STATE ROUTE 85 CORRIDOR POLICY ADVISORY BOARD Monday, April 22, 2019 10:00 AM Cupertino Community Hall 10350 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA WORKSHOP AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS: This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons desiring to address the Committee on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to 2 minutes. The law does not permit Committee action or extended discussion on any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Committee action is requested, the matter can be placed on a subsequent agenda. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing. 3. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive a presentation on SR 85 Transit Guideway Study Initial Project Alternatives. 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS 5. ADJOURN In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, VTA will make reasonable arrangements to ensure meaningful access to its meetings for persons who have disabilities and for persons with limited English proficiency who need translation and interpretation services. Individuals requiring ADA accommodations should notify the Board Secretary’s Office at least 48-hours prior to the meeting. Individuals requiring language assistance should notify the Board Secretary’s Office at least 72-hours prior to the meeting. The Board Secretary may be contacted at (408) 321-5680 or e-mail: [email protected] or (408) 321-2330 (TTY only). VTA’s home page is on the web at: www.vta.org or visit us on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/scvta. (408) 321-2300: 中文 / Español / 日本語 / 한국어 / tiếng Việt / Tagalog.
Transcript
STATE ROUTE 85 CORRIDOR POLICY ADVISORY BOARD
Monday, April 22, 2019 10:00 AM
Cupertino Community Hall 10350 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA
WORKSHOP AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL
2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS:
This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons desiring to address the Committee on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to 2 minutes. The law does not permit Committee action or extended discussion on any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Committee action is requested, the matter can be placed on a subsequent agenda. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing.
3. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive a presentation on SR 85 Transit Guideway Study Initial Project Alternatives.
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
5. ADJOURN
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, VTA will make reasonable arrangements to ensure meaningful access to its meetings for persons who have disabilities and for persons with limited English proficiency who need translation and interpretation services. Individuals requiring ADA accommodations should notify the Board Secretary’s Office at least 48-hours prior to the meeting. Individuals requiring language assistance should notify the Board Secretary’s Office at least 72-hours prior to the meeting. The Board Secretary may be contacted at (408) 321-5680 or e-mail: [email protected] or (408) 321-2330 (TTY only). VTA’s home page is on the web at: www.vta.org or visit us on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/scvta. (408) 321-2300: 中文 / Español / 日本語 / 한국어 / tiếng Việt / Tagalog.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board April 22, 2019
Page 2
All reports for items on the open meeting agenda are available for review in the Board Secretary’s Office, 3331 North First Street, San José, California, (408) 321-5680, the Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday prior to the meeting. This information is available on VTA’s website at http://www.vta.org and also at the meeting.
Date: April 16, 2019
Current Meeting: April 22, 2019
Board Meeting: N/A
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityState Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Director - Planning & Programming, Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT: SR 85 Transit Guideway Study Project Alternatives Workshop
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
BACKGROUND:
The SR 85 Transit Guideway Study is entering its second phase which is the selection of project alternatives. The selected alternatives will be evaluated in a third and final phase of the study, the alternatives analysis. To improve the dialogue around and speed up developing project alternatives, the SR 85 Policy Advisory Board (PAB) recommended at their February 2019 meeting that the PAB, VTA staff and city staff participate in a workshop to discuss potential project designs.
This memo discusses three staff-developed initial project designs to stimulate discussion at the workshop. The memo also discusses operating plans, operating funding and policy considerations that may be applied to the various designs.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of the SR 85 Transit Guideway Study is to inform the SR 85 PAB and VTA’s Board of Directors as they determine an investment decision for transit along the SR 85 corridor. An investment decision is not a specific nor detailed project design, but rather a rough description of the project including a preferred mode (bus, rail, other), operating plan (when and how frequently the transit operates), the project boundaries and guidance on specific project elements or policies. As such, the design of alternatives should be considered at a very high level at this point. Once an investment decision is determined, it can be refined through subsequent project phases.
The number of combinations of project elements (number of stations, station types, lane configurations, permitted users, etc.) greatly exceeds the number of alternatives that can be evaluated in this study. As such, staff has selected three project goals that the PAB has discussed
3
Page 2 of 5
in the past: 1) fast travel speed; 2) maximizing passenger throughput; and 3) maximizing access. VTA has designed initial project alternatives that support these goals. A fourth alternative, called the no project alternative, is also included to demonstrate the outcome of not pursuing a transit project and can be used as a point of comparison for the selected project alternatives. For the no project alternative, it is assumed that VTA would pursue an express lane project in the corridor.
The initial project alternatives prescribe two aspects: the physical change made to SR 85 and a policy statement about who is permitted to access the transit lane. For each alternative, VTA can test multiple transit operating plans to project ridership and operating costs. Each alternative is broken into three geographic segments, reflecting the different constraints and design challenges along different portions of the corridor. Tables and diagrams for the initial project alternatives are included in Attachment A.
The initial project alternatives include an intentionally wide net of design possibilities for the purpose of analytical completeness. This helps safeguard the validity of this analysis from future criticism as data can be used to justify why certain project elements, operating plans or policies are recommended or not recommended.
Ultimately, the PAB does not need to endorse a single project alternative in their recommendation to the Board of Directors. Rather, they may identify elements of different alternatives or goals that they would like to include or emphasize in their recommendation.
Fast Travel Speed Alternative
This alternative seeks to maximize transit travel speed to make the time-competitiveness of transit over driving more appealing and to induce other high-capacity uses-like private shuttles-to use the lane due to potential time savings. In this alternative, a transit lane is constructed between US 101 in Mountain View and US 101 in San Jose.
North of I-280 - A new transit lane is added in each direction, which will likely have right-of-way impacts. The narrow right-of-way precludes median stations so stations in this segment would be located at on-ramps/off-ramps.
Between I-280 and SR 87 - A new transit lane would be constructed in the unused space adjacent to the freeway median.
South of SR 87 - A new transit lane is added in each direction, which may have right-of-way impacts. Since the light rail infrastructure precludes median stations, the bus uses direct ramps from the HOV lane to access stations located on overcrossings. Accommodating these ramps may have right-of-way impacts.
Public transit mode: BusNumber of stations: 7Transit lane users: Public transit, HOV 5+, emergency vehiclesStation type: At-grade median, overpass median and on-ramp/off-ramp stations
3
Page 3 of 5
Person-Throughput Alternative
This alternative seeks to maximize the number of people that travel through the transit lane by using HOV requirements to limit the number of potential users while encouraging use by high-capacity vehicles. This alternative increases the total number of lanes from 6 to 8 for the entire length of SR 85.
North of I-280 - A new transit lane is added in each direction, which will likely have right-of-way impacts. The narrow right-of-way precludes median stations so stations in this segment would be located at on-ramps/off-ramps.
Between I-280 and SR 87 - A new transit lane would be constructed in the unused space adjacent to the freeway median.
South of SR 87 - Lanes are restriped to accommodate an additional travel lane. The existing light rail infrastructure precludes median stations so buses merge to the right lane to serve on-ramp/off-ramp stations.
Public transit mode: BusNumber of stations: 9Transit lane users: Public transit, HOV 2+, emergency vehiclesStation type: Median stations and on-ramp/off-ramp stations
Access-Focused Alternative
This alternative seeks to maximize the ability of the public to access the transit service by providing many stations and accommodating many types of access with bicycle/scooter storage, parking and kiss-n-ride facilities at stations. Eligible lane users include HOVs (free) and SOVs (that purchase access). Transit lane travel speeds are likely to be slowest in this alternative as all freeway users can potentially use the transit lane.
North of I-280 - No lane configuration changes, buses would serve on-ramp/off-ramp stations
Between I-280 and SR 87 - A new transit lane would be constructed in the unused space adjacent to the freeway median. Tolling infrastructure would be installed to collect fees from SOVs.
South of SR 87 - No lane configuration changes, buses would serve on-ramp/off-ramp stations
Public transit mode: BusNumber of stations: 14Transit lane users: Public transit, HOV 2+, SOV with fee, emergency vehiclesStation type: Median Stations and on-ramp/off-ramp stations
Additional elements: Freeway-adjacent parking, bike storage, ride-hail, kiss-n-ride facilitiesNo Project Alternative
This alternative is what would happen if no transit lane project is implemented. It is assumed that the SR 85 express lane project that VTA has pursued in the past would be implemented.
3
Page 4 of 5
This project would convert the existing HOV lane into an express lane and construct an additional express lane along the median between I-280 and SR 87. Tolling infrastructure would be installed along the length of the corridor.
North of I-280 - The HOV lane is converted into an express lane.
Between I-280 and SR 87 - The HOV lane is converted into an express lane and a new express lane is built adjacent to the freeway median.
South of SR 87 - The HOV lane is converted into an express lane.
Public transit: None assumedPermitted lane users: HOV 2+, SOVs (that pay a fee), emergency vehicles
Concepts considered but not included in initial project alternatives
Elevated guideway - An earlier analysis found that an elevated guideway in the segment north of I-280 would be costly to construct and would have significant impacts to infrastructure and aesthetics.
Diversions from the corridor - The initial project alternatives imagine a linear corridor with a linear public transit route. However, an analysis of mobile device location data indicates that about three-quarters of SR 85 travelers are accessing destinations that are outside of a short walk of the corridor. Private shuttles can make deviations, as they do today, but none were considered for public transit due to the increase in travel time that such diversions would create.
A smaller project - All initial project alternatives envision a public transit service operating along the full length of SR 85 with transit-supportive infrastructure along the entire length of the corridor. However, private shuttles are more prevalent in the northern portion of the corridor and traffic is less prevalent in the southern portion of the corridor. It may be worthwhile to consider an improvement that focuses mostly in the northern portion of the corridor where slow travel speeds and person-throughput are lowest during peak periods.
Light Rail - 2016 Measure B instructs VTA to study bus and light rail alternatives as well as any other technologies that are applicable. However, Board Member direction at the February 2019 SR 85 PAB meeting indicated a preference to discard rail as a considered mode due to the high cost to build and operate, lack of flexibility inherent to rail service and the inability of other rubber-tired vehicles to use the guideway. For these reasons, light rail is not included in the initial alternatives.
Other transportation modes - The initial round of public engagement provided many suggestions for what should be done on SR 85 including monorails, subways, gondolas and hyperloop. These modes were not included in alternatives for various reasons including the capital cost, unique vehicle storage and maintenance needs, poor applicability, speed limitations, capacity limitations, and unproven technology.
Service plan and operating cost
The level of transit service is a key input for projecting ridership and determining the transit
3
Page 5 of 5
operating cost. VTA can consider multiple service plans and routings for each project alternative. For example: 15-minute frequency, 30-minute frequency, hourly service, peak period only service, all-day service, etc. For alternatives with many stations, it may be appropriate to consider multiple service patterns like overlapping all-stop and skip-stop trips. An objective of the April 22 workshop will be to discuss which service plans and patterns should be evaluated for each alternative.
Operating funding
VTA’s current financial outlook has led the agency to propose decreasing spending on peak-period, directional transit services and to seek assistance from private employers to help fund the cost of operation. Presently, it is unclear how many employers will be willing to provide operating assistance and as such, it is unclear what level of publicly-operated transit service can be provided. For these reasons, identifying new sources of operating funding-particularly those that can be dedicated to the SR 85 corridor-will be an important part of the alternatives analysis. VTA will analyze the potential for new funding sources like SOV or HOV fees or a per-vehicle fee for private shuttles to help sustain corridor transit operations.
Innovation, Flexibility and Scalability
At past SR 85 PAB meetings, the PAB has indicated an interest in innovative solutions along SR 85 and how technological improvements can improve travel along the corridor. Autonomous vehicles and vehicle-to-vehicle communications have the potential to improve roadway efficiency with closer vehicles spacing. Autonomous transit has the potential to provide a service equivalent to current transit, but at a lower operating cost which could mean a greater quantity of service. It may also be possible to achieve improvements in the speed, routing and flow of vehicles with real-time cloud-based algorithms that can better manage congestion or inform incentives for inducing certain travel behavior.
None of these technologies are presently road-ready, but may be realities in the future. As such, the PAB may wish to think about which project designs provide the most flexibility and scalability for accommodating future technologies. The PAB may also want to consider policies that can be endorsed in the present day to ensure that a transit lane on SR 85 can maintain its adaptability rather than become entrenched as dedicated to a specific use. For example, Los Angeles is responding to declining transit speeds and reliability in the I-10 and I110 busways with a pilot project that changes access rules from HOV 2+ to HOV 5+.
Questions for the PAB, city staff and Caltrans staff at the April 22 workshop
• Are these alternatives compatible with city plans?• Are there fatal flaws in the alternatives?• Are there changes that should be made or other alternatives that should be analyzed?
Prepared By: Adam BurgerMemo No. 6972
3
Summary of Differences Between Initial Project Alternatives Attachment A
Physical Design of Initial Project Alternatives
Alternative Physical Changes Transit uses… Station Type Permitted Users Physical Changes Transit uses… Station Type Permitted Users Physical Changes Transit uses… Station Type Permitted Users
Fast Travel Speed Alternative 7 New Transit Lanes Any Lane On‐Ramp/Off‐Ramp HOV 5+ New Transit Lanes Median Lane Median‐At Grade HOV 5+ New Transit Lanes Median Lane Median‐Overpass HOV 5+
Person‐Throughput Alternative 10 New Transit Lanes Any Lane On‐Ramp/Off‐Ramp HOV 2+ New Transit Lanes Median Lane Median‐At Grade HOV 2+ No Changes Any Lane On‐Ramp/Off‐Ramp HOV 2+
Access‐Focused Alternative 14 No Changes Any Lane On‐Ramp/Off‐Ramp HOVs, SOV with fee New Transit Lanes Median Lane Median‐At Grade HOVs, SOV with fee No Changes Any Lane On‐Ramp/Off‐Ramp HOVs, SOV with fee
No Project Alternative ‐ HOV → Express Lane ‐ ‐ HOVs, SOV with fee HOV → Exp, New Exp ‐ ‐ HOVs, SOV with fee HOV → Express Lane ‐ ‐ HOVs, SOV with fee
Operating Plans to be Modeled
Alternative 15‐Minute 30‐Minute 15‐Minute 30‐Minute
Fast Travel Speed Alternative 7
Person‐Throughput Alternative 10
Access‐Focused Alternative* 14
No Project Alternative ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
*Overlapping local and express service patterns
Potential Sources of Transit Funding
Alternative Publicly (VTA) Employer Contrib. SOV access fees Other?
Fast Travel Speed Alternative ‐ ‐
Person‐Throughput Alternative ‐ ‐
Access‐Focused Alternative* ‐
No Project Alternative ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Number of Stations
Number of Stations
Weekday All‐DayWeekday Peak Period‐Only
North of I‐280 I‐280 to SR 87 South of SR 87
3.a
Fast Travel Speed Alternative - Street ConfigurationThis alternative seeks to maximize transit travel speed by constructing a new transit lane with HOV 5+ restrictions. This alternative would widen the freeway to 8 through-lanes. North of I-280, the bus would serve on-ramp/off-ramp stations. Between I-280 and SR 87 it would serve freeway median stations. South of SR 87 it would serve median stations located at overpasses.
These diagrams are intended to show potential lane configurations, not lane widths or right-of-way dimensions. Some configurations may have right-of-way impacts.
North of I-280A new lane would be added, which is likely to have right-of-way impacts to existing bridges and may require freeway widening.
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+ HOV 2+ GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 5+HOV 5+
I-280 to SR 87A new lane would be added in the unused space adjacent to the median.
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+ HOV 2+ GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 5+HOV 5+
South of SR 87A new lane would be added, which may have right-of-way impacts.
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+ HOV 2+ GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 5+HOV 5+
I-280 to SR 87 - StationStations would be located at-grade at overpasses (overpass not shown in diagram) and stairs/escalators/elevators would allow riders to move to street level. Since bus doors are on the right side of the vehicle, the buses would cross sides of the freeway to board passen-gers. The station area would be physically separated from moving traffic by solid barriers. In this design, the bus would block the lane while boarding.
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+ HOV 2+ GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 5+HOV 5+
South of SR 87 - StationThe existing light rail infrastructure precludes at-grade median stations. Instead, stations would be located at overpasses with direct HOV-to-overpass ramps connecting buses to stations.
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+ HOV 2+ GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 5+HOV 5+ Ramp toOverpass
3.a
Saratoga
Campbell
Cupertino
PaloAlto
MountainView
Milpitas
SantaClara
LosAltos
LosAltosHills
LosGatos
MonteSereno
Fremont
San Jose
San Jose
San JoseSunnyvale
MenloPark
EastPalo Alto
Middlefield
El Camino Real
Stevens Creek
Saratoga
Bascom Meridian
Cottle
Fast Travel Speed Alternative
Potential Station Location
3.a
Maximize Person-Throughput Alternative - Street ConfigurationThis alternative seeks to maximize person-throughput of the new lane by restricting use to HOV 2+. Ideally, this arrangement would result in an outcome of increased person-throughput since vehicles in the lane would have two or more passengers and the HOV 2+ restriction would mean less vehicles than a general lane, allowing the vehicles in the new lane to travel faster.
These diagrams are intended to show potential lane configurations, not lane widths or right-of-way dimensions. Some configurations may have right-of-way impacts.
North of I-280A new lane would be added, which is likely to have right-of-way impacts to existing bridges and may require freeway widening.
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+ HOV 2+ GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+HOV 2+
I-280 to SR 87A new lane would be added in the unused space adjacent to the median.
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+ HOV 2+ GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+HOV 2+
South of SR 87No changes would be made. Buses would use any lane and serve on-ramp/off-ramp stations.
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+HOV 2+
I-280 to SR 87 - StationStations would be located at-grade at overpasses (overpass not shown in diagram) and stairs/escalators/elevators would allow riders to move to street level. Since bus doors are on the right side of the vehicle, the buses would cross sides of the freeway to board passengers. The station area would be physically separated from moving traffic by solid barriers. A fifth lane is included for the bus to stop to load passengers so that HOVs in the new lane are not blocked.
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+ HOV 2+ HOV 2+ HOV 2+ GeneralLane
Bus-OnlyBus-Only
3.a
Saratoga
Campbell
Cupertino
PaloAlto
MountainView
Milpitas
SantaClara
LosAltos
LosAltosHills
LosGatos
MonteSereno
Fremont
San Jose
San Jose
San JoseSunnyvale
MenloPark
EastPalo Alto
Middlefield
El Camino Real
Stevens Creek
Saratoga
Bascom Meridian
Cottle
Maximize Person-Throughput Alternative
Potential Station Location
MontereySnell
De Anza
3.a
Maximize Access Alternative - Street ConfigurationThis alternative seeks to maximize the number of origins and destinations that can be accessed by a transit service. It includes many stations that would feature bicycle storage, kiss-n-ride and vehicle parking nearby. The high number of stations and land needed for parking is likely to make this more expensive than other alternatives. To offset costs, this alternative features less infrastructure changes between stations an opportunity to generate revenue from charging SOVs to access the new lane.
These diagrams are intended to show potential lane configurations, not lane widths or right-of-way dimensions. Some configurations may have right-of-way impacts.
North of I-280No lanes would be added. Tolling infrastructure would be installed in the median-adjacent lane and would charge SOVs a dynamic fee to access the lane, if excess capacity exists. Buses would use any lane and serve on-ramp/off-ramp stations.
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+SOV with fee
HOV 2+SOV with fee
I-280 to SR 87A new lane would be added in the unused space adjacent to the median.
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+SOV with fee
HOV 2+SOV with fee
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+SOV with fee
HOV 2+SOV with fee
South of SR 87No lanes would be added. Tolling infrastructure would be installed in the median-adjacent lane and would charge SOVs a dynamic fee to access the lane, if excess capacity exists. Buses would use any lane and serve on-ramp/off-ramp stations.
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+SOV with fee
HOV 2+SOV with fee
I-280 to SR 87 - StationStations would be located at-grade at overpasses (overpass not shown in diagram) and stairs/escalators/elevators would allow riders to move to street level. Since bus doors are on the right side of the vehicle, the buses would cross sides of the freeway to board passengers. The station area would be physically separated from moving traffic by solid barriers. A fifth lane is included for the bus to stop to load passengers so that private vehicles in the new lane are not blocked.
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+SOV with fee
HOV 2+SOV with fee
HOV 2+SOV with fee
HOV 2+SOV with fee
GeneralLane
Bus-OnlyBus-Only
3.a
Saratoga
Campbell
Cupertino
PaloAlto
MountainView
Milpitas
SantaClara
LosAltos
LosAltosHills
LosGatos
MonteSereno
Fremont
San Jose
San Jose
San JoseSunnyvale
MenloPark
EastPalo Alto
Middlefield
El Camino Real
Stevens Creek
Saratoga
Bascom Meridian
Cottle
Maximize Access Alternative
Potential Station Location
MontereySnell
De Anza
OhloneChynowethWinchester
Fremont
Union
3.a
No Project Alternative - Street ConfigurationThis alternative shows what would happen if the project is not constructed. It is assumed that VTA would pursue an express lane project in this corridor. This alternative can be used as a point of comparison for the other alternatives. It is not assumed that VTA wouldoperate a transit service in this corridor.
These diagrams are intended to show potential lane configurations, not lane widths or right-of-way dimensions. Some configurations may have right-of-way impacts.
North of I-280The existing HOV lane would be converted to an express lane. HOV 2+ vehicles could use the lane for free, but SOVs would pay a dynamic toll to access the lane. Tolling infrastructure would be installed along the median lane.
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+SOV with fee
HOV 2+SOV with fee
I-280 to SR 87The existing HOV lane would be converted to an express lane and an additional express lane would be constructed in the unused space adjacent to the median. Tolling infrastructure would be installed along the median lanes.
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+SOV with fee
HOV 2+SOV with fee
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+SOV with fee
HOV 2+SOV with fee
South of SR 87The existing HOV lane would be conveted to an express lane. Tolling infrastructure would be installed along the median lane.
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+SOV with fee
HOV 2+SOV with fee
3.a
Alternatives WorkshopState Route 85 Transit Guideway Study
April 22, 2019
Workshop Format
2
Introductions All
Presentation VTA Staff
Structured Discussion All
Roles
3
VTA Project Team Listen and ask questions
PAB Members Speak to project goals
Advise on alternatives
City Staff Advise on compatibility with city plans
Advise on city transportation goals
Background
4
Desire to improve transportation along SR 85
Objective: Make informed recommendation to VTA Board
Travel Market Analysis
Physical constraints
Mode preference: bus
Goals for Today
5
Receive input about initial alternatives
Move closer to selecting a slate of alternatives
Approach to Developing Initial Alternatives
6
Intentionally broad for completeness
Somewhat fiscally-minded
Emulate existing infrastructure in other cities
Ultimate Objective
Determine which alternatives are favored and which are not
PAB’s recommendation can combine design goals, elements
7
On-Ramp StationI-405 Seattle
8
Median At-Grade StationSilver Line,Los Angeles
9
Median Overpass StationI-405, Seattle
10
Median Overpass StationI-405, Seattle
Initial Alternative: No Project (Express Lane)
11
Stations: None
New Lane: I-280 to SR 87
New Lane Rules: HOV 2+, SOVs with fee
Initial Alternative: No Project (Express Lane)
12
Roadway Configuration – North of I-280
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+SOV
with fee
GeneralLane
HOV 2+SOV
with fee
GeneralLane
Initial Alternative: No Project (Express Lane)
13
Roadway Configuration - I-280 to SR 87
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+SOVs
with fee
HOV 2+SOVs
with fee
GeneralLane
HOV 2+SOVs
with fee
GeneralLane
HOV 2+SOVs
with fee
Initial Alternative: No Project (Express Lane)
14
Roadway Configuration – South of SR 87
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+SOV
with fee
GeneralLane
HOV 2+SOV
with fee
GeneralLane
Initial Alternative: Fast Travel Speed
15
Stations: 7
New Lane: US 101 North to US 101 South
New Lane Rules: HOV 5+
Station Types: On-Ramp, Median At-Grade, Median Overpass
16
Fast Travel SpeedInitial Alternative
Initial Alternative: Fast Travel Speed
17
Roadway Configuration - North of I-280
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+ HOV 5+ GeneralLane
HOV 2+ GeneralLane
HOV 5+
Initial Alternative: Fast Travel Speed
18
Roadway Configuration - I-280 to SR 87
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+ HOV 5+ GeneralLane
HOV 2+ GeneralLane
HOV 5+
Initial Alternative: Fast Travel Speed
19
Roadway Configuration - I-280 to SR 87 at Station
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+ HOV 5+ GeneralLane
HOV 2+ GeneralLane
HOV 5+
Initial Alternative: Fast Travel Speed
20
Roadway Configuration - South of SR 87
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+ HOV 5+ GeneralLane
HOV 2+ GeneralLane
HOV 5+
Initial Alternative: Fast Travel Speed
21
Roadway Configuration - South of SR 87 at Station
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+ HOV 5+ GeneralLane
HOV 2+ GeneralLane
HOV 5+HOV 5+Ramp fromOverpassStation
HOV 5+Ramp toOverpassStation
Initial Alternative: Maximize Person-Throughput
22
Stations: 10
New Lane: US 101 North to SR 87
New Lane Rules: HOV 2+
Station Types: On-Ramp, Median At-Grade
Speed & Vehicle-Throughput Relationship
23
Spee
d (
MP
H)
Vehicles/Hour/Lane
Maximum Vehicles/Lane/Hour
SR 85 During Peak Periods (General Lanes)
Speed & Vehicle-Throughput Relationship
24
Spee
d (
MP
H)
Vehicles/Hour/Lane
Maximize Person-Throughput Alt.
3,000-4,500 People/Lane/Hour
25
Maximize ThroughputInitial Alternative
Initial Alternative: Maximize Person-Throughput
26
Roadway Configuration - North of I-280
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+ HOV 2+ GeneralLane
HOV 2+ GeneralLane
HOV 2+
Initial Alternative: Maximize Person-Throughput
27
Roadway Configuration - I-280 to SR 87
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+ HOV 2+ GeneralLane
HOV 2+ GeneralLane
HOV 2+
Initial Alternative: Maximize Person-Throughput
28
Roadway Configuration – I-280 to SR 87 at Station
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+ HOV 2+ GeneralLane
HOV 2+ GeneralLane
HOV 2+Bus-Only Bus-Only
Initial Alternative: Maximize Person-Throughput
29
Roadway Configuration – South of SR 87
GeneralLane
GeneralLane
HOV 2+ GeneralLane
HOV 2+ GeneralLane
Initial Alternative: Maximize Access
30
Stations: 14
New Lane: I-280 to SR 87
New Lane Rules: HOV 2+, SOVs with fee (dynamically priced)
