellan 119 119 25395 ECR/Arroyo 62 62 25256 ECR/Orange 100 100 25370 ECR/Brentwood 169 169 25264 ECR/Sneath 220 220 25262 San Bruno Ave 270 270 55261 ECR/Jenevein 121 121 12172 ECR/Park Pl 114 114 12523 ECR/Silva 59 59 25311 Millbrae Intermodal 353 353 12165 ECR/Trousdale 33 33 25323 ECR/Broadway 106 106 12503 ECR/Burlingame 46 46 25194 ECR/Poplar 112 112 11684 ECR/El Cerrito 105 105 11679 ECR/W. 2nd 150 150 55028 ECR/4th San Mateo 48 48 55562 ECR/17th 147 147 12391 ECR/20th 121 121 25144 ECR/25th 69 69 25146 ECR/Hillsdale Blvd 398 398 25147 ECR/41st 65 65 24966 ECR/Ralston Ave 147 147 24945 ECR/San Carlos Caltrain 152 152 24956 ECR/Brittan 45 45 24915 ECR/Edgewood 57 57 24914 ECR/James 0 0 12566 Redwood City Caltrain 303 303 24905 ECR/Lincoln 215 215 12528 ECR/Center Street 96 96 24785 ECR/5th 78 78 12357 ECR/Atherton 3 3 24763 Menlo Park Caltrain/Oakgrove 105 105 8916 Palo Alto Caltrain 454 454 Total 5,461 5,461 Source: VTA, 2014.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX J - ECR BRT - RIDERSHIP & REVENUES MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 15 of 19

Memorandum

Table 10: Total Hybrid Boardings – Concept 8 - 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 10 Min) Total Peak Off-Peak Node Stop Name Boardings Boardings Boardings 25492 Daly City BART 706 410 297 25481 John Daly/Mission Blvd 604 348 256 25485 ECR/School Street 399 243 156 25472 468 226 242 11744 Colma BART 311 136 175 55336 SSF BART 428 214 215 25395 ECR/Westborough 159 79 80 25256 ECR/Orange 487 221 266 25370 ECR/Brentwood 569 264 306 25264 San Bruno/Sneath 721 332 389 55292 Hwy 380 141 73 68 25262 San Bruno Ave 674 363 311 12303 Angus Ave 102 43 60 55261 ECR/Jenevein 336 182 155 12065 Crystal Springs 167 97 71 12520 San Felipe 69 27 42 12172 ECR/Park Pl 182 102 80 12517 Capuchino 128 55 73 11691 Center/Millbrae 211 96 115 12523 Meadow Glen 320 145 176 25309 Silva / Taylor 105 41 64 25311 Millbrae BART 1,004 496 508 25315 Murchison 167 87 80 25205 Trousdale 21 7 14 11688 Ray 42 20 22 25324 Adeline 117 53 65 11649 Hillside / Easton 218 99 119 25323 Broadway 125 55 70 12508 Sanchez 114 53 61 25016 Arc Way 51 23 28 11677 Oak Grove / Bellevue 414 184 230 12503 Burlingame Ave 68 29 39 25195 Howard 119 51 68 12500 Warren 1 1 0 12457 W. Bellevue 298 131 168 25194 W Poplar 205 90 115 11684 El Cerrito 314 149 165 11679 W 2nd 529 223 306 55028 W 4th 51 23 28 55175 W 9th 80 31 49 31814 Hobart 92 42 51 55563 135 76 60 55562 W 17th 352 167 185 12391 W 20th 349 177 172 25144 W 25th 156 62 95 31823 W 27th 134 54 80 55378 W 31st 298 118 180 25146 Hillsdale 730 414 317 12499 37th 229 97 132 39th

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX J - ECR BRT - RIDERSHIP & REVENUES MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 16 of 19

Memorandum

Total Peak Off-Peak Node Stop Name Boardings Boardings Boardings 25147 41st 149 70 79 12378 43rd 130 58 72 31788 Davey Glen 12 6 6 24966 Ralston 396 203 193 12032 Harbor Blvd 193 85 108 12527 5th Ave/Belmont 51 19 32 12302 Hull Drive 45 18 27 24945 San Carlos Ave / Arroyo Ave 498 248 250 24956 Brittan 16 6 10 55426 Belmont 255 134 121 25093 Eaton 64 32 32 12367 Edgewood 80 53 27 24915 Hopkins 386 237 149 11859 Brewster 169 80 90 24914 RWC Caltrain 646 414 232 31804 Jefferson 45 19 27 24909 Lincoln 205 99 106 24907 Oak Grove Center 66 30 36 24905 ECR/Pine 216 136 81 55656 220 113 107 24791 63 39 24 12528 ECR/Center Street 320 163 158 24785 ECR/5th 144 79 65 12357 Atherton 35 13 22 24763 Menlo Park Caltrain 318 136 183 8916 Palo Alto Caltrain 1,072 562 510 Total 19,472 9,740 9732 Source: VTA, 2014.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX J - ECR BRT - RIDERSHIP & REVENUES MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 17 of 19

Memorandum

Table 11: Total Hybrid Boardings – Concept 9 - 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 7.5 Min) Total Peak Off-Peak Node Stop Name Boardings Boardings Boardings 25492 Daly City BART 808 473 336 25485 ECR/School Street 280 171 109 25472 378 183 195 11744 Colma BART 337 165 173 55336 SSF BART 377 196 182 25395 ECR/Westborough 164 87 77 25256 ECR/Orange 416 183 233 25370 ECR/Brentwood 599 285 314 25264 San Bruno/Sneath 743 346 397 25262 San Bruno Ave 745 406 339 12303 Angus Ave 104 43 61 12065 Crystal Springs 381 211 170 12172 ECR/Park Pl 483 247 236 12523 Meadow Glen 382 180 203 25309 Silva 111 43 68 25311 Millbrae BART 944 464 480 25315 Murchison 170 90 80 25205 Trousdale 53 22 31 25323 Broadway 475 226 250 12503 Burlingame Ave 426 196 230 25195 Howard 125 54 71 25194 W Poplar 458 206 252 11684 El Cerrito 339 164 175 11679 W 2nd 476 203 273 55175 W 9th 192 88 104 31814 Hobart 107 51 56 55562 W 17th 393 187 207 12391 W 20th 363 189 175 25144 W 25th 264 110 155 55378 W 31st 305 120 186 25146 Hillsdale 707 412 296 12499 37th 218 91 127 25147 41st 213 97 116 24966 Ralston 412 207 206 12032 Harbor Blvd 182 81 101 24945 San Carlos Ave 296 148 148 24956 Brittan 222 123 99 24915 Hopkins 408 245 163 24914 RWC Caltrain 882 462 421 31804 Jefferson 52 21 31 24909 Lincoln 125 61 64 24906 Center 156 94 62 24905 ECR/Pine 198 123 75 24791 213 105 109 12528 ECR/Center Street 327 167 160 24785 ECR/5th 150 82 68 24763 Menlo Park Caltrain 381 176 206 8916 Palo Alto Caltrain 1,103 585 518 Total 17,630 8,855 8,775 Source: VTA, 2014.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX J - ECR BRT - RIDERSHIP & REVENUES MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 18 of 19

Memorandum

Table 12: Total Rapid Boardings – Concept 10 - 2040 BRT Total Peak Off-Peak Node Stop Name Boardings Boardings Boardings 25492 Daly City BART 1,090 657 434 25481 John Daly/Mission Blvd 1,056 661 395 25485 ECR/School Street/Mission 438 259 179 11744 Colma BART 287 156 131 55336 ECR/McClellan 193 127 66 25395 ECR/Arroyo 241 130 111 25256 ECR/Orange 329 166 163 25370 ECR/Brentwood 607 303 305 25264 ECR/Sneath 1,387 721 667 25262 San Bruno Ave 1,136 634 503 55261 ECR/Jenevein 455 267 188 12172 ECR/Park Pl 542 292 250 12523 ECR/Silva 0 0 0 25311 Millbrae Intermodal 779 359 420 12165 ECR/Trousdale 359 248 111 25323 ECR/Broadway 464 251 214 12503 ECR/Burlingame 156 63 93 25194 ECR/Poplar 391 188 203 11684 ECR/El Cerrito 377 198 179 11679 ECR/W. 2nd 621 272 349 55028 ECR/4th San Mateo 229 102 127 55562 ECR/17th 631 335 297 12391 ECR/20th 545 302 244 25144 ECR/25th 334 152 182 25146 ECR/Hillsdale Blvd 1,507 855 652 25147 ECR/41st 233 107 127 24966 ECR/Ralston Ave 579 320 259 24945 ECR/San Carlos Caltrain 658 367 291 24956 ECR/Brittan 147 80 67 24915 ECR/Edgewood 409 249 161 24914 ECR/James 0 0 0 12566 Redwood City Caltrain 1,507 826 681 24905 ECR/Lincoln 738 433 305 12528 ECR/Center Street 388 207 181 24785 ECR/5th 253 135 118 12357 ECR/Atherton 13 6 7 24763 Menlo Park Caltrain/Oakgrove 284 145 139 8916 Palo Alto Caltrain 1,327 771 557 Total 20,681 11,333 9,349 Source: VTA, 2014.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX J - ECR BRT - RIDERSHIP & REVENUES MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 19 of 19

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – Appendices December 2014

Appendix K: Detailed Phase 2 Evaluation

Memorandum

To Barrow Emerson, SamTrans Date Melissa Reggiardo, SamTrans 10/7/2014

Copies Reference number

From Corey Wong, Arup File reference Steve Crosley, Fehr + Peers

Subject ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Detailed 2020 Concept Evaluation Memo

1 Introduction

This memo presents the detailed evaluation for Phase 1 ECR service concepts (i.e., those with an implementation year of 2020, thus nine service concepts including Concept 1 – 2020 Base Case). The evaluation is both a quantitative and qualitative analysis that has been adapted from the initial detailed framework presented in the September 23, 2013 ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Proposed Evaluation Framework. Data evaluated as part of this analysis is based on future 2020 service concepts and key operating statistics presented in the following memos: • August 31, 2014 Operating Plan Memo – Draft v1 • September 13, 2014 ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Capital Costs Memo • September 13, 2014 ECR BRT Phasing Plan – O&M Costs Memo • October 1, 2014 ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Ridership and Productivity Memo It is noted that statistics for Concept 10 – 2040 Full BRT are included for comparison purposes only. Concept 10 performance is not considered in the ranking of 2020 concepts.

2 Initial Evaluation Metrics

An initial detailed evaluation framework was presented in September 23, 2013 ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Proposed Evaluation Framework and is shown in Table 1. This framework was developed after project inception.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX K - ECR BRT - DETAILED EVALUATION MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 1 of 14

Memorandum

Table 1: Initial Detailed Evaluation Framework Goal Objective Evaluation Criteria Source(s) • Increase in corridor ridership • Increase in ridership along key segments of corridor • VTA Model 1.1. Increase ridership • Increase in system ridership • Operating plan 1. Increase bus ridership along the • Increase in new riders El Camino Corridor by improving • Boardings per revenue hour service for existing customers and • Improve station experience and security (station infrastructure for Full attracting new customers BRT only) • Physical plan (qualitative 1.2. Improve passenger • Improve in-vehicle experience assessment) experience • Create unique service branding/identity • Operating plan • Legible and easy to understand routing and service 2.1. Improve . Pedestrian safety assessment (bulbouts, medians, sidewalks, crossing • Physical plan (qualitative pedestrian safety opportunities) assessment) 2. Complement the Grand • Operating plan Boulevard Initiative’s vision of 2.2 Increase access to • # of households accessible within a 15-minute walk from a station • VTA Model/2040 Plan Bay realizing El Camino Real as a households, • # of jobs accessible within a 15-minute walk from a station Area (GIS) “grand boulevard of meaningful employment and retail • Convenient and direct pedestrian/bicycle access between stations and • Physical plan (qualitative destinations” by building opportunities adjacent land uses assessment) consensus on transit improvements that promote • Operating plan 2.3. Support planned • VTA Model/2040 Plan Bay livability and commercial vitality • Serve key commercial and residential growth areas growth in corridor Area (GIS) • 3. Minimize system capital and • VTA Model • Capital cost operating cost increases and 3.1. Provide cost- • Operating plan • Operating and Maintenance (O&M) cost per revenue hour operational impacts by effective service • Physical plan • O&M cost per unlinked passenger trip developing a conceptual bus • SamTrans cost model operating plan that optimizes • • local, Rapid and Full BRT 3.2. Minimize ECR Minimize operating demands for peak vehicles Operating plan services along the corridor operating impacts • Reliability (travel time variability) • VTA Model 4.1.Minimize traffic • Volume-to-Capacity (LOS) at key segments (effect of BRT physical • VTA Model 4. Minimize corridor traffic and impacts improvements and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) measures) • parking impacts while 4.2. Minimize physical maximizing the benefits of Rapid • Net change in on-street parking changes to corridor • Physical Plan and Full BRT services • Extent of new turn restrictions infrastructure Source: September 23, 2013 ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Proposed Evaluation Framework.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX K - ECR BRT - DETAILED EVALUATION MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 2 of 14

Memorandum

3 Refinement of Evaluation Metrics

In light of project developments over the last year (including the outputs and results of the ridership forecasts from the VTA Model), the evaluation metrics presented in Table 1 were refined as shown in Table 2. Key changes to the evaluation frameworks are described in the table notes. It is noted that overall project goals and objectives did not change – only the detailed evaluation metrics.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX K - ECR BRT - DETAILED EVALUATION MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 3 of 14

Memorandum

Table 2: Refined Evaluation Framework (Light Gray Shading = Qualitative Metric) Type of Goal Objective Metric Evaluation Criteria Explanation of Metric Metric • Measures the increase in corridor-level boardings (including all SamTrans routes Increase in corridor- 1.1A Quantitative operating on the El Camino Real corridor) compared to Concept 1 (2020 Base Case). level boardings • Higher corridor-level boardings generate more corridor revenues. • Measures the increase in system-level boardings (including all SamTrans routes 1.1. Increase Increase in system- 1.1B Quantitative operating in the system) compared to Concept 1 (2020 Base Case). ridership A, B level boardings • Higher system-level boardings generate higher total fare revenues for SamTrans. • Measures corridor boarding productivity (boardintags/RVH) for all SamTrans routes on Corridor boardings 1. Increase bus 1.1C Quantitative the El Camino Real corridor. per RVH ridership along • Boardings/RVH is an indicator of service productivity. the El Camino Improve station • Measures the extent to which a service concept improves the customer experience at the Corridor by 1.2A experience and Quantitative stop/station (based on the number of enhanced stops or BRT stations in one direction). improving security • More satisfied customers may translate into higher ridership. service for existing • Measures the extent to which a service concept improves in-vehicle experience (based Improve in-vehicle on average travel speed of the Rapid or Hybrid service (i.e., the non-ECR service). customers and 1.2B Quantitative experience • Average travel speed acts as a proxy for in-vehicle time, thus faster travel speeds likely attracting new 1.2. Improve mean shorter in-vehicle time and a better experience and possibly higher ridership. customers passenger • experience Measures how well a service concept creates a unique service and branded identify, Create unique service separate from the existing SamTrans ECR. 1.2C Qualitative branding/identity • A more unique brand identity helps eliminate confusion for riders and may attract riders looking for an enhanced service beyond ECR. Legible and easy to • Measures how easy and intuitive the routing and service pattern is for a given service 1.2D understand routing Qualitative concept against the current situation. and service • A more legible and understandable service is convenient and easier for riders to use. 2. Complement • Measure intended to assess scale of pedestrian improvements including bulbouts, medians, sidewalks, and safer crossing opportunities. the Grand 2.1. Improve Boulevard Pedestrian safety • Not applicable for the 2020 evaluation as specific design details for service concepts pedestrian 2.1A Qualitative C assessment were not developed. Initiative’s safety vision of • Not applicable for the 2040 evaluation since no urban design concepts were developed realizing El in this phase. Camino Real as • Measures the relative accessibility to jobs and housing provided by each service a “grand 2.2. Maintain concept, based on the number of households and jobs within the walking catchment area # of households and boulevard of or improve Quantitative (i.e., quantitative portion of analysis). Areas with more households and jobs within the jobs accessible within meaningful access to 2.2A & walking catchment area may generate higher ridership. households, a 15-minute walk destinations” Qualitative • This metric also considers the extent to which a service concept maintains or improves employment from a station by building perceived access and service to households and employment (i.e., qualitative portion of and retail consensus on analysis). opportunities D, transit E Convenient and • Measure intended to assess how well a service concept facilitates cycling. 2.2B Qualitative improvements direct • Not applicable for the 2020 evaluation as specific design details for service concepts

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX K - ECR BRT - DETAILED EVALUATION MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 4 of 14

Memorandum

Type of Goal Objective Metric Evaluation Criteria Explanation of Metric Metric that promote pedestrian/bicycle were not developed. livability and access between commercial stations and adjacent vitality land uses 2.3. Support Serve key • Measures the extent to which a service concept serves key commercial and residential planned commercial and growth areas along the corridor. 2.3A Qualitative growth in residential growth • Service to key commercial and residential growth areas is necessary to generate corridor areas sustainable levels of ridership. • Measures total capital costs (inclusive of infrastructure and vehicle costs). 3.1A Capital cost Quantitative • Higher total costs may mean more difficult in securing funding, local commitments, and ultimately implementation. • Measures average capital cost per route mile (inclusive of infrastructure and vehicle costs). This is intended to provide another capital cost metric – for instance, a service concept may have a lower overall capital costs, but may be implemented on only a 3.1B Capital cost per mile Quantitative portion of the corridor. This metric better captures such projects and gives a better sense of “return on investment” than the straight comparison of capital costs. 3. Minimize • Higher average costs may mean more difficulty in securing funds and local system capital 3.1. Provide commitments. and operating cost-effective • Measures corridor subsidy per boarding, which indicates the amount of public funding F, G, H cost increases service necessary to “generate” one boarding (subsidy is the difference between total O&M Subsidy per boarding costs and fare revenue). and operational 3.1D Quantitative impacts by (corridor-level) • This metric can also serve as a proxy for productivity, farebox recovery (although developing a normalized by boarding instead of at a corridor level), and general “return on conceptual bus investment”. operating plan • Measures the additional O&M costs required in the corridor to serve one new boarding Incremental O&M that optimizes above the O&M costs for Concept 1 – 2020 Base Case. Thus, additional (or marginal) cost per new local, Rapid 3.1E Quantitative O&M costs are estimated by subtracting O&M costs for a given service concept by the boarding (corridor- and Full BRT Concept 1 O&M costs. level) services along • Higher incremental costs per boarding imply a less productive service. the corridor Minimize operating • Measures the number of vehicles required to provide peak service. 3.2A demands for peak Quantitative • The more peak vehicles required, the higher the chance that new vehicles must be vehicles procured and thus additional capital costs will be required. 3.2. Minimize • Measures the expected reliability of the service based on the length of the corridor ECR operating operated and the number of Rapid or Hybrid stops served. impacts • This serves as a proxy for on-time performance. Concepts with poorer reliability may 3.2B Reliability Qualitative require additional vehicles or corrective measures to ensure that schedules are being met. • Note – the VTA model is unable to estimate reliability of travel times. 4. Minimize Length of segments • Measures the number of corridor segments in miles (both NB and SB) that operate at 4.1.Minimize corridor traffic 4.1A operating at LOS E Quantitative LOS E or F during the AM & PM peak hours for each service concept. traffic impacts and parking or F • LOS can serve as a proxy of expected congestion on the corridor and thus reliability.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX K - ECR BRT - DETAILED EVALUATION MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 5 of 14

Memorandum

Type of Goal Objective Metric Evaluation Criteria Explanation of Metric Metric impacts while • Measure intended to assess the loss of curbside parking and thus the relative impact on maximizing the the business community from inconvenience and possible lost business. benefits of Net change in on- • Not applicable for the 2020 evaluation as no changes to on-street parking provision are 4.2A Quantitative Rapid and Full street parking proposed. 4.2. Minimize BRT services • Not applicable for the 2040 evaluation since no urban design concepts were developed physical in this phase. changes to • corridor Measure intended to assess the implementation of new turn restrictions and thus the infrastructure extent to which traffic is negatively impacted. Extent of new turn • Not applicable for the 2020 evaluation as no changes to turning restrictions are 4.2B Quantitative restrictions proposed. • Not applicable for the 2040 evaluation since no urban design concepts were developed in this phase. A Increase in ridership along key segments of the corridor is no longer part of the evaluation. Increase in corridor and system ridership are perceived as better overall metrics. B Increase in new riders is no longer part of the evaluation. This is already effectively measured by: (i) increase in corridor ridership; and (ii) increase in system ridership. C Assessment of these metrics is not applicable to the 2020 concepts as no such changes or urban design treatments have been proposed or developed. For the 2040 service concept, no urban design concepts have been developed at this time. Such metrics should be evaluated as part of more detailed analysis of the 2040 concept in the future. D The volume of households and jobs accessible within a 15-minute walk from a stop/station has been combined into a single metric. E The qualitative analysis of convenient and direct pedestrian/bicycle access between stops/stations and adjacent land uses has been removed from the 2020 analysis as detailed urban design and land use integration treatments were not developed as part of the ECR Phasing Plan. F Capital costs per route mile were added to provide another indicator of capital cost investment required. G O&M cost per revenue vehicle hour (RVH) has been removed from the analysis, as operating costs are originally built on an assumed figure of $210/RVH for an articulated, 60’ bus. H Subsidy per boarding has been added to the analysis an indicator of how productivity and farebox recovery.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX K - ECR BRT - DETAILED EVALUATION MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 6 of 14

Memorandum

4 Performance and Scoring by Evaluation Criteria

This section presents the results of the quantitative and qualitative analyses for each service concept. Performance among service concepts is ranked on a scale of 1-to-5 for each evaluation criteria. The scores are then summed up for all evaluation criteria to generate a composite score for each service concept.

4.1 Quantitative Analysis

4.1.1 Raw Data The raw data for the quantitative analysis is presented in Table 3 (qualitative metrics will be discussed in Section 4.3). This data was collected and generated through various study activities and highlighted in the following documents: • August 31, 2014 Operating Plan Memo – Draft v1 • September 13, 2014 ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Capital Costs Memo • September 13, 2014 ECR BRT Phasing Plan – O&M Costs Memo • October 1, 2014 ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Ridership and Productivity Memo Service concepts are then scored/ranked on a 1-to-5 point scale for each quantitative evaluation criteria, with 1 being the concept with the lowest performance and 5 being the concept with the highest performance. Performance of each service concept has already been presented in the noted memos above and will not be reviewed again in any detailed fashion for this memo.

4.1.2 Quantitative Scoring Methodology There are several scoring methodologies that could have been employed – for instance: • Ordinal Ranking – Gives a score based on the relative position of the service concept (in ascending or descending order). For instance, of the nine service concepts, the top scoring one could have been given a score of 9, the next one an 8, etc.) • Comparative Ranking (Quartiles, Quintiles, etc.) – This is similar to ordinal ranking, except scoring (in this case 1-to-5) would be assigned by “quintiles” (divided into five different ranges). For instance, of the nine service concepts, those scoring the highest and second highest would be in the “top” quintile and would receive a score of 5. Those receiving the eighth and ninth highest scores would fall into the “bottom” quintile and would receive a score of 1. • Standard Score Ranking (Using Mean and Standard Deviation (SD)) – This ranks service concepts in terms of the number of SDs above or below the mean. For example, a service concept scoring over two SD above the mean would be given a score of 5. A concept scoring between one and two SDs above the mean would be given a score of 4. A concept scoring

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX K - ECR BRT - DETAILED EVALUATION MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 7 of 14

Memorandum

within one SD of the mean would be given a score of 3. This is similar to a bell curve used to grade students. In order to better capture the changes in magnitude between service concepts, the standard score ranking was selected. The scoring methodology is as follows: Table 3: Proposed Scoring Framework Score Type of Bounds 1 2 3 4 5 Metric Ascending Lower Mean – Mean – Mean + Mean + 0 Metric Bound 2 SD 1 SD 1 SD 2 SD (Highest Upper Mean – Mean - Mean + Mean + ∞ Value = Best) Bound 2 SD 1 SD 1 SD 2 SD Descending Lower Mean + Mean + Mean – Mean – ∞ Metric Bound 2 SD 1 SD 1 SD 2 SD (Lowest Upper Mean + Mean + Mean – Mean – 0 Value = Best) Bound 2 SD 1 SD 1 SD 2 SD Note: SD = Standard Deviation The scoring framework is designed to differentiate high performing concepts from low performing concepts. In the sections below, Table 4 presents the raw performance of the service concepts, while Table 5 presents the rankings based on the scoring methodology detailed in Table 3 (it is noted when raw data exhibits little variance (for instance, seven of the concepts have the same raw performance, while two have very similar performance), ordinal ranking will be used and explicitly noted).

4.2 Qualitative Analysis Table 4 presents the results of the qualitative analysis for the nine qualitative evaluation criteria as well as rationale for this scoring (i.e., the raw data). Service concepts are scored/ranked on a 1-to-5 point scale for each criteria, with 1 being the concept with the lowest performance, and 5 being the concept with the highest performance. Some concepts may receive the same score. Color shading indicates relative performance, with dark green representing the highest performing concept, and red representing the lowest performing concept.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX K - ECR BRT - DETAILED EVALUATION MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 8 of 14

Memorandum

Table 4: Quantitative Performance by Service Concept Concept 3: Concept 4: Concept 5: Concept 6: Concept 8: Concept 9: Ascending Concept 1: Concept 2: 2020 2020 Concept 7: Concept 10: 2020 Hybrid 2020 Hybrid 2020 Hybrid 2020 Hybrid Goal Objective Metric Evaluation Criteria Type or 2020 Base 2020 Full Truncated Truncated 2020 Peak 2040 Full Mean SD A (76 Stops - B (50 Stops - A (76 Stops - B (50 Stops - Descending Case Rapid Rapid (DC- Rapid (SB- Rapid BRT 12 Min) 12 Min) 10 Min) 7.5 Min) RC) RC) Increase in corridor-level 1.1A Quantitative Ascending 0 5,606 4,558 3,088 2,915 1,077 3,607 4,640 5,870 17,134 3,485 1,859 boardings 1.1. Increase Increase in system-level ridership 1.1B Quantitative Ascending 0 7,362 6,570 5,539 1,156 1,220 5,730 2,607 4,713 33,355 3,877 2,525 boardings 1.1C Corridor boardings per RVH Quantitative Ascending 49.4 41.3 42.1 43.5 49.3 48.5 44.7 47.5 44.3 67.8 46 3 1. Increase bus ridership Improve station experience and along the El Camino 1.2A security (based on # of Quantitative Ascending 0 37 32 23 37 37 37 37 37 37 31 12 Corridor by improving enhanced stops) service for existing Improve in-vehicle experience customers and attracting (based on average operating 1.2. Improve 1.2B Quantitative Ascending 11.0 14.2 14.0 14.2 11.9 13.0 14.2 11.9 13.0 18.0 13.0 1.1 new customers speed of the Rapid/Hybrid passenger experience service) Create unique service 1.2C Qualitative Ascending branding/identity Legible and easy to understand 1.2D Qualitative Ascending routing and service Presented in the Qualitative Analysis Pedestrian safety assessment 2.1. Improve 2. Complement the 2.1A (bulbouts, medians, sidewalks, Qualitative Ascending pedestrian safety Grand Boulevard crossing opportunities) Initiative’s vision of # of households and jobs realizing El Camino Qualitative 2.2. Maintain or 2.2A accessible within a 15-minute Ascending 536,000 536,000 536,000 536,000 436,000 325,000 536,000 436,000 325,000 658,000 466,889 85,670 Real as a “grand (Quantitative) improve access to walk from a station boulevard of meaningful households, Convenient and direct destinations” by employment and pedestrian/bicycle access building consensus on 2.2B Qualitative Ascending retail opportunities between stations and adjacent transit improvements land uses Presented in the Qualitative Analysis that promote livability 2.3. Support planned Serve key commercial and and commercial vitality 2.3A Qualitative Ascending growth in corridor residential growth areas 3.1A Capital cost Quantitative Descending $0 $41,975,000 $35,249,000 $25,545,000 $21,025,000 $16,464,000 $41,975,000 $29,268,000 $39,544,000 $176,850,000 $27,893,889 $13,121,977 3.1B Capital cost per mile Quantitative Descending $0 $1,635,616 $1,694,005 $1,719,587 $819,269 $641,543 $1,635,616 $1,140,469 $1,540,888 $6,891,212 $1,202,999 $568,627 3. Minimize system 3.1. Provide cost- Subsidy per boarding (corridor- 3.1C Quantitative Descending $2.89 $3.69 $3.64 $3.51 $2.87 $2.94 $3.32 $3.01 $3.38 $1.69 $3.25 $0.31 capital and operating effective service level) cost increases and Incremental O&M cost per new 3.1D Quantitative Descending $0.00 $7.49 $7.68 $8.10 $4.12 $5.57 $6.65 $4.96 $6.13 $1.93 $5.63 $2.34 operational impacts by boarding (corridor-level) developing a conceptual Minimize operating demands bus operating plan that 3.2A for peak vehicles (based on # of Quantitative Descending 22 39 36 32 25 23 39 30 37 36 31 6 optimizes local, Rapid peak vehicles required) 3.2. Minimize ECR and Full BRT services Reliability (based on the length operating impacts along the corridor of corridor and number of stops 3.2B Qualitative Ascending Presented in the Qualitative Analysis served by the Rapid/Hybrid service) 4. Minimize corridor 4.1.Minimize traffic Length of segments operating at 4.1A Quantitative Descending 29.76 29.96 30.07 29.54 30.1 30.26 30.53 30.39 30.4 30.53 30.11 0.30 traffic and parking impacts LOS E or F impacts while 4.2. Minimize 4.2A Net change in on-street parking Quantitative Descending maximizing the benefits physical changes to Not applicable to the 2020 Evaluation of Rapid and Full BRT corridor 4.2B Extent of new turn restrictions Quantitative Descending services infrastructure Source: Various SamTrans ECR Phasing Plan memos.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX K - ECR BRT - DETAILED EVALUATION MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 9 of 14

Memorandum

Table 5: Scoring for Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation Criteria by 2020 Service Concept (Dark Green = Best Performing; Red = Worst Performing)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Concept 3: Concept 4: Concept 5: Concept 6: Concept 8: Concept 9: Concept 1: Concept 2: 2020 2020 2020 Concept 7: 2020 Hybrid 2020 Hybrid 2020 Hybrid Goal Objective Metric Evaluation Criteria Type 2020 Base 2020 Full Truncated Truncated Hybrid A 2020 Peak Rationale for Scoring and Other Comments B (50 Stops - A (76 Stops - B (50 Stops - Case Rapid Rapid (DC- Rapid (SB- (76 Stops - Rapid 12 Min) 10 Min) 7.5 Min) RC) RC) 12 Min)

• Concepts with larger increases in corridor boardings score higher. • Rapid concepts operating along the entire corridor all day generate larger increases in corridor boardings Increase in corridor-level 1.1A Quantitative 1 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 and score higher than Rapid concepts operating only during peak periods or on truncated segments. boardings • Hybrid concepts operating at the same frequency, but serving more stops generate larger increases in corridor boardings and are thus scored higher than those Hybrid concepts serving fewer stops. • Concepts with larger increases in system-level boardings score higher. 1.1. Increase • Rapid concepts operating along the entire corridor generate larger increases in system boardings and score Increase in system-level ridership 1.1B Quantitative 1 4 4 3 1 2 3 3 3 higher than Rapid concepts operating on truncated segments of the corridor. boardings • Hybrid concepts with more frequent service generated larger increases in system-level boardings and are thus scored higher than those Hybrid concepts with less frequent service. • Concepts with higher productivity score higher. • Hybrid concepts generate the highest productivity and generally score higher than Rapid concepts. 1.1C Corridor boardings per RVH Quantitative 4 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 • Rapid concepts operating for portions of the day or on portions of the corridor generally generate better productivity than the full-day/corridor Rapid service. • Ordinal ranking used for this metric due to minimal variance between concepts. • Concepts with a larger number of enhanced stations (or BRT stations) score higher than those with fewer. Improve station experience • All full-corridor Rapid and Hybrid concepts each serve 37 enhanced stops in one direction. 1. Increase bus ridership 1.2A and security (based on # of Quantitative 1 5 3 2 5 5 4 5 5 • The Peak Rapid concept serves 37 enhanced stops in each direction, however, only peak passengers can along the El Camino enhanced stops) A enjoy an enhanced experience, thus the Peak Rapid concept scores lower than those providing all-day Corridor by improving service to these enhanced stops. service for existing • Truncated Rapid concepts serve fewer than 37 enhanced stops in one direction and thus score lower. customers and attracting • Ordinal ranking used for this metric due to minimal variance between concepts. Improve in-vehicle new customers • Concepts that more significantly improve the in-vehicle experience score higher (i.e., those with faster experience (based on average 1.2B Quantitative 1 5 4 5 2 3 5 2 3 operating speeds for the Rapid or Hybrid). operating speed of the • Rapid/Hybrid service) A Rapid concepts serve fewer stops and operate faster than Hybrid concepts, thus scoring higher. • 1.2. Improve Hybrid concepts that serve fewer stops operate faster and score higher than those that serve more stops. passenger • Concepts creating a premium service that is distinct from current ECR service score higher than those that experience are similar to the existing ECR service. Create unique service • Rapid options are unique branded products that are different from and complement the existing ECR. Those 1.2C Qualitative 1 5 4 3 2 3 4 2 3 branding/identity Rapid options serving the entire corridor score higher than those that are truncated. • Hybrid options are similar to the ECR, except have fewer stops and are thus less “unique”, serving essentially as a “limited stop” ECR. Those with fewer stops score higher than those with more stops. • Concepts with simpler routing and service patterns (where passengers do not need to think about where the bus stops) score higher than those with multiple, possibly confusing routings. • The 2020 Base Case scores highest as a single route (ECR) operates on the entire corridor. Hybrid options Legible and easy to also score high because only one route operates on the corridor, although Hybrid options do not serve all 1.2D understand routing and Qualitative 5 3 2 1 4 3 2 4 3 ECR stops (thus they perform slightly worse than the 2020 Base Case). service • Rapid concepts score lower because multiple routes operate in the ECR corridor, which may be confusing. The Rapid concept serving the entire corridor all day scores higher than those serving the entire corridor during the peak only or truncated portions of the corridor. Pedestrian safety assessment 2.1. Improve (bulbouts, medians, 2.1A Qualitative Not applicable to the 2020 Evaluation pedestrian safety sidewalks, crossing 2. Complement the opportunities) Grand Boulevard • This analysis is both qualitative and quantitative. Initiative’s vision of • An initial quantitative analysis was undertaken to estimate the total number of jobs and households within a realizing El Camino # of households and jobs 15-minute walk from a bus stop (indicated in parentheses). Real as a “grand accessible within a 15- • The 2020 Base Case is given score of 3 as a baseline with ECR-only service. Rapid concepts operate both boulevard of meaningful 2.2. Maintain or minute walk from a station Qualitative / 3 5 4 3 2 1 3 3 2 Rapid and ECR service, with Rapid services providing an enhanced level of access over the ECR. Thus, destinations” by building improve access to 2.2A (parentheses represent the # Quantitative (536,000) (536,000) (536,000) (536,000) (436,000) (325,000) (536,000) (436,000) (325,000) Rapid concepts score higher than the 2020 Base Case. consensus on transit households, of households and jobs • improvements that employment and within the catchment zone Rapid service concepts (with both Rapid and ECR services) serve the highest number of jobs and promote livability and retail opportunities from GIS analysis) households (and thus score higher than Hybrid concepts that only serve a subset of the stops). commercial vitality • Hybrid concepts serving more stops score higher than those serving fewer stops. Also, Hybrid concepts providing more frequent service score higher. Convenient and direct 2.2B Qualitative Not applicable to the 2020 Evaluation pedestrian/bicycle access

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX K - ECR BRT - DETAILED EVALUATION MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 10 of 14

Memorandum

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

between stations and adjacent land uses • The 2020 Base Case is given a score of 3 as a baseline. • All proposed service concepts will serve key commercial and residential growth areas, although they differ according to the level of access provided to these areas. 2.3. Support Serve key commercial and • planned growth in 2.3A Qualitative 3 5 4 3 3 2 4 3 2 Rapid services improve access to key areas in addition to the access provided by the ECR and thus score residential growth areas corridor higher. • Hybrid concepts also serve key commercial and residential growth areas, although there is a slight loss of access due to the reduced number of stops. Hybrid A performs better than Hybrid B as it makes more stops which increases overall accessibility. • Concepts with lower capital costs score higher than those with higher capital costs. • Hybrid concepts generate lower capital costs than most Rapid options due to the number of additional 3.1A Capital cost Quantitative 5 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 vehicles that must be procured to provide peak service under the Rapid options. • Rapid services operating on truncated portions of the corridor also generate lower capital costs than Rapid concepts operating along the entire corridor (and require fewer peak vehicles). • Concepts with lower average capital costs/mile score higher than those with higher average costs. • Hybrid concepts generate the lowest capital costs/route mile due to fewer additional peak vehicles that must be procured. Hybrid concepts operating at the same headway, but serving fewer stops score the highest. 3.1. Provide cost- 3.1B Capital cost per mile Quantitative 5 2 2 2 4 4 2 3 2 • Rapid concepts that serve truncated segments of the corridor generate lower capital costs per mile than those effective service operating along the entire corridor, although variance between these costs per mile is not large enough to 3. Minimize system warrant different scores within the adopted scoring framework. • Concepts with lower average subsidy per boarding score higher than those with higher rates. capital and operating Subsidy per boarding 3.1C Quantitative 4 2 2 2 4 4 3 4 3 • cost increases and (corridor-level) Hybrid concepts score higher since they generate lower operating costs than the Rapid concepts (which has operational impacts by both Rapid and ECR service), yet generate similar volumes of fare revenues. developing a conceptual Incremental O&M cost per • Concepts with lower incremental O&M costs/ new boarding score higher than those with higher costs. bus operating plan that 3.1D new boarding (corridor- Quantitative 5 2 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 • Hybrid concepts score higher than Rapid concepts as they require lower incremental O&M costs/ new optimizes local, Rapid level) boarding (since no ECR service is operated), while generating a similar number of riders. and Full BRT services • Concepts with lower peak vehicle requirements score higher than those with higher requirements. along the corridor Minimize operating demands • Hybrid concepts require the fewest vehicles due to faster operating speeds and fewer stops, and thus 3.2A for peak vehicles (based on # Quantitative 4 2 2 3 4 4 2 3 2 generally score higher than Rapid concepts. of peak vehicles required) • Rapid concepts operating on truncated portions of the corridor generally require fewer vehicles than those concepts operating along the entire corridor. 3.2. Minimize ECR • Perceived reliability for the 2020 Base Case is based on the current ECR, which operates on the whole operating impacts corridor and would stop more frequently than any of the proposed Rapid or Hybrid service concepts (and Reliability (based on the thus scores the lowest). length of corridor and 3.2B Qualitative 1 4 5 5 2 3 4 2 3 • Concepts with better perceived reliability score higher than those with lower perceived reliability. number of stops served by • Rapid concepts serve fewer stops and are perceived as being more reliable and thus score higher. the Rapid/Hybrid service) • Concepts serving shorter segments are perceived as more reliable than those serving the whole corridor. • Hybrid concepts that serve fewer stops are perceived to be more reliable than those serving more stops. 4.1.Minimize Length of segments • Concepts with shorter cumulative LOS E or F segments score higher than those with longer LOS E or F 4.1A Quantitative 4 4 3 5 3 3 2 2 2 4. Minimize corridor traffic impacts operating at LOS E or F cumulative segments. traffic and parking impacts while Net change in on-street 4.2. Minimize 4.2A Quantitative maximizing the benefits physical changes to parking of Rapid and Full BRT Not applicable to the 2020 Evaluation corridor Extent of new turn services 4.2B infrastructure restrictions Quantitative Note: A Ordinal ranking used due to little/no variance in raw performance. 2020 Composite Score (Quantitative Score Only): 35 34 30 33 37 36 32 34 33 Relative Ranking (Quantitative Score Only): 3 4 9 6 1 2 8 4 6 2020 Composite Score (Qualitative Score Only): 13 22 19 15 13 12 17 14 13 Relative Ranking (Qualitative Score Only): 6 1 2 4 6 9 3 5 6 2020 Composite Score (Combined): 48 56 49 48 50 48 49 48 46 Relative Ranking (Combined): 5 1 3 5 2 5 3 5 9

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX K - ECR BRT - DETAILED EVALUATION MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 11 of 14

Memorandum

4.3 Key 2020 Findings

4.3.1 Key Quantitative Findings Table 5 presents the quantitative scoring for each evaluation criteria by service concept (with dark green representing the highest performing concept, and red representing the lowest performing concept). Key findings are as follows: • Qualitative scores by service concepts range from 30 to 37 for the 11 evaluation criteria. • The highest performing service concepts are Concept 5 - 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops – 12 Min) with 37 points and Concept 6 – 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops – 12 Min) with 36 points, respectively. • In general, Hybrid concepts (and the 2020 Base Case) perform better due to lower operating and capital cost requirements (in terms of the number of additional peak vehicles required). • Concepts operating both Rapid and ECR services may perform well for ridership-based metrics, however, they perform poorly overall due to higher associated operating and capital costs (from higher peak vehicle requirements) than Hybrid concepts.

4.3.2 Key Qualitative Findings Key qualitative findings are also included in Table 5 and are as follows: • Qualitative scores by service concepts range from 12 to 22. • The highest performing service concepts are Concept 2 - 2020 Full Rapid) and Concept 3 - 2020 Truncated Rapid (DC-RC)), with 22 and 19 points, respectively. • In general, concepts with Rapid and ECR service perform better qualitatively in that these concepts both maintain a high level of access (as the ECR still provides local service), while providing a faster, more reliable, and brand-distinguished overlay service (the Rapid). Rapid concepts that serve the entire corridor score higher as they are more intuitive to use and less confusing than those that serve truncated portions of the corridor. • Hybrid concepts provide a high level of service, but provide reduced access to jobs and housing along the corridor, since a significant number of stops are eliminated from service – and thus score lower than Rapid concepts.

4.3.3 Overall Composite Findings Table 6 and Figure 1 present the overall composite score, which is calculated by adding the quantitative and qualitative scores of each service concept. Key findings are as follows: • Concept 2 Performs the Best - Concept 2 - 2020 Full Rapid generates a composite score of 56, which represents the best performance of the nine 2020 concepts. As noted, Concept 2 is extremely strong in its qualitative analysis, which makes up for its average performance in the quantitative analysis.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX K - ECR BRT - DETAILED EVALUATION MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 12 of 14

• Concept 5 Ranks as the Next Highest Performer – Concept 5 – 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops – 12 Min) has a composite score of 50. Concept 5 performs better in the quantitative analysis, buoyed by high ratings in cost-related categories. • Combined Rapid and ECR Concepts Generally Perform Slightly Better than Hybrid Concepts – Overall, concepts with combined Rapid and ECR service seem to perform better than Hybrid concepts. The reason is likely that access is a key element in the concept evaluation – thus loss of access by eliminating stops (as is done for all Hybrid concepts) has a significant negative impact on the evaluation and the perceived level of service. • If Improvements Are Implemented, Concepts 2 and 5 Can Be Strong Options, But Each Brings Different Benefits – As noted, the top scoring “build” alternatives (i.e., those where changes and modifications are made) are Concept 2 – 2020 Full Rapid and Concept 5 – 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops – 12 Min). There are key differences between these service concepts, however, with different implications for the future scope/extent of BRT service and infrastructure:

o Concept 2 – 2020 Full BRT - While Concept 2 performs the best and offers the most robust enhancement to customer service and access with the full-corridor overlay Rapid service, it is more expensive overall in terms of both operating costs (as the number of RVH is significantly higher than the 2020 Base Case) and capital costs (due to the high number of additional peak vehicles required). Overlay Rapid service in Concept 2 is a natural precursor to more significant investment in a future fixed guideway system with dedicated bus lanes and more robust bus stations (i.e., BRT). There are some shortcomings of Concept 2, in particular, higher costs may preclude enhancements if adequate budget is not available or allocated for other purposes.

o Concept 5 – 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops – 12 Min) - Concept 5 on the other hand, may score lower in customer service and access, but has much lower O&M and capital costs (as it requires minimal increases in RVH and thus O&M costs, and does not require a significant number of new peak vehicles to be acquired). It may be easier to garner political support and eventual implementation of Concept 5 and it can likely be implemented faster due to its lower cost. Taking a long-term perspective, however, Concept 5 represents a minor change to existing ECR service – essentially creating a “limited stop” ECR. Concept 5 does not align well with plans for a future BRT system with dedicated bus lanes and more robust bus stations, which would have both local and BRT service running in parallel. Concept 5 would cut local service in the short term and this service would eventually have to be restored in the future for the BRT, which would be confusing and send conflicting messages to the public and policymakers. Table 6: Composite Score and Ranking by Service Concept Quantitative Qualitative Composite Concept Analysis Analysis Rank Score Score Score Concept 1: 2020 Base Case 35 13 48 5 Concept 2: 2020 Full Rapid 34 22 56 1 Concept 3: 2020 Truncated Rapid (DC-RC) 30 19 49 3 Concept 4: 2020 Truncated Rapid (SB-RC) 33 15 48 5 Concept 5: 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 12 Min) 37 13 50 2

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX K - ECR BRT - DETAILED EVALUATION MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3

Quantitative Qualitative Composite Concept Analysis Analysis Rank Score Score Score Concept 6: 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 12 Min) 36 12 48 5 Concept 7: 2020 Peak Rapid 32 17 49 3 Concept 8: 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops - 10 Min) 34 14 48 5 Concept 9: 2020 Hybrid B (50 Stops - 7.5 Min) 33 13 46 9

Figure 1: 2020 Evaluation Scores by Service Concept

5 Next Steps

Findings from this memo will be further analyzed in terms of the potential for implementation and funding, as well as transition to a future BRT system in 2040.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX K - ECR BRT - DETAILED EVALUATION MEMO.DOCX

Arup | F0.3

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – Appendices December 2014

Appendix L: Preferred Alternative

MEMORANDUM

Date: October 15, 2014

To: Barrow Emerson, SamTrans Melissa Reggiardo, SamTrans

From: Steve Crosley (Fehr & Peers) & Corey Wong (ARUP)

Subject: ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Preferred Alternative

SF14-0747

OVERVIEW

This memo presents two potential service strategy options for enhancing bus service on the El Camino Corridor in the future (i.e., out to the year 2040). Based on the findings of the Detailed Evaluation Memo, the two options are as follows (Table 1 highlights the pros and cons of each).

1. Option 1 – This is a two-phased option. The near-term phase (Phase 1) starting in 2020 or before calls for a Rapid service overlaid on top of existing ECR Local service. Phase 2 calls for the Rapid service to be upgraded to Bus Rapid Transit service by 2040. ECR Local service will continue to operate on the corridor under Phase 2. 2. Option 2 - A future near-term (2020 or before) Hybrid Rapid (referred to as Hybrid) service without complementary local overlay service (i.e., ECR Local service). By 2040, the same Hybrid Rapid is operated, without any modifications to service or corridor infrastructure.

Both strategies are feasible options that would enhance bus service along the Corridor. The decision to pursue either option will be based on a variety of decision factors, outlined at the end of this memo and will be a decision of the SamTrans Board. This memo does not recommend a single approach to pursue at this time.

332 Pine Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com

Barrow Emerson and Melissa Reggiardo October 15, 2014 Page 2 of 8

Table 1 – Pros and Cons of Rapid/BRT Service Strategies Description Service Description Pros Cons 2020 Timeframe • High ridership • Higher costs • ECR Local (Phase 1/2)- 15- increase (operating and minute headways, stopping at • Improved maintenance existing 102 NB and 104 SB accessibility and (O&M) and Phase 1 (2020) stops mobility capital) • • Lower Full Rapid • Full Rapid (Phase 1) - 15-minute Reduced wait times productivity overlay with headways, stopping at 37 stops • Improved than Option 2 Option ECR Local in each direction from Daly City to Palo Alto reliability • Supportive land 1 Phase 2 (2040) 2040 Timeframe • Operational use needed to Full BRT flexibility • ECR Local operated as above sustain Phase 2 overlay with • Easy to BRT • BRT (Phase 2) - 15-minute ECR Local understand investments headways, stopping at 37 enhanced stops in each • Natural direction from Daly City to Palo progression to Alto) BRT service in long term 2020 Timeframe • High ridership • Degraded • Hybrid Rapid - 12-minute increase overall headways, stopping at 76 stops • Low cost option accessibility and between Daly City and Palo Alto (O&M and mobility • 2040 Timeframe capital) Difficult Phase 1 (2020) • High transition to Option • Hybrid Rapid operated as above Hybrid A with productivity BRT (i.e., 2 no overlay • Easy to confusing to the implement public, and • Improved requires reliability reinitiating service cut in 2020).

SUMMARY OF RECOMMEND STRATEGY OPTIONS

Option 1 (2020 Full Rapid and 2040 BRT) consists of phased approach that gradually upgrades trunk line transit along the Corridor from the current local service provided by the ECR, to a Rapid overlay on top of the ECR, to an upgraded BRT overlay on top of the ECR. This option has many benefits - increasing ridership, enhancing access, providing a faster, more reliable, brand- distinguished overlay service, operational flexibility, and setting up the corridor for an effective transition to BRT service. It also has its drawbacks, most notably, high operating and capital costs resulting in lower productivity compared to Option 2. Phase 2 Full BRT would require supporting land use (land use mix and higher densities) along the corridor that is far more intensive than today in order to justify the high capital costs (exclusive transit lanes) identified for this option. Barrow Emerson and Melissa Reggiardo October 15, 2014 Page 3 of 8

Option 2 (2020 Hybrid A) would require a minimal operating and capital cost increase while increasing speed, reliability, and ridership along the corridor. Due to the lower capital outlay and operating costs than Option 1, it would be easier to implement. Because it would eliminate lower productivity stops, overall access would decrease compared to existing ECR Local service. At a 12- minute service frequency, customers would see one additional bus per hour (a total of five) over existing service, which is far lower than the 8 buses per hour (4 Rapid, 4 local) that would be provided under Option 1. Although physically possible, Option 2 would require a more difficult operational transition to 2040 BRT service, as the station spacing strategy under BRT (typically ½ to 1 mile) would result in a significant loss of local access from neighborhoods along the Corridor, unless ECR Local service was reinstituted to maintain accessibility along the corridor.Supporting Analysis and Documentation

The evaluation framework and performance analysis that led to the selection of the preferred alternative service strategies for consideration is contained in the following document, which presents the quantitative and qualitative evaluation:

• ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Detailed 2020 Concept Evaluation Memo

The quantitative evaluation considered criteria such as ridership, station and vehicle improvements, operating costs, capital costs, passenger subsidy, and traffic impacts. The raw data for the quantitative performance analysis were collected and generated through various study activities and is highlighted in the following documents:

• Operating Plan Memo – Draft v1

• ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Capital Costs Memo

• ECR BRT Phasing Plan – O&M Costs Memo

• ECR BRT Phasing Plan – Ridership and Productivity Memo

Meanwhile, the qualitative analysis considered a range of criteria including branding, service legibility, safety, pedestrian and bicycle access, jobs and housing accessibility, and reliability improvements.

The following sections make the “case” for each alternative option. Barrow Emerson and Melissa Reggiardo October 15, 2014 Page 4 of 8

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE OPTION 1 – PHASED RAPID & BRT CONCEPT 2: 2020 FULL RAPID & CONCEPT 10: 2040 BRT

This strategic option would introduce Rapid service first in the near term, followed by a transition to BRT service in the long term. This option is financially unconstrained relative to Option 2, but allows for a straightforward conversion to BRT, which is impeded by the service structure of the Hybrid concept.

• Phase 1 - Full Rapid (Concept 2) overlay with ECR Local prior to 2020 • Phase 2 - Full BRT (Concept 10) overlay with ECR Local prior to 2040

Upon introduction, ECR Rapid would provide faster service (model estimated 14.2 mph) than ECR Local (11.0 mph) and make 37 stops, compared to the 102-104 (NB/SB) for ECR Local. From a customer perspective, this is the preferred near term alternative due:

• More Frequent Service – ECR Rapid would effectively double service frequency at high activity stops along the corridor. • More Legible Service – Option 1 would create an easy to understand routing and alignment plan for the Rapid (duplicate routing of ECR Local and nearly the same service hours), while ECR Local service would continue to operate as it does today. • More Reliable Service - Service reliability would also improve through employment of transit signal priority by allowing buses operating behind schedule to obtain additional green time at intersections.

When considering the performance assessment, Full Rapid (Concept 2) scored highest in a combination of quantitative and qualitative criteria. While it did not exhibit the highest productivity of the service concepts considered and had high operating and capital costs relative to the other options screened, it is expected to generate a significant increase in corridor and system ridership and offers the most robust enhancement to the customer experience of all Rapid concepts. Overlay Rapid service is a natural precursor to more significant investment in a future BRT system with dedicated bus lanes (identified for portions of El Camino) and more robust stations. The Phase 2 recommendation for this option was analyzed using the same, limited 37- stop spacing as the Full Rapid. Future BRT service could reduce the number of stations to improve speed and reliability; increasing the number of stations is not recommended due to the current provision for coverage stops and average half-mile stop spacing. Thus, a local ECR service would Barrow Emerson and Melissa Reggiardo October 15, 2014 Page 5 of 8

need to be maintained to ensure transit accessibility and mobility on El Camino at the two thirds of stop locations that do not qualify as high ridership stops.

The GBI Corridor Plan also found that with sufficient land use densities, BRT would be feasible on the El Camino Corridor.1 Full BRT service would complement the GBI Corridor Plan, which proposed El Camino multi-modal improvements that focus on a corridor-wide vision with common pedestrian-, transit-, and bicycle-oriented design elements, and are intended to be consistent with Caltrans, SamTrans, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County standards and complete street policies. In order to “prime the pump” for future BRT service, a Full Rapid (Concept 2) should be pursued initially.

Another benefit of Option 1 is its operational flexibility. While Option 1 includes all day Rapid service, it could be phased in via a peak period Rapid (no midday) scenario originally, and then dialed up based on actual demand to all-day service at a later time. It also provides flexibility to increase or decrease headways of the Rapid service while maintaining the 15-minute ECR Local service frequency. Introducing Option 1 as a pilot project (example: one to two years) in order to establish its real-world performance and whether it meets SamTrans performance standards is another possibility. However removing any service, regardless of the level of communication with customers on the temporary nature of a service before implementation and during testing, can be politically challenging.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE OPTION 2 – CONCEPT 5: HYBRID A (76 STOPS)

This option provides an immediate performance improvement to ECR Local service by eliminating unproductive stops, implementing traffic signal priority to improve speed and reliability, and improving service frequency. It is not an overlay service, meaning it replaces rather than complements ECR Local.

• Phase 1 – Hybrid A (Concept 5) with no overlay prior to 2020

1 “In San Mateo County, current low densities along many parts of the Corridor will need significant investment to provide the ridership to support BRT. Cities, towns, counties, and other agencies and advocacy groups should continue to promote transit-supportive growth along El Camino Real.” (Grand Boulevard Multimodal Transportation Corridor Plan, October 2010) Barrow Emerson and Melissa Reggiardo October 15, 2014 Page 6 of 8

The elimination of approximately 25% of existing ECR stops under this option results in faster travel times but reduces customer access and mobility within the Corridor. It is projected to have the highest productivity (boardings per revenue hour), lowest incremental cost per new corridor passenger, and the highest ridership increase when compared to increased O&M cost of all build options analyzed. Compared to Option 1, this option is financially constrained – it has lower O&M and capital cost (as it requires minimal increases in vehicle revenue hours and thus O&M costs, and does not require procurement of a large number of new, additional peak vehicles). With a cheaper cost to implement and operate, it may be easier to garner agency support and could be implemented faster than Option 1.

Taking a long-term perspective, however, Option 2 represents a minor change to existing ECR service – essentially creating a “limited stop” ECR and does not align well with plans for a future BRT system with dedicated bus lanes and more robust bus stations, which would have both local and BRT service running in parallel. Conversion to BRT is possible, but it would require a full reconfiguration of service on the Corridor. BRT would further reduce stops (currently 37 are included in the BRT service concept) and access to jobs, housing, and other activities via transit would be limited to high demand areas without reintroduction of a local service. This would also create potential for customer confusion as one service is replaced by two services and does not follow a natural progression towards BRT.

DECISION TRIGGERS

Both service alternatives are feasible and each would increase ridership on the Corridor. Available funding, customer needs, operational flexibility, ability to transition to BRT service, and complementary land use plans are all factors to be considered by SamTrans decision makers in determining which strategic transit option to pursue for El Camino Real.

Funding2

Transit operating budgets traditionally do not leave room for significant increases in operating costs. Capital needs can be obtained through a variety of federal, state, regional, and local funding sources but operating fund sources are traditionally more limited and finite. Option 1 would increase SamTrans ECR operating budget by approximately 60% (current year costs). Option 2, which is financially constrained, would increase SamTrans ECR operating budget by

2 Note: current year (2014) costs have been assumed for this comparison. Barrow Emerson and Melissa Reggiardo October 15, 2014 Page 7 of 8

approximately 20%, which may be more feasible from a budgeting perspective. In terms of annual system wide O&M costs ($107M), Option 1 would result in a 12.4% increase ($13.3M) compared to 4.1% for Option 2.

Customer Needs / User Cost

Option 2 provides the corridor with an enhanced bus service with low capital and operating cost expenditures and an overall net benefit in terms of attracting new ridership, reducing wait time and in-vehicle travel time, and improving reliability. Its primary drawback is that it reduces access for a wide range of customers, including those with potentially limited mobility by eliminating low productivity stops south of Redwood City and north of San Bruno. Option 2 has far lower agency costs than Option 1, but generates user costs, which Option 1 does not.

Operational Flexibility

Option 1 offers greater flexibility to modify service compared to Option 2. With ECR Local operating the same in the future as it is today, SamTrans has the ability to introduce Full Rapid service as a tiered approach (peak period first, all day second, etc.), increase or decrease service frequencies, or truncate service to meet demand. Option 2 would likely be limited to minor service adjustments such as frequency or stop relocation, with the absence of a local ECR.

BRT Need and Transition

Option 2 would preclude eventual conversion of Rapid service to BRT without the reintroduction of ECR Local, whereas Option 1 would provide a natural transition to BRT. Determination of the long-term goal for transit in the Corridor, including fusion with planned GBI Corridor complete street enhancements, should factor into the decision of which service strategy to pursue in the near term. Corridor traffic congestion should also be a factor in the decision making process. Model forecasts show worsening traffic congestion in the County and along the Corridor. BRT would provide exclusive ROW on continuous segments of the Corridor that would allow buses to bypass congestion, improve speed, and enhance reliability. Another factor in considering the need for BRT in the long term and the decision to pursue Option 1 versus Option 2 is Caltrain service. Upon electrification (planned for 2019), Caltrain is proposing to improve off-peak headways to 30 minutes and add one additional train per hour per direction during the peak periods (from 5 trains per hour per direction to 6). Since ECR parallels a majority of the Corridor from Palo Alto to San Bruno, Corridor trips can be taken via Caltrain. While 2040 model runs showed a significant increase in ridership with BRT, the cost to implement BRT should be considered in the context of Barrow Emerson and Melissa Reggiardo October 15, 2014 Page 8 of 8

planned and funded improvements to Caltrain. Conversely, Caltrain ridership demand has continued to increase, and BRT could be an effective strategy to offer faster, more reliable, and more frequent parallel service along the Caltrain Corridor to reduce potential overcrowding.

Local Land Use and Commitments

In order to justify BRT (Phase 2 of Option 1), densities should be increased and a wider range of transit supportive land uses must be realized along the corridor.3 Will the projected development, called for in GBI and Corridor cities’ General Plans actually occur? Will communities (city leaders and residents) tolerate on-street parking loss, potential reduction in the number of general purpose lanes (never less than 2 per direction), and loss of medians to implement exclusive transit lanes, enhanced stations and the complete streets improvements (wider sidewalks, narrower crossings) called for in the GBI Corridor Plan? These questions about the long term are difficult to answer, especially considering the array of individual jurisdictions that line the Corridor, yet a certain degree of confidence is needed before pursuing BRT (notwithstanding the ability of BRT to induce development itself).

3 GBI travel demand modeling and analysis found that BRT shows great potential along the GBI corridor, but would require significant financial investment and supporting land uses. (Grand Boulevard Multimodal Transportation Corridor Plan, October 2010). El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – Appendices December 2014

Appendix M: Implementation Plan

Memorandum

To Barrow Emerson, SamTrans Date Melissa Reggiardo, SamTrans 14 November 2014

Copies Reference number

From Corey Wong, Arup File reference Steve Crosley, Fehr + Peers

Subject ECR BRT Implementation and Phasing Plan - Draft v1

1 Introduction

This memo presents the conceptual implementation plan (i.e., schedule) for the proposed 2020 and 2040 service concepts. This implementation plan is high-level and provides generalized timeframes for implementation activities. Furthermore, the plan does not delve into durations for all detailed activities expected in the future – rather umbrella activities will be represented with indicative timeframes. For instance, a broad “construction” activity represents all construction-related activities that could include preliminary site surveys, removal of asphalt, implementation of new bus stops, and repaving of roadways, as well as testing and commissioning. The memo also discusses potential conditions that would trigger consideration of Rapid/Hybrid service against conditions on the ECR Corridor today. Furthermore, conditions that would trigger consideration of Full BRT (i.e., Concept 10 2040 Full BRT) after initial implementation of 2020 enhancements are discussed as well.

2 Service Concepts

Illustrative timeframes are presented in this memo for three service concepts: Table 1: Service Concepts and Key Assumptions Concept Description Key Assumptions • The 2020 Full Rapid service concept consists of 15-minute headways, and 37 • 74 enhanced stops (37 in each stops in each direction from Daly City direction) to Palo Alto. • 17 new (additional) vehicles Concept 2: • • Transit Signal Priority (TSP) at 2020 Full The ECR local service (i.e., the existing ECR) continues to operate its existing 120 intersections Rapid schedule and serves the current stop • No pavement or right-of-way pattern (15-minute headways and 102 (ROW) improvements existing northbound (NB) stops and 104 • No ROW acquisition existing southbound (SB) stops). Concept 5: • The 2020 Hybrid A service concept • 74 enhanced stops (37 in each 2020 consists of 12-minute headways and 76 direction) Hybrid A stops between Daly City and Palo Alto. • 78 stops with minor

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX M - ECR BRT - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 1 of 18

Concept Description Key Assumptions (76 stops • Hybrid service provides faster service improvements (39 in each with 12- than the ECR local service and provides direction) minute more local access than the Full Rapid in • 3 new (additional) vehicles service higher demand segments. • TSP at 120 intersections frequencies) • ECR local service is discontinued in this • No pavement or ROW concept. improvements • No ROW acquisition • 74 BRT stations (37 in each direction) • Stations are equipped with real- time information, ticket vending machines (TVMs), and a higher • The 2040 Full BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) level of passenger amenities consists of 15-minute headways and 37 than either those for Concepts 2 stations in each direction from Daly City or 5 Concept 10: to Palo Alto. • 14 new (additional) vehicles 2040 Full • This concept retains the ECR local • 10.9 miles of dedicated bus BRT service with 15-minute headways and lanes (either median or curb) 102 existing NB stops and 104 existing • 6 queue jump lanes SB stops. • TSP has already been installed in previous stages • Some ROW acquisition assumed at this point (to be determined in later engineering/design stages)

3 Implementation Timeframes by Concept

3.1 Key Assumptions Implementation activities run the gamut from preliminary engineering, to environmental analysis, to approval, to procurement, to construction and finally operation. It is assumed for each of the three service concepts, the implementation timeline begins once SamTrans Board approval is given to study the concept in greater detail. Therefore, preliminary conceptual planning activities prior to SamTrans Board approval are assumed to have already occurred and are not included in the implementation timeframes presented below. Furthermore, the timeframes depicted here are indicative and could change significantly depending on public processes, the political and community atmosphere, as well as unforeseen delays in approvals, particularly during the engineering/design, environmental and construction stages.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX M - ECR BRT - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 2 of 18

3.2 Concept 2: 2020 Full Rapid Key activities for implementing Full Rapid service by 2020 are as follows (note conceptual planning and feasibility study have been undertaken under this study): • Engineering and Design - Once the Board approves further studies, engineering and design will occur for about 9 months. Engineering and design will principally focus on station improvements, vehicle specifications and requirements, and related TSP specifications. Activities under this task will include utility coordination, permits and approvals. • Funding - Funding activities will start concurrently with engineering and design and become more urgent once reliable cost estimates are developed. The funding activity may take up to 12 months and will likely continue after engineering and design are done. Funding activities include identifying sources, applying for funding, and procuring or obtaining agreements for funding. • Contractor Procurement - Once funding is procured, the project will move into contractor procurement immediately, which is expected to take about 3 months (including notice to bid, bidding evaluation, and approval). • Construction - Once the contractor is selected, construction, testing and commissioning activities will take place for the next 12 months. This will include construction of enhanced stops and installation of the TSP systems. It is noted that the construction timeframe is based on a conservative estimate of resource deployment to minimize costs – a quicker construction timeframe could be achieved, with deployment of multiple work crews simultaneously and additional costs (including those for additional traffic management crews). • Vehicle Procurement - Vehicle procurement for the 17 new vehicles will begin concurrently with construction. This activity will include notice to bid, evaluation of bids, and selection of a preferred vendor. This process, including testing of the vehicles, will take about 12 months. This timeframe is based on research that the bus delivery backlog is about 9 to 12 months to build and equip the buses to typical SamTrans requirements. It is assumed that the vehicles procured by SamTrans are similar to current models already being produced and do not require a new design (or assembly line) that would take longer to develop, build and deliver. • Opening - Overall, the timeframe from initial Board approval to study to the first day of service will be about two and a quarter years or 27 months. Figure 1 depicts a conceptual timeline for implementation. Potential factors to consider that may delay or elongate implementation include: • Local Coordination - Coordination with local jurisdictions and coming to an agreement on the final design may result in longer than anticipated implementation timelines. Coordination may revolve around stop design, TSP, etc. • Caltrans Coordination – El Camino Real is a state highway under Caltrans’s ultimate jurisdiction. Negotiation over any changes along the corridor must be undertaken and could result in delays to the project. • Funding – Procurement of full funding could take longer than expected as well.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX M - ECR BRT - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 3 of 18

Memorandum

Figure 1: Concept-Level Implementation Timeframe (Service Concept 2: 2020 Full Rapid)

Notes: Timeframes are indicative and could differ depending on various factors as noted.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX M - ECR BRT - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 4 of 18

Memorandum

3.3 Concept 5: 2020 Hybrid A Key activities for implementing Hybrid A service by 2020 are as follows (note conceptual planning and feasibility study has been undertaken under this study): • Engineering and Design - Once the Board approves further studies, engineering and design will occur for about 9 months. Engineering and design will principally focus on station improvements, vehicle specifications and requirements, and related TSP specifications. Activities will also include utility coordination, permits and approvals. • Funding - Funding activities will start concurrently with engineering and design, and become more urgent once cost estimates are developed. The funding activity may take up to 12 months and will likely continue after engineering and design is done. Funding activities include identifying sources, applying for funding, and procuring or obtaining agreement for funding. • Contractor Procurement - Once funding is procured, the project will move into contractor procurement immediately, which will take about 3 months (including notice to bid, bidding evaluation, and approval). • Construction - Once the contractor is selected, construction, testing and commissioning activities will take place for the next 15 months. This will include construction of the enhanced stops, implementation of minor improvements at other stops, as well as installation of the TSP systems. Minor stop improvement works will lengthen construction duration by three months compared to the 2020 Full Rapid timeframe. It is noted that the construction timeframe is based on a conservative estimate of resource deployment to minimize costs – a quicker construction timeframe could be achieved by deploying multiple work crews simultaneously which would raise costs (including those for additional traffic management crews). • Vehicle Procurement - About 6 months into the construction period, vehicle procurement for the 3 new vehicles will begin. This activity will include notice to bid, evaluation of bids, and selection of a preferred vendor. This process, including testing of the vehicles, will take about 9 months. This timeframe is based on research that the bus delivery backlog is about 9 to 12 months to build and equip the buses to typical SamTrans requirements. It is assumed that the vehicles procured by SamTrans are similar to current models already being produced and do not require a new design (or assembly line) that would take longer to develop, build and deliver. • Opening - Overall, the timeframe from initial Board approval to study to the first day of service will be about two and a half years or 30 months. Figure 2 depicts a conceptual timeline for implementation. Potential factors to consider that may delay or elongate implementation include: • Local Coordination - Coordination with local jurisdictions and coming to an agreement on the final design may result in longer than anticipated implementation timelines. Coordination may revolve around stop design, TSP, etc. • Caltrans Coordination – El Camino Real is a state highway under Caltrans’s ultimate jurisdiction. Negotiation over any changes along the corridor must be undertaken and could result in delays to the project.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX M - ECR BRT - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 5 of 18

• Funding – Procurement of full funding could take longer than expected as well.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX M - ECR BRT - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 6 of 18

Memorandum

Figure 2: Concept-Level Implementation Timeframe (Service Concept 5: 2020 Hybrid A)

Notes: Timeframes are indicative and could differ depending on various factors as noted.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX M - ECR BRT - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 7 of 18

Memorandum

3.4 Concept 10: 2040 Full BRT Key activities for implementing Full BRT service by 2040 are as follows: • Draft Environmental Studies and Conceptual Engineering (15%) – Once the Board approves further studies, draft environmental studies and conceptual engineering will be conducted for 36 months or 3 years. Activities under this task will include 15% design for bus lanes and stations, fleet planning and initial specifications, operating plan development and cost development (operating and capital). For this three year duration, the majority of time will be spent developing the draft environmental studies, including public outreach and the collection and response to public comments. A preferred alternative will be identified and then vetted. • Preferred Alternative and Preliminary Engineering – In this stage, the preferred alternative will be confirmed following outreach and finalization of the environmental studies. Preliminary engineering for the preferred alternative will follow, which represents the 35% design stage to refine conceptual engineering to improve the project scope, cost estimates, and traffic management plan. Preliminary engineering will also identify whether ROW acquisition is required and, if so, the extent and location of these proposed acquisitions. Overall, this activity will take up to 18 months. • Final Design, Construction Documents, and Funding – About halfway through preliminary engineering, funding activities will commence. Once preliminary engineering is finalized, final design as well as production of construction documents will occur. This task thus includes preparing the full engineering package including the project management plan, quality control/quality assurance for construction, utility relocation, and obtaining permits, etc. Funding activities will include identifying sources, applying for funding, and procuring or obtaining agreement for funding. This stage will take about 24 months. • ROW Acquisition – ROW acquisition will start about halfway through the Final Design, Construction and Funding task, once the majority of funding has been arranged and the locations for potential ROW acquisition are finalized. ROW acquisition will include valuating property and seeking to purchase this ROW. ROW acquisition is estimated to take up to 18 months, although this could be highly variable depending on the extent of acquisition required. • Contractor Procurement - Once final design, construction documents and ROW acquisition are complete, the project will move into the contractor procurement immediately, which will take about 6 months (including notice to bid, bidding evaluation, and approval). • Construction - Once the contractor is selected, construction, testing and commissioning activities will take place for the next 48 months. This will include construction of the new BRT stations, the bus lanes, as well as the queue jumps lanes. This activity also includes minor pavement improvements to mixed flow lanes, as well as final activities once the bus lanes are ready, including final signage and striping. It is noted that the construction timeframe is based on a conservative estimate of resource deployment to minimize costs – a quicker construction timeframe could be achieved however, with deployment of multiple work crews simultaneously which would raise costs (including those for additional traffic management crews).

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX M - ECR BRT - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 8 of 18

• Vehicle Procurement – Twelve (12) months prior to initiation of BRT service, vehicle procurement for the 14 new vehicles will begin. This activity includes notice to bid, evaluation of bids, and selection of a preferred vendor. This process, including testing of the vehicles, will take about 12 months. This timeframe is based on research that the bus delivery backlog is about 9 to 12 months to build and equip the buses to typical SamTrans requirements. It is assumed that the vehicles procured by SamTrans are similar to current models already being produced and do not require a new design (or assembly line) that would take longer to develop, build and deliver. • Opening – Overall, the timeframe from initial Board approval to study to the first day of service will be about 10 and a quarter years or 123 months. Figure 3 depicts a conceptual timeline for implementation. Potential factors to consider that may delay or elongate implementation include: • Local Coordination - Coordination with local jurisdictions and coming to an agreement on the final design may result in longer than anticipated implementation timelines. Coordination may revolve around stop design, TSP, etc. • Caltrans Coordination – El Camino Real is a state highway under Caltrans’s ultimate jurisdiction. Negotiation over any changes along the corridor must be undertaken and could result in delays to the project – particularly if design exceptions are required. It is unclear, however, if Caltrans will still hold jurisdiction over El Camino Real at this stage in the future. • Funding – Procurement of full funding could take longer than expected as well. • Environmental Approvals – Depending on the level of changes to the street and right-of- way, the environmental approval process (along with right-of-way acquisition) have the greatest chance of impacting and thus delaying implementation of the 2040 Full BRT. • Right-of-Way Acquisition – The larger the amount of land required in sensitive or dense areas, the higher the likelihood for implementation delays due to potential litigation (from residents, businesses, etc.) as well as potential utility conflicts and relocation issues.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX M - ECR BRT - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 9 of 18

Memorandum

Figure 3: Concept-Level Implementation Timeframe (Service Concept 10: 2040 Full BRT)

Notes: Timeframes are indicative and could differ depending on various factors as noted.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX M - ECR BRT - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 10 of 18

Memorandum

4 Phasing Considerations

The evolution of bus transit on the ECR corridor today – from ECR service to a Rapid/Hybrid (intermediate term) to Full BRT service (long-term) is not set in stone. Certain conditions, thresholds, and performance must be met to even consider enhancing service with more capitally- intensive investments. In other words, certain “triggers” must be met in order to start considering and discussing enhancing service beyond what is provided today. Potential triggers are discussed below (note – this section is meant to discuss a few primary triggers, however, this does not mean that other triggers including business and political interests are not also important in this discussion).

4.1 Land Use

4.1.1 General Sampling of Land Use Thresholds Currently, land use throughout the corridor is largely low-density, with built-up pockets around certain downtown areas. Minimum and appropriate land use densities and development are required along the corridor to generate sustainable, all-day ridership to justify more capitally-intensive concepts. Table 2 presents a sampling of minimum target density thresholds for different tiers of transit service in North America. Table 2: Minimum Target Land Use Thresholds for Different Tiers of Transit in Select Regions in North America Minimum Target Threshold (by Service Tier) Region Unit Source/ Metro LRT BRT Local Entity Bus Alameda Persons / Square 10,000- AC Transit 20,000 + County, CA Mile 20,000 San Housing Units / Francisco MTC 3,850 3,300 2,750 2,200 Station Area Bay Area San Jose, Dwelling Units / VTA 35 25-32 CA Acre Toronto, Jobs + Residents Metrolinx 300+ 200-400 100-250 50-150 ON / Hectare Kane Dwelling Units / United County Bus Acre 30 15 12 States Rapid (Employees per (50) (30) (15) (Average) Transit Acre) Primer Unites Dwelling Units / States TCRP 102 30 15 Acre (Average)

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX M - ECR BRT - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 11 of 18

Memorandum

4.1.2 VTA Land Use Thresholds The table above identifies minimum target thresholds for residential density for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)’s BRT and LRT services. The thresholds, however, are much more detailed. The VTA’s Service Design Guidelines were developed to guide system development and govern minimum service performance and productivity. These guidelines have been used to provide an impetus for developing both Rapid as well as Full BRT type services on the El Camino Real, Alum Rock, and Stevens Creek BRT corridors around Santa Clara County. Furthermore, land use conditions (including character and nature of the corridor, and population and job densities in most areas) along the Santa Clara portion of the El Camino Corridor are similar to that in San Mateo County, making land use thresholds developed by VTA one of, if not the most, comparable case to ECR.types of transit sevice. These guidelines thus serve as a potential framework for land use considerations on the ECR for more Table 3 presents VTA’s Transit Sustainability Policy (TSP), which defines minimum (and recommended) residential density targets for different tiers of transit service (with higher densities required for LRT and BRT than local bus, for instance). As is clear, different on-the-ground conditions can dictate different density threshold values.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX M - ECR BRT - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 12 of 18

Memorandum

Table 3: VTA Density Targets for Existing and New BRT Routes

Source: VTA Transit Sustainability Policy (TSP), Bus Rapid Transit Service Design Guidelines, 2007. Based on the similarities in land use and development scope, it is recommend that SamTrans develop its own density thresholds for both Rapid/Hybrid, but especially BRT service tiers (both residential and job densities) based on the VTA Service Design Guidelines (thus similar density thresholds as shown in Table 2 and Table 3). It is essential that BRT have supportive densities due to the capital costs that would conceivably be incurred with additional fixed route infrastructure such as BRT stations, queue jump lanes, and dedicated bus lanes. Land use triggers thus may occur when the corridor on a whole start to approach defined housing and job densities – designed to provide more supportive conditions and hopefully sustainable levels of ridership for higher investment services on the ECR corridor. The land use triggers will start the discussion – these discussion though also must include close collaboration between SamTrans and the local jurisdictions to assure supportive land use policies and the “right” type of development is encourage along the corridor.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX M - ECR BRT - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 13 of 18

Memorandum

4.2 Ridership / Performance Increasing the amount and level of service on the corridor can be rationalized if certain levels of performance (in terms of boardings per revenue hour, etc.) are being met and/or exceeded. Routes/corridors that perform below expectations should not be considered for additional service investments until they meet minimum performance thresholds. Different operators/agencies use different metrics to assess ridership and performance thresholds. Most commonly used metrics include: (i) ridership per revenue hour; (ii) load factor; and (iii) farebox recovery. The examples below show that although there is no set agreement on the thresholds for minimum performance as each system is different, all operators clearly differentiate performance expectations among local, Rapid, and BRT service tiers.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX M - ECR BRT - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 14 of 18

Memorandum

Table 4: Minimum Ridership/Performance Thresholds for Different Tiers of Transit in Select Regions in North America Agency / Location Service Tier Ridership/Performance Threshold AC Transit / Alameda Local Local 30 boardings / weekday revenue hour County, CA Rapid Rapid 40 boardings / weekday revenue hour Kansas City Area Urban Local 15 boardings / weekday revenue hour Transportation Authority Local Bus (KCATA) Kansas City, MAX Rapid 30 boardings / weekday revenue hour MO Local Bus Local Bus 30 boardings / weekday revenue hour Primary Grid Santa Clara Valley 45 boardings / weekday revenue hour Transportation Authority Rapid Rapid 200 boardings / route mile (VTA) / San Jose, CA 55 boardings / weekday revenue hour BRT BRT 350-475 boardings / route mile 20 boardings / weekday revenue hour Local Bus Local $5.00 maximum cost/boarding Big Blue Bus / Santa 12% farebox recovery Monica, CA 40 boardings / weekday revenue hour Big Blue Rapid $4.50 maximum cost/boarding Bus 16% farebox recovery 30% weekday peak load factor Local Bus Local TransLink / Vancouver, 25% weekend mid-day load factor BC, Canada 50% weekday peak load factor B-Line Rapid 30% weekday mid-day load factor Source: AC Transit – Service Standards and Design Policy (2008) http://www.actransit.org/wp- content/uploads/board_policies/board_policy_96.pdf KCATA – KCATA Comprehensive Service Analysis (2011) http://www.kcata.org/images/uploads/DraftServiceGuidelines.pdf VTA – VTA Service Design Guidelines (2007) Santa Monica Big Blue Bus - Service Design, Performance, and Evaluation Guidelines, Big Blue Bus (2013) http://www.smgov.net/departments/Council/agendas/2013/20130924/s2013092408-B-1.pdf Vancouver - TransLink Transit Service Guidelines (2004) It is recommended that SamTrans develop service standards for both Rapid and BRT services for its refined service design guidelines. From a review of other operators, it appears that a minimum 20% increase in performance is typically expected between local and Rapid services (with an even more pronounced increase in performance expected for BRT). It is recommended that the VTA thresholds serve as a guide for potential service thresholds (50% increase in boardings per revenue hour for the Rapid over the local, and an additional 20% increase in boardings per revenue hour for the BRT over the Rapid). Performance can thus trigger the need to consider service upgrades when local services meet and significantly exceed service standards for several consecutive years.

4.3 Congestion and Travel Time Triggers Traffic congestion and mixed flow conflicts can significantly reduce bus operating speeds and elongate trip times. While the Rapid/Hybrid service concepts call for longer stop spacing and transit

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX M - ECR BRT - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 15 of 18

Memorandum

signal priority (TSP) to reduce stopping and increase average travel speeds, future traffic conditions may significantly reduce bus operating speeds and negate some of the enhancement measures put in place. Increasing physical segregation of buses from mixed flow traffic (i.e., one element of Full BRT) may be one strategy to increase operating speeds in the face of more serious congestion. Thus one trigger for considering service enhancements on a corridor could be the amount of congestion and delay that is experience in the corridor. For instance, if total bus running time consists of XX% of time spent in delay or on-time performance falls well below stated SamTrans standards, this could be a sign that new measures must be undertaken to improve reliability and speeds (such as transit signal priority and reduced stops (i.e., the Rapid or Hybrid) or bus lanes (i.e., the Full Rapid). Furthermore, if XX% of intersections operate at LOS E/F, then this could also be a trigger. A more concrete means of considering congestion is travel time savings and operating speed. The following examples identify average travel time savings or increases in average operating speed observed for various Rapid and BRT systems (versus that for the local bus services). While these systems do not specify a target operating speed or travel time savings to be achieved in their respective service design guidelines, these examples are noteworthy for illustrating the extent of benefits that may be generated when upgrading transit services on a corridor. Table 5: Minimum Target Operating Speeds for Different Tiers of Transit in Select Regions in North America Tier Location Service Location BRT Cleveland Health Line • 25% travel time savings over local BRT Eugene EmX • 6% travel time savings over local BRT Las Vegas MAX • 25% peak travel time savings over local San Pablo • 21%/17% travel time savings over Rapid Alameda County Rapid local/limited Silver Line Rapid Boston (Washington • 9% travel time savings over local Street) • 25% travel time savings over local Rapid Kansas City MAX • On-time performance improved from 80% to 90% Metro Rapid Rapid Los Angeles • 23% increase in operating speeds over local (Venture) Metro Rapid Rapid Los Angeles (Wilshire/ • 29% increase in operating speeds over local Whittier) • 25% expected travel time savings over Rapid San Jose 522 Rapid local Source: San Jose: VTA Factsheet Rapid 522, 2006. Others: Bus Rapid Transit Applications Phase 2, Florida Department of Transportation, District IV, 2011. From the examples in the table, in general, a minimum travel time savings of 20% was generated for most operators when upgrading from local to Rapid or local to BRT. Therefore, it is recommended that SamTrans quantify an approximate increase in travel speed or travel time savings between local and Rapid services, as well as Rapid and BRT services. Thus, one trigger to consider upgrading from Rapid to BRT service on the El

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX M - ECR BRT - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 16 of 18

Memorandum

Camino Corridor could be if operating speeds for the Rapid are falling well below the expected premium speed differential between the local (thus speed in this case acts as a proxy for corridor congestion and delay). It should be noted, however, that few operators quantified a speed target in their service guidelines, as speed and travel time is subject to many different variables besides just the amount of transit priority provided along the route.

5 Summary

Based on the analysis above, the expected implementation timeframes for the three service concepts, as well as potential factors that could impact implementation are depicted below. As noted before, environmental approvals and right-of-way acquisition for Concept 10 appear have the most potential to elongate the timeframe from what has been shown. Table 6: Summary of Implementation Timeframes Indicative Potential Factors to Consider that Could Impact Concept Implementation Implementation Timeframe Timeframe • Coordination with local jurisdictions and coming to agreement on final design for bus stops Concept 2: 27 months • Coordination with Caltrans during design and 2020 Full Rapid engineering • Difficulties in procuring full funding for improvements • Coordination with local jurisdictions and coming to agreement on final design for bus stops Concept 5: 30 months • Coordination with Caltrans during design and 2020 Hybrid A engineering • Difficulties in procuring full funding for improvements • Coordination with local jurisdictions and coming to agreement on final design for bus stops • Coordination with Caltrans during design and engineering Concept 10: 123 months • Difficulties in procuring full funding for improvements 2040 Full BRT • Environmental approvals (potential to have serious schedule implications) • Right of way acquisition (potential to have serious schedule implications) Key implementation triggers were discussed including land use, performance and congestion (travel time). Key phasing considerations for upgrading the corridor from local to Rapid/Hybrid and/or BRT service are noted below: Table 7: Summary of Key Phasing Consideration and Triggers Key Potential Key Phasing Considerations and Triggers Trigger • Based on the similarities in land use and development scope, it is recommend Land Use that SamTrans develop its own density thresholds for both Rapid/Hybrid, but especially BRT service tiers (both residential and job densities) based on the

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX M - ECR BRT - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 17 of 18

Memorandum

Key Potential Key Phasing Considerations and Triggers Trigger VTA Service Design Guidelines (thus similar density thresholds as shown in Table 2 and Table 3). • Land use triggers thus may occur when the corridor on a whole start to approach defined housing and job densities – designed to provide more supportive conditions and hopefully sustainable levels of ridership for higher investment services on the ECR corridor. • It is recommended that SamTrans develop service standards for both Rapid and BRT services for its refined service design guidelines. It is recommended that the VTA thresholds serve as a guide for potential service thresholds (50% increase in boardings per revenue hour for the Rapid over the local, and an Ridership / additional 20% increase in boardings per revenue hour for the BRT over the Performance Rapid). • Performance can thus trigger the need to consider service upgrades when local services meet and significantly exceed service standards for several consecutive years. • It is recommended that SamTrans quantify an approximate increase in travel speed or travel time savings between local and Rapid services, as well as Rapid and BRT services. Congestion / • Travel Time Thus, one trigger to consider upgrading from Rapid to BRT service on the El Camino Corridor could be if operating speeds for the Rapid are falling well below the expected premium speed differential between the local (thus speed in this case acts as a proxy for corridor congestion and delay).

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX M - ECR BRT - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.DOCX

Arup | F0.3 Page 18 of 18

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – Appendices December 2014

Appendix N: Funding Strategy

Memorandum

To Barrow Emerson, SamTrans Date Melissa Reggiardo, SamTrans October 23, 2014

Copies Reference number

From Lauren Dong, Arup File reference Corey Wong, Arup Steve Crosley, Fehr & Peers

Subject ECR BRT Funding Strategies ECR

1 Background and Overview

The El Camino Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Phasing Plan study developed ten service concepts for consideration, with three concepts moving forward for additional review and potential funding identification. The three concepts for further consideration include: 1. Year 2020 Full Rapid (Rapid Overlay + ECR) The 2020 Full Rapid service concept consists of 15-minute headways, and 37 stops in each direction from Daly City to Palo Alto. The ECR local service (i.e., the existing ECR) continues to operate its existing schedule and serves the current stop pattern (15-minute headways and 102 existing northbound (NB) stops and 104 existing southbound (SB) stops). 2. Year 2020 Hybrid A (76 stops with 12-minute service frequencies) The 2020 Hybrid A service concept consists of 12-minute headways and 76 stops between Daly City and Palo Alto. Hybrid service will provide faster service than the ECR local service and provide more local access than the Rapid in higher demand segments. ECR local service will be discontinued in this concept. 3. Year 2040 Full BRT The 2040 Full BRT (bus rapid transit) consists of 15-minute headways and 37 enhanced stops in each direction from Daly City to Palo Alto. This concept retains the ECR local service with 15-minute headways and 102 existing NB stops and 104 existing SB stops. The purpose of this memo is to identify potential funding sources for the capital costs for these three concepts.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX N - ECR BRT - FUNDING STRATEGIES MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 1 of 11

Memorandum

2 Summary of Capital Costs

Capital costs for these three concepts are divided into two components: • Direct Costs – These costs include labor, equipment, and material necessary for the contractor to place a permanent unit of work in the field; and • Other Costs – Other costs include indirect costs related to workforce mobilization, contingency, soft costs, overhead, as well as profit. Capital costs for the three service concepts are shown in Table 1 below (information was already presented in the Capital Cost Memo). Table 1: Capital Costs by Service Concept Total Service Direct Cost Soft Cost Direct Cost Elements Capital Concept Estimates Estimates Costs • Enhanced stops • Real-time passenger information 2020 Full Rapid $ 19,733,000 $22,224,000 $41,975,000 • New, additional vehicles • Transit signal priority (TSP) • Enhanced stops • Minor stop improvements 2020 Hybrid A • Real-time passenger information $9,884,000 $11,141,000 $21,025,000 • New, additional vehicles • TSP • Dedicated bus lanes (center or side running) • Pavement improvements to existing lanes (mixed flow operation) • Queue jump lanes 2040 Full BRT $83,140,000 $93,710,000 $176,850,000 • Drainage and utility relocation • Enhanced stations • Ticket vending machines (TVM) • Real-time passenger information • New, additional vehicles • TSP

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX N - ECR BRT - FUNDING STRATEGIES MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 2 of 11

Memorandum

3 Potential Capital and Operating Funding Sources

This section identifies potential funding sources and comments on their relevance to the service concepts. Note – this section only identifies potential sources, but does not comment on the likelihood that SamTrans would be able to procure such funding. Recommended sources to seek funding from are presented Section 4.

3.1 Regional Level – MTC Funds

3.1.1 Transit Performance Initiative Program In October 2012, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) committed $82 million over four years in federal Cycle 2 / Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funds to the Transit Performance Initiative (TPI) Incentive Program. The first two cycles of the program have passed. The TPI is composed of two programs:

• TPI Initiative – This is a capital program intended to fund low-cost capital improvements that improve speed and operations and reduce congestion and environmental impacts in the region's urban trunk network of major transit lines. Funding requests are based on individual need; there is no defined upper or lower-bound for the amounts. • TPI Incentive – This is an incentive program that rewards agencies that improve ridership and service productivity. The TPI Incentive program is funded for FY2012-13 through FY2015-16 at $15 million per year and is to be used for projects focused on increasing ridership and/or productivity. Several agencies in the Bay Area receive such funding including SamTrans. The annual $15 million that is available is allocated to the recipients based on a funding formula, which is 70% based on annual ridership, 20% on the annual increase in ridership, and 10% on the increase in passengers per revenue hour. This formula will be applied for the first four years of the program, after which, funding would be liked to agency performance as a whole, with the formulas based on National Transit Database reporting.

All regional agencies are eligible for funding from either TPI program. Guidelines for the second round, which closed in Spring of 2014, included: • All Federal Transit Administration (FTA)-eligible Bay Area transit operators may apply1. • Improvement of operating speed and/or ridership on high-use trunk routes remains the primary goal; however, other routes with significant potential for improvement in these measures are eligible. System-wide or multi-location projects that would have a positive impact on specific corridors are also eligible. • Project implementation schedule will be similar to the first round (FY2012-13)2. Projects should be under construction within 18 months of funding approval.

1 Operators whose service fulfills the parameters of the funding requirements

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX N - ECR BRT - FUNDING STRATEGIES MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 3 of 11

Memorandum

In the initial round nearly $28 million was allocated, with $27 million for the second round. The second round project applications are still being evaluated by MTC. The first round of Rapid- or BRT-related projects selected for funding include: • AC Transit – Line 51 Corridor Speed Protection and Restoration ($10 million) • VTA – Stevens Creek Limited 233 Transit Signal Priority ($700,000) Options studied under the ECR BRT Phasing Study will not be ready for consideration in the second round of funding, although there is $27 million in funds remaining for the last two years of the program (FY2015-16).

3.1.2 Cap and Trade Funding Framework In response to the adoption of Plan Bay Area, MTC created the Cap and Trade Funding Framework to address climate change concerns. The Cap and Trade Funding Framework will guide regional investment priorities for the $3.6 billion in cap and trade revenues the Bay Area expects to receive over the next thirty years. MTC staff developed five investment categories and initial funding amounts. Table 2 below shows the funding breakdown. Table 2: Cap and Trade Proposed Funding Categories and Investment Amounts Funding Category Amount ($ millions) Transit Core Capacity Challenge Grants Program 900 Transit Operating and Efficiency Program 450 One Bay Area Grants 1,500 Climate Initiatives 300 Goods Movement 450 Total $3,600 Source: MTC, 2014. The principles behind the Cap and Trade Framework include: • Funds must have a strong nexus to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction; • Distribution will serve to strategically advance the implementation of Plan Bay Area; • Investment categories will be structured to provide co-benefits and leverage investments across categories and from multiple sources; and • All investment categories should include funding that benefits disadvantaged communities – defined as MTC’s Communities of Concern. While the guidelines and criteria for the categories have not been finalized, of the five categories, the Transit Operating and Efficiency Program has the most potential as a funding source for the options studied as part of the ECR BRT Phasing Plan Study. It is unclear at this time if the funds will be made eligible for either capital or operating costs, or both.

2 MTC memorandum 9/4/2013 to Transit Finance Working Group regarding Transit Performance Initiative – Investment Program Update

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX N - ECR BRT - FUNDING STRATEGIES MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 4 of 11

Memorandum

3.1.3 Regional Transportation Improvement Program The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) provides capital funding for a significant number of transportation projects around the State. MTC is responsible for developing regional project priorities for the STIP for the nine counties of the Bay Area. The Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) is the region’s proposal to the State for STIP funding. Only projects that have been identified within the RTIP are eligible for STIP funding consideration, so the first step for a project to be considered for STIP funds is to be listed within the RTIP.

Each county receives a fiscally constrained share target. For FY2014, San Mateo County’s share was just over $21 million, which covers programming for the five fiscal years from 2014-15 through 2018- 19.

The RTIP is updated every two years. This memo recommends the inclusion of the final recommended ECR BRT project into the RTIP for future consideration for regional funds.

3.2 State Level The State of California has created a number of different funding mechanisms for transportation capital costs. Most of the funding mechanisms, such as the STIP, are distributed through to the regional metropolitan planning organizations, such as MTC, and those programs are described in the regional level section (Section 3.1). The California State Infrastructure Bank, described below, is separate from the MTC funding programs.

3.2.1 California State Infrastructure Bank – Infrastructure State Revolving Fund Program The Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF) Program provides loan financing to public agencies and non-profit corporations for a wide variety of capital funding for infrastructure and economic development projects. ISRF Program funding is available in amounts ranging from $50,000 to $25 million, with loan terms of up to 30 years. Interest rates are set on a monthly basis.

Financing applications are continuously accepted. Eligible applicants include, but are not limited to, any subdivision of a local government, including cities, counties, special districts, assessment districts, joint powers authorities and non-profit corporations (as deemed eligible). Eligible project categories include, but are not limited to: city streets, county highways, state highways, drainage, water supply and flood control, educational facilities, environmental mitigation measures, parks and recreational facilities, port facilities, public transit, sewage collection and treatment, solid waste collection and disposal, water treatment and distribution, defense conversion, public safety facilities, and power and communications facilities.

3.3 Federal Level In 2012, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) was signed into law, reauthorizing surface transportation programs through FY2014. All projects that receive any amount of federal

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX N - ECR BRT - FUNDING STRATEGIES MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 5 of 11

Memorandum

funding or undergo a federally required action are required to be included in MTC’s TIP, which prioritizes projects/programs within a financially constrained environment. Competition is quite strong both nationally and within the Bay Area to receive federal funds.

3.3.1 Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grant Program The TIGER Discretionary Grant program is managed by the US Department of Transportation (DOT) to invest in road, rail, transit and port projects that promise to achieve critical national objectives. In FY2014, $600 million was appropriated through September 30, 2016 for national infrastructure investments. A highly competitive grant program, 72 projects were awarded funding through the FY14 TIGER program, out of 797 projects that applied. Project funding amounts ranged from $85,000 for a planning study to $105 million for an intermodal freight program.

3.3.2 New Starts/Small Starts The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) sponsored New Starts/Small Starts Program provides grants for new and expanded rail, bus rapid transit, and ferry systems that reflect local priorities to improve transportation options in key corridors. Eligible BRT projects are those operating in mixed traffic that represent a substantial investment in the corridor, including: • Traffic signal priority; • Defined stations; and • Operation of short-headway, bi-directional services for a substantial part of weekdays and weekend days3. Elements that are emphasized as part of project justification include increased mobility, environmental benefits, congestion relief, relationship to economic development and higher density land uses, and cost effectiveness.

Eligible New Starts projects must have a total project cost at or exceeding $250 million, with funding requests above $75 million. Eligible Small Starts projects must have a total project cost of less than $250 million, with funding requests under $75 million. Both programs require a 20% local match.

3.3.3 Bus and Bus Facilities (Section 5339) Another federal program is the Bus and Bus Facilities Program which can be used to fund bus procurement, bus maintenance facilities, bus shelters and signage, transportation centers, intermodal terminals, and park-and-ride facilities. This method of funding is secured through Congressional earmarks and requires 20% local match. Previously grants have ranged from $50,000 - $15 million.

3 Capital Investment Program Presentation – Listening Session, APTA Annual Meeting, 10/3/2012.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX N - ECR BRT - FUNDING STRATEGIES MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 6 of 11

Memorandum

3.3.4 Urbanized Formula Funds (Section 5307) Federal funding is provided for transit capital projects based on a formula of population, population density, and other factors associated with transit service and ridership. The formula grants are appropriated annually by Congress and distributed through MTC. SamTrans currently uses this funding source for replacing buses.

3.3.5 Highway Funds/Flexible Funds Highway funds may be used to finance transit capital projects through a mechanism called flexible funding. There are two mechanisms that, if flexed, add additional funds to the urbanized formula funds. These include:

• Surface Transportation Program (STP): STP can be used for roadway or transit improvements and facilities. These funds may be utilized (as capital funding) for public transportation capital improvements, car and vanpool projects, fringe and corridor parking facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and intercity or intracity bus terminals and bus facilities. • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ): CMAQ is apportioned based on population and the level of non-attainment for air quality standards. Its purpose is to fund projects and programs that help attain or maintain national ambient air quality standards and reduce congestion. These are considered “flexible funds” and can be used for FHWA and FTA projects. Measures currently funded by the MTC include the, the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Program, Lifeline Program, the Free Transit Program, TransLink® (universal fare card), Regional Rideshare, and TOS/Incident Management strategies on the highway system.

4 Proposed Concept Capital Funding Strategies

This section recommends the most relevant and applicable funding sources for each service concept.

4.1 2020 Full Rapid The 2020 Full Rapid service concept has estimated capital costs of $42.0 million, including 17 new 60’ diesel-hybrid vehicles. Table 3 below shows the line item capital cost estimate for this service concept.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX N - ECR BRT - FUNDING STRATEGIES MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 7 of 11

Memorandum

Table 3: 2020 Full Rapid Capital Cost Estimate

Note: Final costs are rounded up to the nearest thousand. It is recommended that the 2020 Full Rapid service concept capital costs be provided through the MTC TPI program to the fullest extent (i.e., the maximum amount of funding should be sought from this program), with other funding sourced from regional sources such as the Cap and Trade fund, followed by federal sources in that order. The table below highlights the proposed funding options this service concept:

Potential Federal Source(s) Potential Regional Source(s)

• FTA Small Starts • TPI for TSP • FTA Section 5309 for vehicles • TPI for enhanced stations and real time information • Cap and Trade funds (fund request dependent on to-be-release eligibility rules)

4.2 2020 Hybrid A (76 Stops, 12 minute headway) The 2020 Hybrid A service concept has estimated capital costs of $21 million, including 3 new 60’ diesel-hybrid vehicles. The table below shows the line item capital cost estimate for this service concept. Table 4: 2020 Hybrid A Capital Cost Estimate

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX N - ECR BRT - FUNDING STRATEGIES MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 8 of 11

Memorandum

Note: Final costs are rounded up to the nearest thousand. It is recommended that the 2020 Hybrid A service concept capital costs be provided through the MTC TPI program to the fullest extent (i.e., the maximum amount of funding should be sought from this program), with other funding sourced from regional sources such as the Cap and Trade fund, followed by federal sources in that order. The table below highlights the proposed funding options this service concept:

Federal Regional

• FTA Small Starts • TPI for TSP • FTA Section 5309 for vehicles • TPI for enhanced stations, stop improvements and real time information

• Cap and Trade funds (fund request dependent on to-be-release eligibility rules)

4.3 2040 Full BRT The 2040 Full BRT service concept has estimated capital costs of $176.9 million, including 14 new 60’ diesel-hybrid vehicles and a number of roadway improvements. Table 5 below shows the line item capital cost estimate for this service concept.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX N - ECR BRT - FUNDING STRATEGIES MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 9 of 11

Memorandum

Table 5: 2040 Full BRT Capital Cost Estimate

Note: Final costs are rounded up to the nearest thousand. It is recommended that the 2040 Full BRT service concept capital costs be provided through the MTC TPI program to the fullest extent (i.e., the maximum amount of funding should be sought from this program), with other funding sourced from regional sources such as the Cap and Trade fund, followed by federal sources in that order. Options for funding beyond the MTC TPI program include:

Federal Regional

• FTA New Starts • TPI for mixed flow operations, queue jump lanes, TSP, and some station enhancements • FTA Section 5309 for vehicles • Cap and Trade funds (fund request dependent on to-be-release eligibility rules)

5 Summary

The MTC TPI and Cap and Trade Framework appear to be the most viable potential capital funding sources for the options studied under the ECR BRT Phasing Plan. As regional funds, TPI and Cap and

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX N - ECR BRT - FUNDING STRATEGIES MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 10 of 11

Memorandum

Trade will facilitate faster implementation with less bureaucratic issues than using federal funds and will likely serve as the principal funding source at this time.

The service options discussed in this memo may also be a good candidate for Small/New Starts capital funding given that all the service meet the program eligibility requirements as well as the project justification metrics under the MAP-21 evaluation and rating criteria.

The TPI-Incentive program is a potential operating funding source once the initial formula-driven program closes in two years. SamTrans could directly apply for operating costs through this funding stream.

As the ECR BRT project continues planning towards preliminary engineering, the timing for implementation and construction may be well suited to apply and qualify for a number of regional and federal funding sources beyond FY15.

C:\USERS\SCROSLEY\DESKTOP\BRT REPORT SUPPORTING DOCS\APPENDIX N - ECR BRT - FUNDING STRATEGIES MEMO.DOCX

Arup North America Ltd | F0.3 Page 11 of 11