transit planning & operations committee...

TRANSIT PLANNING & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

11:00 AM

VTA Conference Room B-104

3331 North First Street

San Jose, CA

AGENDA

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

CALL TO ORDER

1. ROLL CALL

2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS:

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

3. ORDERS OF THE DAY - Approve the Consent Agenda

CONSENT AGENDA

4. Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2015.

5. Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2015.

6. ACTION ITEM - Approve the 2015 Transit Planning and Operations (TP&O) Committee Meeting Schedule.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Transit Planning & Operations Committee May 20, 2015

REGULAR AGENDA

7. ACTION ITEM - Adopt a Resolution and authorize the General Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding and all other documents required for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to join a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) titled Silicon Valley Radio Interoperability Authority (SV-RIA). The purpose of the SV-RIA is to collaboratively build a county-wide inter-operable radio system. Such membership shall be contingent on VTA’s participation as a full member of the JPA and its Working Committee. VTA's total cost for its share of the three-year build out of the core infrastructure would be $5,800,000, and $3,000,000 for radio hardware, for a total authorization not to exceed $8,800,000.

8. ACTION ITEM - Recommend that staff continue to work on the Phases 3 and 4 implementations (design and construction) of express lanes on SR 85 acknowledging that implementation of future express lanes phases would be based on subsequent actions of the Board of Directors.

9. INFORMATION ITEM - Receive the FY 2015 Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report.

OTHER ITEMS

10. Receive a report on Stadium Events. (Verbal Report)

11. Receive an update on Move Silicon Valley. (Verbal Report) (Alaniz)

12. Receive an update on VTA Safety Program. (Verbal Report) (Keller)

13. Receive a report on the April 2015 Monthly Ridership and Fare Revenue Performance. (Verbal Report)

14. Items of Concern and Referral to Administration.

15. Review Committee Work Plan. (Hursh)

16. Committee Staff Report. (Hursh)

17. Determine Consent Agenda for the June 4, 2015 Board of Directors Meeting.

18. Chairperson's Report. (Larsen)

19. ANNOUNCEMENTS

20. ADJOURN

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Transit Planning & Operations Committee May 20, 2015

The Consent Agenda items may be voted on in one motion at the beginning of the meeting under Orders of the Day. If you wish to discuss any of the Consent Agenda items, please request that the item be removed from the Consent Agenda under Orders of the Day, Agenda Item #3.

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 [email protected] or (408) 321-2330 (TTY only). VTA’s home page is www.vta.org or visit us on www.facebook.com/scvta. (408) 321-2300: 中文 / Español / 日本語 / 한국어 / tiếng Việt / Tagalog.

Disclosure of Campaign Contributions to Board Members (Government Code Section 84308) In accordance with Government Code Section 84308, no VTA Board Member shall accept, solicit, or direct a contribution of more than $250 from any party, or his or her agent, or from any participant, or his or her agent, while a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use is pending before the agency. Any Board Member who has received a contribution within the preceding 12 months in an amount of more than $250 from a party or from any agent or participant shall disclose that fact on the record of the proceeding and shall not make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his or her official position to influence the decision. A party to a proceeding before VTA shall disclose on the record of the proceeding any contribution in an amount of more than $250 made within the preceding 12 months by the party, or his or her agent, to any Board Member. No party, or his or her agent, shall make a contribution of more than $250 to any Board Member during the proceeding and for three months following the date a final decision is rendered by the agency in the proceeding. The foregoing statements are limited in their entirety by the provisions of Section 84308 and parties are urged to consult with their own legal counsel regarding the requirements of the law.

All reports for items on the open meeting agenda are available for review in the Board Secretary’s Office, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California, (408) 321-5680, the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday prior to the meeting. This information is available on VTA’s website at http://www.vta.org and also at the meeting.

NOTE: THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAY ACCEPT, REJECT OR MODIFY ANY ACTION RECOMMENDED ON THIS AGENDA.

Date: April 17, 2015 Current Meeting: May 20, 2015 Board Meeting: N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Transit Planning & Operations Committee

THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez

FROM: Board Secretary, Elaine F. Baltao SUBJECT: 2015 TP&O Committee Meeting Schedule


Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No

ACTION ITEM

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the 2015 Transit Planning and Operations (TP&O) Committee Meeting Schedule.

BACKGROUND: The VTA Board of Directors Transit Planning and Operations (TP&O) Committee generally meets the third Wednesday of every month. The following meeting dates are proposed for 2015. The TP&O Committee generally meets at VTA River Oaks Campus, 3331 North First Street, Conference Room B-104, at 11:00 a.m., or as otherwise posted. Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:00 a.m.

June 2015 - (No Meeting Scheduled) July 2015 - (No Meeting Scheduled)

Wednesday, August 19, 2015 11:00 a.m. Wednesday, September 16, 2015 11:00 a.m. Wednesday, October 14, 2015 11:00 a.m. Wednesday, November 18, 2015 11:00 a.m.

Wednesday, December 16, 2015 11:00 a.m.

6

of 2

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no Fiscal Impact.

Prepared by: Menominee L. McCarter Memo No. 5000

6

Date: May 13, 2015 Current Meeting: May 20, 2015 Board Meeting: June 4, 2015



FROM: Director of Business Services, Bill Lopez SUBJECT: VTA Membership Agreement with the SV-RIA



ACTION ITEM

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution and authorize the General Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding and all other documents required for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to join a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) titled Silicon Valley Radio Interoperability Authority (SV-RIA). The purpose of the SV-RIA is to collaboratively build a county-wide inter-operable radio system. Such membership shall be contingent on VTA’s participation as a full member of the JPA and its Working Committee. VTA's total cost for its share of the three-year build out of the core infrastructure would be $5,800,000, and $3,000,000 for radio hardware, for a total authorization not to exceed $8,800,000.

BACKGROUND:

VTA currently owns, operates and maintains a land mobile radio (LMR) system to support its transit and public safety communication needs. This “T-Band” radio system is an older analog system running on the UHF 450 MHz frequency and is increasingly failing to meet VTA’s operational and technological requirements, including a lack of interoperability with regional public safety agencies. In addition, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) plans to reclaim the radio frequencies VTA is currently using as part of its national “narrowbanding” initiative. This mandate requires licensees such as VTA to operate more efficiently, either on narrower channel bandwidths or increased voice paths on existing channels. This will require a substantial investment in VTA’s radio infrastructure. To replace the entire radio system is estimated to cost over $20 million. The current VTA system has no ability to communicate with other public safety agencies or other local radio systems partners. The current lack of interoperability is a major communications gap during

7

of 4

large scale events such as Super Bowl 50, as well as a problem in responding to emergencies or natural disasters. VTA is an essential part of disaster response in the county and responds to all major emergencies. The Silicon Valley Radio Interoperability Authority (SV-RIA) is an independent Joint Powers Authority (JPA) set up to build a county-wide radio system using the 700 MHz frequency, built with state of the art P-25 digital radio technology. VTA and the SV-RIA have been in discussions regarding the proper role for VTA as a partner in this project. The SV-RIA project is on-going and areas of north Santa Clara County are currently utilizing the new system. The cities of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale are also using this new system. Radio performance and coverage from the new system have been exceptional. VTA’s membership in SV-RIA would be a key advantage in providing safe and effective service for Super Bowl 50 and for all future events or emergencies.

DISCUSSION:

The advantages to VTA in joining the SV-RIA Joint Powers Board are significant, including radio interoperability with all public safety agencies in the county and eliminating costly delays and confusion in emergency situations. Membership in the SV-RIA would provide VTA an opportunity to participate in a proven system with up to date technology and enjoy the cost benefits of a collaborative effort with the other members. It would also eliminate the need to apply for Radio Spectrum in a competitive environment to meet the federal "narrowbanding" mandate. VTA supports every major incident, event and/or emergency in Santa Clara County (including the upcoming Super Bowl 50). Radio voice communication is a key component of effective logistics and transportation. Membership in the proposed system will allow VTA to coordinate its efforts and communications with our regional partners, a capability that our current radio system does not offer. VTA has been meeting with its local partners and regional radio staff, and is now confident that Santa Clara County and all the member cities and towns have committed to funding this important project. With this funding in place, it is no longer preferable for VTA to acquire an independent system. As the third largest participant, VTA’s membership in the SV-RIA also makes the overall project more affordable to all the other agencies and members. To ensure VTA’s needs and special transit radio requirements are addressed VTA should become a voting member with two seats on both the SV-RIA Joint Powers Board and SV-RIA working committee. VTA staff has commitments from the SV-RIA management team that they support this change to the current structure. If the Board authorizes this action, VTA and SV-RIA staff will work toward amending the SV-RIA Joint Powers Authority document to make VTA a full voting member. For reference, Attachments 1 (Resolution number 2015-02) and 2 (Resolution number 2015-03)

7

of 4

are previously approved SV-RIA Resolutions by the SV-RIA Board of Directors on this topic. In anticipation of the VTA Board action, recently the SV-RIA board has passed Resolution number 2015-03 amending its Bylaws to require that if VTA joins SV-RIA one member of the SV-RIA Board must also be a member of the VTA Board, and that VTA will be a "PARTICIPANT" in the SV-RIA until the SV-RIA JPA is amended to make VTA a full SV-RIA voting member. This Resolution also gives VTA a voting presence (also two members; appointed by VTA's General Manager) on the Working Committee. VTA’s General Counsel has reviewed the SV-RIA JPA document and has not identified any legal issues that would preclude VTA’s membership in the SV-RIA. Recommended Conditions of VTA’s Continued Membership in th SV-RIA:

1. VTA will be one of the largest members of the SV-RIA, therefore must have a voting position on the SV-RIA Board, i.e. two Directors representing VTA. These members are designated as follows: One seat from the current VTA Board who is an elected official and whose City does not currently have a board position on the SV-RIA board; and one seat that is either the General Manager of VTA or his/her designated executive-level staff person. Both appointments must be approved by the VTA Board.

2. VTA must have a voting presence (also two members) in the Working Committee assigned by VTA's General Manager or Chief Information Officer.

3. VTA must have adequate voice channels assigned across the entire county to support its current and future communications and operational needs.

4. VTA radio traffic must have equal priority with all other members, i.e. VTA must be regarded as “Public Safety.”

In addition, VTA and SV-RIA should explore an emergency backup data solution.

Staff recommends VTA Board approval of Attachment 4, a Resolution requesting membership in the SV-RIA; Attachment 3, the Memorandum of Understanding that would approve the infrastructure payments to SV-RIA; and all other documents, contracts and task order agreements. These commitments total an aggregate spending authorization value not to exceed $8,800,000. If authorized, VTA staff will work with the SV-RIA and its members in good faith to secure an amendment to the SV-RIA JPA allowing VTA to become a full representative and voting member. Any such amendment will be brought back to the VTA Board for consideration and action.

ALTERNATIVES:

VTA could continue to own and operate a stand-alone county-wide radio system. This option is not recommended due to the beneficial economies of scale available if VTA joins the regional SV-RIA project, as well as the fact that our commitments to supporting large scale events and emergencies make it imperative to be a part of regional interoperable radio system. FISCAL IMPACT:

7

of 4

The infrastructure cost to VTA is estimated at $1.8M per year for the next 3 years, for a total of $5.4M. VTA is also responsible for $3.0M in replacement radio equipment. Annual maintenance costs, estimated at $740K, would be required starting in FY19.

Appropriation for the first two payments of $1.8 million dollars each are included in the FY15 Adopted and FY16 and FY17 Proposed VTA Transit Fund Capital Budgets. Appropriation for subsequent capital and maintenance obligations will be included in future operating and capital budgets.

Prepared by: Richard Bertalan Memo No. 5017 ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 (PDF) Attachment 2 (PDF) Attachment 3 (PDF) Attachment 4 (PDF)

7

1

RESOLUTION NO. 2015-02

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SILICON VALLEY REGIONAL

INTEROPERABILITY AUTHORITY REQUESTING THAT THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (“VTA”) APPROVE A RESOLUTION

REQUESTING MEMBERSHIP IN SVRIA AND A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE JPA CREATING TWO

ADDITIONAL SVRIA BOARD OF DIRECTORS SEATS WHICH SHALL BE RESERVED FOR THE VTA

WHEREAS, the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (“Authority”) is a joint powers agency, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California;

WHEREAS, Section 4.1 and 4.2 of the Joint Powers Agreement specifies the steps required for the addition of new Public Agency members to the Authority, including the passage and submission to the Authority’s Board of Directors (“Board”), of a resolution by the Public Agency’s governing body including a request to become a new member of the Authority;

WHEREAS, the Board desires to permit VTA to join the Authority and to designate two additional seats on the Board for the VTA, including one seat for a current board member of VTA who is also an elected official or a member of the VTA’s Policy Advisory Committee who is also an elected official, whose City does not currently have a Board Member on the SVRIA Board and one seat for the General Manager of the VTA or his or her designated Executive Level Staff Person which has been approved by the VTA Board;

WHEREAS, on April 13, 2015 the Board passed a resolution increasing the membership of the Working Committee from eleven (11) Committee Members to thirteen (13) Committee Members;

WHEREAS, the admission to the Authority, the increase in the Working Committee’s membership and the additional seats on the Board is contingent upon approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) by both the VTA and the Authority which MOU obligates the VTA to pay to the Authority its portion of the cost of the Silicon Valley Regional Communications System (“SVRCS”);

WHEREAS, on April 13, 2015 the Board passed a resolution amending their Bylaws to require that one Director must also be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (“VTA”) in addition to meeting the Director requirements listed in the Joint Powers Agreement at Sections 5.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.1.5; 5.1.6 or 5.1.7;

WHEREAS, on April 13, 2015 the Board approved a MOU to be executed by VTA and all Members and Participants;

7.a

2

WHEREAS, the increase in the Working Committee’s membership is contingent upon approval of an amendment to the Working Committee’s Bylaws to (a) designate that the VTA’s General Manager shall appoint the two Working Committee members, and (b) increase the Working Committee’s quorum and the number of votes required to take action from six (6) to seven (7);

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Joint Powers Agreement, the VTA must also enter into a membership agreement with the Authority in order for the VTA to join the Authority;

WHEREAS, the Board commits to a good faith effort, within the next eighteen (18) months, to complete an amendment of the Joint Powers Agreement to increase the membership of the Board to 11 members and to make other changes to the Joint Powers Agreement; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.7 of the Joint Powers Agreement, changes to the Joint Powers Agreement must be approved by all current Members of the Authority, which approval cannot be guaranteed, but the Board will proceed in a good faith attempt to obtain approval by all Members of the Authority.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SILICON VALLEY REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY AUTHORITY AS FOLLOWS:

The Board hereby adopts a resolution requesting that VTA pass a resolution requesting membership in the Authority, which membership includes the occurrence of all of the following, in no particular order:

a. the Board passes this resolution; b. no later than June 30, 2015, the Board of Directors of the VTA approves the signing

of the MOU or similar document committing the Authority to construct the SVRCS and the VTA budgets the funds to pay a portion of the SVRCS cost;

c.. the Working Committee adopts a resolution to amend their Bylaws to require that the VTA’s General Manager appoint two Committee Members to the Working Committee and changing the number of Working Committee members constituting a quorum and the number of votes required to take action, to seven (7);

d. the VTA enters into a membership agreement with SVRIA; e. T he Board authorizes the amendment of the Joint Powers Agreement to include the

VTA as a member and create two seats on the SVRIA Board for VTA, including one for the VTA’s General Manager or his or her designated Executive Staff Member and one for a VTA Board Member or VTA Policy Advisory Committee Member for a City that does not currently have representation on the Board; and

//

//

//

7.a

3

f. the Board forwards the request to amend the Joint Powers Agreement as described in subsection (e), above, to the Authority’s Members with a request for approval within the next 18 months.

Dated this day of , 2015.

Megan Satterlee Chair, Board of Directors of SVRIA

Resolution SVRIA Approving VTA Admission (5) 4-14-15

7.a

1

RESOLUTION NO. 2015-03

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SILICON VALLEY REGIONAL

INTEROPERABILITY AUTHORITY APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE BYLAWS TO REQUIRE ONE BOARD MEMBER TO ALSO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SANTA CLARA VALLEY

TRANSIT AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (“Authority”) is a joint powers agency, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California;

WHEREAS, Section 5.5 of the Joint Powers Agreement requires the Authority’s Board of Directors (“Board”) to adopt Bylaws;

WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend its Bylaws to require that one Director must also be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (“VTA”) in addition to meeting the Director requirements listed in the Joint Powers Agreement at Sections 5.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.1.5; 5.1.6 or 5.1.7;

WHEREAS, the change to the Board seat is contingent upon the Board’s passage of a Resolution increasing the membership of the Working Committee from eleven (11) Committee Members to thirteen (13) Committee Members;

WHEREAS, the increase in the Working Committee’s membership is contingent upon approval by both the VTA and the Authority of a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) or a similar document which obligates the VTA to pay to the Authority, its portion of the cost of the Silicon Valley Regional Communications System (“SVRCS”); and

WHEREAS, the increase in the Working Committee’s membership is contingent upon approval of an amendment to the Working Committee’s Bylaws to (a) designate that the VTA’s General Manager shall appoint the two Working Committee members, and (b) increase the Working Committee’s quorum and the number of votes required to take action from six (6) to seven (7).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SILICON VALLEY REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY AUTHORITY AS FOLLOWS:

The Board hereby adopts a resolution amending its Bylaws to require that one member of the Board also be a member of the Board of Directors of the VTA as shown in the attached redline in the Bylaws, attached as Exhibit “1” and incorporated herein; contingent upon the occurrence of all of the following , in no particular order:

a. the Board passes this resolution;

7.b

2

b. the Board approves the signing of the MOU or similar document committing the Authority to construct the SVRCS and the VTA to pay its portion of the SVRCS cost;

c. the Board of Directors of the VTA approves the signing of the MOU or similar document committing the Authority to construct the SVRCS and the VTA to pay a portion of the SVRCS cost;

d. the Board passes a resolution by a 2/3 vote approving the increase in the Working Committee membership from eleven (11) Committee Members to thirteen (13) Committee Members; and

e. the Working Committee adopts a resolution to amend their Bylaws to require that the VTA’s General Manager appoint two Committee Members to the Working Committee and changing the number of Working Committee members constituting a quorum and the number of votes required to take action, to seven (7).


Megan Satterlee Chair, Board of Directors of SVRIA

Resolution SVRIA Approving VTA Board Seat (2) 4-2-15

7.b

of 19

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING SILICON VALLEY REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM

BETWEEN THE SILICON VALLEY REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY

AUTHORITY AND THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is made and entered into this ___ day of _____________ , 2015, by and between the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority, a California Joint Powers Authority ("SVRIA”), and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (“AGENCY”) (together “Parties”).

RECITALS

WHEREAS, in 2001, the Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, San Jose, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale; the Towns of Los Gatos and Los Altos Hills; the South Santa Clara County Fire District; the County of Santa Clara; San Jose State University; and the Santa Clara Valley Water District executed a Joint Funding Agreement (“Joint Funding Agreement”) pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5 of the California Government Code, Government Code Section 6500 et seq., to jointly hire consultants to complete the conceptual design and implementation strategy for a regional interoperable communications network, to jointly purchase a radio and data communications system, to integrate this system or network with other nearby regional public safety communications systems, to participate in regional interoperability systems, to jointly fund activities and systems related to interoperability and to jointly apply for grants and funding to facilitate accomplishing these goals;

WHEREAS, in 2010, the Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, San Jose, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale; the Town of Los Gatos and the County of Santa Clara (collectively “MEMBERS”) entered into a joint powers agreement (“JPA Agreement”) to form the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (“SVRIA”), with similar goals and purpose as commenced under the Joint Funding Agreement; WHEREAS, paying entities, which are not MEMBERS of SVRIA (“PARTICPANTS”) will execute this MOU;

WHEREAS, SVRIA continues to plan and develop a regional communications interoperability system that will require the financial commitment of SVRIA MEMBERS and PARTICIPANTS by and through this MOU to fund the construction, operation and maintenance of such system; WHEREAS, grant and local funds have been provided to SVRIA directly or through MEMBERS to improve interoperability through the multi-stage build out of a three cell, multi-site P25 Phase 2 TDMA 700 MHz Trunked Radio Simulcast Communications System, to be known as the Silicon Valley Regional Communications System ("SVRCS");

7.c

of 19

WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara (“County”) is the Fiscal Agent and the Contract Manager for SVRIA and the SVRCS build-out (“System”);

WHEREAS, in order to facilitate the construction of the SVRCS, the Parties wish to affirm their continued financial support for a regional interoperable communication system as agreed in this MOU; WHEREAS, AGENCY and SVRIA enter into this MOU under which the SVRIA will own and operate the System for the benefit of AGENCY and other MEMBERS and PARTICIPANTS, which other MEMBERS and PARTICIPANTS will execute Memoranda of Understanding similar to this one (collectively, the "MOU’s"). MEMBERS and PARTICIPANTS will pay, a portion of the cost of the System, consisting of a buy-in cost based on the number of radios committed for use on the System (the "Construction and Implementation Payments"), and the cost of annual operation (the "Operation and Maintenance Payments''), (all Payments are referred to herein collectively as the "AGENCY Payments''); WHEREAS, this MOU is intended to establish a means of requiring the MEMBERS’ Payments and PARTICIPANTS’ payments ensuring the sound operation and financing of the System, and is not in itself an approval of the System or the grant of any land use entitlement potentially required to develop the System; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that users of the SVRCS will include entities that enter into a memorandum of understanding similar to this MOU, after the SVRCS is fully functional. (“FUTURE PARTICIPANTS”). NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows. SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS AGENCY: The AGENCY entering into this MOU. Construction: The complete planning, design, construction, acquisition, financing, improvement, repair, modification and installation of the SVRCS . Construction and Implementation Payments: Payments made under this MOU for the purpose of building the SVRCS. County: The County of Santa Clara. FUTURE PARTICIPANTS 1: Entities who enter into a MOU and make their payment after June 30, 2016, but on or before July 1, 2017. FUTURE PARTICIPANTS 2: Entities who enter into this MOU after July 1, 2017.

7.c

of 19

Joint Funding Agreement: Joint Funding Agreement is the agreement entered into by the predecessors to SVRIA in 2001 for the purposes of funding and implementing interoperability countywide. JPA Agreement: The original agreement entered into by Members of the SVRIA in order to form the JPA. Operations and Maintenance Payments: Payments made based upon this MOU for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the SVRCS. MEMBERS: The members of the SVRIA under the Joint Powers Agreement. MOU: This Memorandum of Understanding. PARTICIPANTS: Parties to a memorandum of understanding similar to this MOU that are not members of SVRIA and enter into a MOU on or before June 30, 2016. . SVRCS or System: The three cell, multi-site System P25 Phase 2 TDMA 700 MHz Trunked Radio Simulcast Communications System, to be known as the Silicon Valley Regional Communications System. This includes the entire build out interoperable communications system envisioned by SVRIA. SVRIA: The Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority, formed in 2010 for the purposes of funding and implementing interoperability countywide and as a successor entity to the entity created under the Joint Funding Agreement. Termination Date: December 31, 2029, unless earlier terminated by the Parties. User Count: Radio Subscriber count as provided by the Members or Participants as of April 13, 2015 and reflected in Exhibit “A”. SECTION 2. PURPOSES OF THE MOU The purposes of this MOU are to: 2.1 Require payment by the AGENCY for its share of the regional SVRCS costs; and 2.2 Set forth the MEMBERS, PARTICIPANTS and the SVRIA's responsibilities for completion of the SVRCS build out. 2.3 Set forth SVRIA’s obligations to maintain and operate the SVRCS. SECTION 3. OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM 3.1 SVRIA has entered or will enter into purchase orders and contracts to supervise and provide for, or cause to be supervised and provided for, the complete planning, design,

7.c

of 19

construction, acquisition, financing, improvement, repair, modification and installation of the SVRCS (collectively, "Construction"). SVRIA will cause the Construction to be diligently performed in accordance with the specifications approved by the SVRIA. 3.2 SVRIA shall operate the System in conjunction with the MEMBERS for the duration of this MOU. 3.3 AGENCY shall have the right to use the System during the term of the MOU, unless AGENCY is in default on AGENCY Payments required hereunder after the applicable cure period set forth in Section 20. 3.4 The SVRCS shall only be used for public safety communications and other governmental uses for the MEMBERS’ and PARTICIPANTS’ benefit and convenience. SVRIA agrees to maintain and preserve the System in good repair and working order at all times, to operate the System in an efficient and economical manner, and to pay all the System’s maintenance and operation costs as they become due. AGENCY acknowledges that SVRIA has complete ownership and the sole discretion to operate, control and manage the System. Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to limit SVRIA's discretion in the System’s operation, control and management. 3.5 SVRIA agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts to hire the County of Santa Clara, City of San Jose and/or other contractors to operate and maintain the System. 3.6 AGENCY agrees to purchase the components it uses with the SVRCS service from or with the cooperation of SVRIA. AGENCY shall not use any components with the SVRCS service which SVRIA has not authorized for its use. AGENCY shall not use the SVRCS in any manner which may adversely affect the service provided by the System. 3.7 SVRIA shall attempt to obtain the land use permits, if any, that are required for Construction. In the event a particular permit cannot be reasonably obtained for a particular site, SVRIA will seek one or more reasonable alternate sites. SECTION 4. MODIFICATION OF SYSTEM SVRIA shall have the right to make additions, modifications and improvements to the System or any portion thereof. All additions, modifications and improvements to the System shall thereafter comprise part of the System and become subject to the MOU’s provisions. Such additions, modifications and improvements shall not in any way damage the System, or cause the System to be used for purposes other than those authorized under the MOU’s provisions, state and federal law. The System, upon completion of any additions, modifications and improvements made thereto pursuant to this Section, shall be of a value which is not substantially less than the value thereof immediately prior to the making of such additions, modifications and improvements.

7.c

of 19

SECTION 5. PAYMENT OF THE INITIAL PAYMENT AND AGENCY PAYMENTS 5.1 AGENCY shall make Construction and Implementation Payments on the dates in Section 22.1 and in the amounts shown in Exhibit “A”. AGENCY shall make annual Operations and Maintenance Payments on the dates and in the amounts as calculated by the formula listed in Exhibit “B” or the amounts listed in Exhibit “B 5.2 AGENCY provided User Counts are contained in Exhibit “A”. Agencies may increase its User Count after entering into this MOU by the payment of user charge based upon the following formula: Total User Count as shown on Exhibit “A” divided by the total Infrastructure Cost = New User Count Charge. Effective January 1, 2016 and each year thereafter the New User Count Charge shall be increased by an amount equivalent to the then-current User Count Charge multiplied by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index – Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CPI) covering San Francisco - Oakland - San Jose, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, between the most recent October and the preceding October. The increase in New User Charge shall be compounded. Agency Operations and Maintenance Costs shall be increased commensurate with the increase in User Counts. Should the Agency User Count decrease in any year Operations and Maintenance Payments will not be reduced except as described in Section 24. SECTION 6. PARTICIPANTS AND FUTURE PARTICPANTS 6.1 PARTICIPANTS as listed in Exhibit “A” shall pay their pro rata share of the System costs in a timely fashion at the same time MEMBERS make their Payments on or before September 30, 2015. PARTICIPANTS, not listed in Exhibit “A” and join on or before June 30, 2016 shall pay their pro rata share at the time of execution. 6.2 FUTURE PARTICIPANTS 1 who enter into a MOU after June 30, 2016, but on or before July 1, 2017 shall make a special Construction and Implementation Payment to cover previously expended costs by MEMBERS and PARTICIPANTS as well as periodic payments at the times required of other MEMBERS and PARTICIPANTS during the term of this MOU. These special Construction and Implementation payments shall be utilized in part to recalculate payments for Construction and Implementation payments for all MEMBERS, PARTICIPANTS and FUTURE PARTICIPANTS 1 and for additional capacity or system enhancements or held in reserve for the same purpose. 6.3 FUTURE PARTICIPANTS 2 who enter into a MOU after July 1, 2017 shall make a special Construction and Implementation Payment as well as periodic payments at the times required of other MEMBERS and PARTICIPANTS and FUTURE PARTICIPANTS 1 during the term of this MOU. These special Construction and Implementation payments shall be utilized in part to recalculate Operations and Maintenance payments for all MEMBERS, PARTICIPANTS and FUTURE PARTICPANTS 1 and FUTURE PARTICIPANTS 2 and for additional capacity or system enhancements or held in reserve for the same purpose.

7.c

of 19

SECTION 7. SOURCE OF PAYMENTS: BUDGET AND APPROPRIATION 7.1 AGENCY shall make the AGENCY Payments from any source of legally available AGENCY funds. AGENCY agrees to include all AGENCY Payments in each proposed annual AGENCY budget during the term of this MOU. AGENCY shall make the necessary annual appropriations for Construction and Implementation payments in FY 2015 – 2016, 2016 – 2017 and 2017 – 2018. AGENCY Payments may be made at any time prior to the deadline for such Payment; there are no prepayment penalties under this MOU. 7.2 Notwithstanding paragraph 7.1, in accordance with Article XVI, Section 18 of the California Constitution, if in any fiscal year subsequent to the execution of this MOU the AGENCY fails to appropriate money for the purpose of funding this MOU, this MOU shall terminate, without penalty effective upon the close of business on the last day of the fiscal year for which funding has been appropriated. SECTION 8. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS In addition the Payments required in this MOU, AGENCY shall continue to make MEMBER Assessment payments as required under the JPA Agreement through the end of fiscal year 2017 – 2018.At the start of fiscal year 2018 – 2019, AGENCY shall begin to make Operation and Maintenance Payments as listed in Exhibit “B”, in lieu of Member Assessments so long as the SVRCS is operating. SECTION 9. ROLE OF GRANT FUNDING In the event that grant funding can be utilized to reduce the overall System costs, the cost reduction will be apportioned to the SVRCS on behalf of all MEMBERS and PARTICIPANTS in a pro rata fashion for the benefit of the System. SECTION 10. CONSTRUCTION BUDGET CONTINGENCY SVRIA has established a 20% construction budget contingency within the System budget. SVRIA shall use these funds for the SVRCS, if unexpected construction costs or increased costs occur. If at the conclusion of System Construction, contingency funds remain, such funds shall be transferred to SVRIA for use as a reserve for Operations and Maintenance costs. SECTION 11. RECEIPT AND DEPOSIT OF AGENCY PAYMENTS SVRIA agrees that it will deposit the AGENCY Payments with the SVRIA’s fiscal agent, the County, for the benefit of the SVRCS. SECTION 12. COMPLIANCE WITH MOU Time is of the essence with respect to the AGENCY Payments and the performance of SVRIA under this MOU. AGENCY shall observe and perform all the agreements,

7.c

of 19

conditions, covenants and terms contained herein. SVRIA shall observe and perform all the agreements, conditions, covenants and terms contained herein. It is expressly understood and agreed by the Parties that each of the agreements, conditions, covenants and terms contained herein is an essential and material term of the MOU and the operation of the System by SVRIA. SECTION 13. ACCESS TO SYSTEM

Upon reasonable notice to SVRIA, AGENCY or its authorized representative shall have the right at all reasonable times to enter, examine and inspect the System or any part thereof. AGENCY, any Authorized Representative of AGENCY and AGENCY’s successors or assigns shall further have such rights of access to the System or any component thereof as may be reasonably necessary to cause the proper maintenance of the System in the event of failure by the SVRIA to perform its obligations hereunder; provided, however, that neither AGENCY nor any of their assigns shall have any obligation to cause such proper maintenance. SECTION 14. INSURANCE

14.1 SVRIA shall procure and maintain, or cause to be procured and maintained, throughout the term of this MOU, casualty insurance against loss or damage to the System. This insurance shall, as nearly as practicable, cover loss or damage that is normally covered by such insurance with extended coverage. This insurance shall not be required to cover loss or damage caused by seismic activity. This insurance shall be subject to deductibles as are customarily maintained by public agencies with respect to works and properties of a like character. The insurance may be maintained as part of or in conjunction with any other insurance coverage carried by SVRIA, and may be maintained in whole or in part in the form of the participation by SVRIA in a joint powers authority or other program providing pooled insurance. MEMBERS, PARTICIPANTS, FUTURE PARTICIPANTS 1 and FUTURE PARTICIPANTS 2 as each approves the MOU and makes their payment shall be named as additional insured on SVRIA’s liability coverage insurance.

14.2 SVRIA shall maintain or cause to be maintained throughout the MOU’s term, a standard comprehensive general insurance policy or policies whose minimums are at least one million ($1,000,000) dollars per occurrence to protect SVRIA, AGENCY, and their respective members, officers, agents, employees, designated volunteers and assigns. The policy or policies shall provide for indemnification of said Parties against direct or contingent loss or liability for damages for bodily and personal injury, death or property damage occasioned by reason of operating the System as required by the JPA Agreement. Such policy or policies shall provide coverage in such liability limits and be subject to such deductibles as SVRIA shall deem adequate and prudent. This insurance may be maintained as part of or in conjunction with any other insurance coverage carried by SVRIA. Any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits set forth in this Agreement shall be deemed to be the minimum amount of insurance required under this Agreement and shall be available to the Parties.

7.c

of 19

14.3 Insurance required to be maintained by subparagraphs 14.1 or 14.2 above, may be obtained under a self-insurance program. SVRIA’s coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the Agency; and Agency’s insurance shall be excess of SVRIA's insurance and shall not contribute with it.

14.4 INSURANCE: AGENCY shall, at its own expense maintain in effect, a program of self-insurance and/or insurance of general liability coverage, including automobile liability, in the amount of at least one million ($1,000,000) dollars per occurrence and in the aggregate as well as statutory California Workers’ Compensation coverage. The coverage shall remain in effect during the entire term of this MOU. AGENCY shall provide evidence upon the request of SVRIA that the required insurance coverage is in effect.

14.5 SVRIA shall require that errors and omissions insurance in the amount of at least one million ($1,000,000) dollars per claim for any architects or engineers retained for the design and construction of the system.

SECTION 15. BOOKS AND ACCOUNTS

15.1 SVRIA will keep complete and accurate financial records for the System. SVRIA shall keep such records separate from all other SVRIA financial records. Upon reasonable notice to SVRIA, AGENCY may inspect the SVRIA’s System financial records.

15.2 Not more than two hundred and ten (210) days after the close of each fiscal year, SVRIA will prepare:

15.2.1 System financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

15.2.2 An Accountant's Report based thereon, prepared by an Independent Certified Public Accountant who examined such financial statements.

15.2.3 A summary statement of the System’s financial condition. SVRIA shall furnish a copy of the summary statement to AGENCY.

15.3 Not more than two hundred and ten (210) days after the completion of all work associated with SVRCS Construction, the SVRIA shall prepare and submit a final report to AGENCY disclosing SVRIA’s disbursements of the funds provided by all MEMBERS, PARTICIPANTS and FUTURE PARTICIPANTS.

SECTION 16. PAYMENT OF TAXES AND COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS

SVRIA will pay and discharge all taxes, assessments and other governmental charges, if any, which may hereafter be lawfully imposed upon the System when due. SVRIA will conform to the valid requirements of any governmental agency with authority relative to the Construction or the System. Without limiting the foregoing, SVRIA shall comply with

7.c

of 19

all applicable laws and written policies and regulations of the federal, state and local governments in the construction and operation of the SVRCS and the performance of SVRIA under this MOU.

SECTION 17. FURTHER ASSURANCES

SVRIA and AGENCY will each adopt, deliver, execute and make any and all further assurances, instruments and resolutions as may be reasonably necessary or proper to carry out the intention or to facilitate the Parties’ performance of this MOU.

SECTION 18. SVRIA REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES

SVRIA represents and warrants to AGENCY as follows:

18.1 Due Organization and Existence. SVRIA is a joint exercise of powers authority duly organized and validly existing under the JPA Agreement and the laws of the State of California. SVRIA has the full legal right, power and authority under the laws of the State of California to enter into this MOU and to carry out all of its obligations herein.

18.2 Due Execution. SVRIA’s representatives, who sign this MOU, are authorized to sign pursuant to a resolution adopted by the SVRIA’s Board of Directors. 18.3 Valid, Binding and Enforceable Obligations. This MOU has been authorized and executed by SVRIA and constitutes the legal, valid and binding agreement of SVRIA, enforceable against SVRIA in accordance with its terms.

SECTION 19. AGENCY REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES

AGENCY represents covenants and warrants to SVRIA as follows:

19.1 Due Organization and Existence. AGENCY is a public body, corporate and politic, duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California. It has full legal right, power and authority to enter into this MOU and to carry out all of its obligations herein.

19.2 Due Execution. AGENCY’s representatives, who sign this MOU, are authorized to sign pursuant to an official action taken by AGENCY’s governing body.

19.3 Valid, Binding and Enforceable Obligation. This MOU has been authorized and executed by AGENCY and constitutes the legal, valid and binding agreement of AGENCY, enforceable against AGENCY in accordance with its terms.

SECTION 20. EVENTS OF DEFAULT

The following events are Events of Default hereunder:

20.1 Failure by AGENCY to abide by or perform any of its obligations in this MOU within the thirty (30) day period from the date of AGENCY’s receipt of SVRIA’s written notice

7.c

of 19

specifying such failure and requesting that it be remedied. Such failure shall not constitute an Event of Default if AGENCY diligently and in good faith, commences to cure the failure within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter completes the cure of such failure within a reasonable period of time. If AGENCY does not complete the cure of the Event of Default in a reasonable time or fails to diligently attempt such cure, SVRIA may terminate this MOU.

20.2 Failure by SVRIA to abide by or perform any of its obligations in this MOU within the thirty (30) day period from the date of SVRIA’s receipt of AGENCY’s written notice specifying such failure and requesting that it be remedied. Such failure shall not constitute an Event of Default if SVRIA diligently and in good faith, commences to cure the failure within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter completes the cure of such failure within a reasonable period of time. If SVRIA does not complete the cure of the Event of Default in a reasonable time or fails to diligently attempt such cure, AGENCY may terminate this MOU.

20.3 AGENCY files a petition seeking arrangement or reorganization under federal bankruptcy laws or similar state law, or if a court of competent jurisdiction shall approve a petition filed against AGENCY seeking arrangement or reorganization under the federal bankruptcy laws or similar state law, or if under the provisions of any other law for the relief or aid of debtors any court of competent jurisdiction shall assume custody or control of such AGENCY or of the whole or a substantial part of its property. Notwithstanding the foregoing, such filing shall not constitute an Event of Default if AGENCY continues to pay its AGENCY Payments on time.

20.4 SVRIA files a petition seeking arrangement or reorganization under federal bankruptcy laws or similar state law, or if a court of competent jurisdiction shall approve a petition filed against SVRIA seeking arrangement or reorganization under the federal bankruptcy laws or similar state law, or if under the provisions of any other law for the relief or aid of debtors any court of competent jurisdiction shall assume custody or control of SVRIA.

SECTION 21. REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE

No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved in this MOU is exclusive of any other remedy, and each such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing in law or in equity or by statute or otherwise, and all such remedies may be exercised without exhausting and without regard to any other remedy.

SECTION 22. AGENCY’S OBLIGATIONS 22.1 AGENCY’s Payment. AGENCY shall pay to the SVRIA money in the amount stated on the SVRIA invoice in an approximate amount as specified in Exhibit “A” to the SVRIA to fully offset the AGENCY’s portion of the regional SVRCS cost. Payments shall commence in fiscal year 2015 – 2016 unless otherwise designated in Exhibit “A”. These payments shall be made by September 30, 2015 and by each succeeding September 30 and shall

7.c

of 19

last for a minimum of three fiscal years as delineated in Exhibit A. Operation and Maintenance Payments, as shown in Exhibit “B”, shall commence on September 30, 2018 and continue throughout the term of the MOU. AGENCY shall make these payments on or before September 30 of each successive fiscal year. Operations and Maintenance costs for future years may increase, but such increase will be limited to actual costs and reserve requirements. 22.2 AGENCY’s Role in SVRCS. During the Construction and Operation of the SVRCS:

22.2.1 AGENCY shall provide technical support including testing during the System Construction and delivery.

22.2.2 AGENCY shall participate in System meetings with SVRIA and its contractor(s).

22.2.3. AGENCY shall coordinate with SVRIA for the System upgrade and maintenance work at all AGENCY facilities. 22.2.4 AGENCY shall assist SVRIA with the final acceptance of the SVRCS by testing System performance, evaluating workmanship and verifying installed equipment inventories.

22.2.5 AGENCY's costs to administer and participate in usage of the SVRCS will not be reimbursed through the SVRCS grant funds, the JPA Agreement or by SVRIA. SECTION 23. SVRIA'S OBLIGATIONS In consideration of AGENCY’s Payment, SVRIA shall fulfill the obligations listed below: 23.1 Tasks. SVRIA shall perform and be responsible for the following tasks for completing the SVRCS , including, but not limited to:

23.2.1 Serve as System Manager for the SVRCS, or retain a qualified contractor(s) to serve as System Manager for the SVRCS,

23.2.2 Fulfill CEQA requirements, if any. 23.2.3 Implement Construction in accordance with UASI and SHSGP Grant guidelines. SECTION 24. TERM OF MOU 24.1 This MOU commences upon the full execution of the MOU ("Effective Date") and shall expire on December 31, 2029. The MOU shall be automatically extended for two (2) additional three-year periods. One year prior to each expiration date, SVRIA shall inform each Member or Participant of the approaching automatic extension of the term of the MOU. Any Member or Participant may notify the SVRIA in writing within one

7.c

of 19

hundred and eighty (180) days of such notice, that it does not agree to the extension of the term of the MOU. The Operations and Maintenance payments for the remaining MEMBERS or PARTICIPANTS shall be adjusted based upon actual User Count as of June 30 of the year in which the MOU terminates starting in, 2029, and at the expiration of the first three year extension period. All financial commitments of AGENCY for Payments while AGENCY is a MEMBER and/or while this MOU applies to AGENCY shall extend past the termination date unless the commitments have been satisfied prior to that date. 24.2 This MOU shall not commence unless and until the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara have approved this MOU and budgeted funding for the first year of the MOU. If the any Member or Participant terminates this MOU then the SVRIA shall meet and confer in good faith concerning the continued operation of SVRCS and possible amendment to this Agreement. SECTION 25. OWNERSHIP, MAINTENANCE, INSURANCE AND MANAGEMENT County, as Fiscal Agent for the UASI and SHSGP Grants, shall own, maintain, insure, and manage all infrastructure equipment and upgrades installed as part of the SVRCS upon the System’s final acceptance by the County, until such time as SVRIA assumes ownership, maintenance, insurance, and management responsibilities. If the SVRIA purchases dispatch consoles, subscriber radios and other related equipment and/or accessories on AGENCY’s behalf, such equipment shall be transferred from the SVRIA to AGENCY following SVRIA’s receipt of AGENCY’s full reimbursement of costs. SECTION 26. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES Each Party shall perform the work and services described herein as an independent contractor and not as an officer, agent, servant or employee of the other Party. None of the MOU’s provisions are intended to create, nor shall be deemed or construed to create, any relationship between the Parties other than that of independent parties contracting with each other for purpose of effecting the MOU’s provisions. The Parties are not, and will not be construed to be in a relationship of joint venture, partnership or employer-employee. Neither Party has the authority to make any statements, representations or commitments of any kind on behalf of the other Party, or to use the name of the other Party in any publications or advertisements, except with the written consent of the other Party. SECTION 27. MODIFICATION The Parties may modify this MOU only through a written document, signed by both Parties. SECTION 28. SEVERABILITY The MOU’s provisions are severable, and if for any reason, a Court with proper jurisdiction determines a clause, sentence, or paragraph of this MOU to be invalid such invalidity shall

7.c

of 19

not affect other provisions of this MOU, which shall be given effect without the invalid provision. SECTION 29. TERMINATION 29.1 This MOU may be terminated upon six months written notice to SVRIA. Should AGENCY terminate this Agreement AGENCY shall have no interest or claim in the assets of the SVRIA absent an SVRIA approved written agreement which contains express provisions to the contrary. The terminating AGENCY shall be obligated to pay a pro rata share of its payments up to the date of termination. 29.2 If the Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 29.1 or Section 7.2 then SVRIA may remove any SVRCS equipment and relocate the equipment to support the balance of the system. Should the equipment need to be removed or relocated after termination the costs of relocation or removal shall be borne by the terminating party. 29.3 Nothing contained in this MOU or the JPA Agreement requires that AGENCY remain as a MEMBER, however the JPA Agreement does contain terms for withdrawal from the JPA. SECTION 30. SURVIVAL 30.1 After the MOU’s termination or expiration, those provisions which by their nature or context are intended to survive beyond termination or expiration, and all provisions regarding indemnification and limitations of liability, will survive indefinitely or until the expiration of the time period specified elsewhere in this MOU with respect to the provision in question. 30.2 Upon the MOU’s termination or expiration, as between the Parties, the SVRIA retains all right, title and interest in and to the SVRCS. SECTION 31. ASSIGNMENT This MOU shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors of the Parties. With the exception of asset transfer to SVRIA, and if applicable, AGENCY as detailed herein, no Party may assign any rights or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other Party, except as provided herein. SECTION 32. NO WAIVER No waiver by either Party of any breach or default of any of the covenants or agreements herein shall be deemed to be a waiver as to any subsequent and/or similar breach or default.

7.c

of 19

SECTION 33. INDEMNIFICATION 33.1 SVRIA agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the AGENCY, its officers, agents and employees to the fullest extent allowed by law from any and all claims, actions, causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities and costs of every nature, including all claims, actions, causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities for property damage, bodily injury, or death, and all costs of defending any claim, action or cause of action, caused by, arising out of, or resulting from, or alleged to have been caused by, arise out of, or result from, in whole or in part, SVRIA’s performance under this Agreement, except for any claims, actions, causes of action, losses, damages, costs or liabilities proximately caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of AGENCY. 33.2 The foregoing indemnity provision is intended to fully allocate the parties’ risk of liability to third-parties; and there shall be no rights to indemnity or contribution, in law or equity or otherwise between the parties that are not set forth in this section. SVRIA waives all rights to subrogation for any matters covered by this provision. SVRIA's responsibility for such defense and indemnity obligations as set forth in this provision shall survive the termination or completion of this MOU for the full period of time allowed by law. SECTION 34. FORCE MAJEURE "Force Majeure Event" means any circumstances or occurrence which is beyond the reasonable control of a Party including, but not limited to, acts of God, war or national emergency, riot, civil commotion, fire, explosion, flood, epidemic, strike, lock-out or other form of industrial action (other than those relating solely to any Party’s own workforce). If a Force Majeure Event affects either Party, that Party shall promptly notify the other Party of the nature and extent of the Event. No Party shall be liable for any loss or damage suffered or incurred by the other Party arising from the first Party’s delay in performing or failure to perform its obligations under the MOU to the extent that and for so long as the delay or failure results from any Force Majeure Event, provided the same arises without the fault or negligence of the first Party. Each Party shall use its commercially reasonable efforts to minimize the effects of any Force Majeure Event on the operation of this MOU and the System. SECTION 35. SUCCESSOR IS DEEMED INCLUDED IN ALL REFERENCES TO PREDECESSOR

Whenever SVRIA or AGENCY is named or referred to herein, such reference shall be deemed to include the successor to the powers, duties and functions that are presently vested in SVRIA or AGENCY, and all agreements and covenants required hereby to be performed by or on behalf of SVRIA or AGENCY shall bind and inure to the benefit of the respective successors thereof whether so expressed or not; provided; however, that SVRIA shall not provide service from the System to any successor to AGENCY until such successor accepts in writing, AGENCY’s obligations.

7.c

of 19

SECTION 36. WAIVER OF PERSONAL LIABILITY

No board member, officer, attorney or employee of AGENCY or SVRIA shall be individually or personally liable under the MOU.

SECTION 37. NOTICES 37.1 All deliveries, notices, requests, demands, or other communications provided for or required by this MOU shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given when sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested or when sent by overnight carrier;.

Notices shall be addressed to:

SVRIA: Heather Tannehill-Plamondon Executive Director, SVRIA 601 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95050 Telephone: 408-615-5571 Email:[email protected]

AGENCY: AGENCY of XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Attn: XXXXXXX Telephone: Email:

37.2 A Party may change its Notice contact or Notice address by written Notice to the other Party. Such change becomes effective no sooner than ten (10) days after the date of such Notice.

SECTION 38. TITLES AND HEADINGS The titles, numbers and headings of paragraphs, sections, subsections, and exhibits are for convenience only and are not intended to affect the MOU’s construction or interpretation. SECTION 39. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This MOU and attached exhibits incorporate all the agreements, covenants, and understandings between the Parties concerning the subject matter hereof, and all such

7.c

of 19

agreements, covenants, and understandings have been merged into this MOU. No prior agreement or understanding, verbal or otherwise, of the Parties or their agents shall be valid or enforceable unless embodied in this MOU. SECTION 40. COUNTERPARTS This MOU may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. SECTION 41. GOVERNING LAW California law governs the MOU’s performance and interpretation. // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // //

7.c

of 19

SECTION 42. VENUE If a Party to this MOU brings a lawsuit connected to the System, the Parties agree that venue shall be exclusively vested in the State Courts of the County of Santa Clara. IN WITNESS OF, the Parties have executed the MOU through their duly authorized representatives as of the last date set forth below. Signed: SVRIA AGENCY By: ___________________________ By: _____________________________ Chair of Board of Directors Name, or Designee Date: _________________, 2015 Date: ________________, 2015 Attest: Approved as to Form and Legality: By: ___________________________ By: _____________________________

Name, or Designee (title) _______________________

Date: _______________, 2015 Date: ________________, 2015 Approved as to Form and Legality: By: _____________________________ Gary M. Baum General Counsel, SVRIA Date: ________________, 2015 MOU SVRIA SVRCS VTA clean version (26) 4-15-15

7.c

of 19

Exhibit A

Cost per agency Breakdown

FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY17/18

Infrastructure

Cost

San Jose 2,750 26.63% 2,562,234$ 2,562,234$ 2,562,234$ 7,686,703$ Santa Clara County 2,130 20.62% 1,984,567$ 1,984,567$ 1,984,567$ 5,953,701$ VTA 2,000 19.36% 1,863,443$ 1,863,443$ 1,863,443$ 5,590,329$ Santa Clara 791 7.66% $354,639 618,779$ 618,779$ 618,779$ 2,210,975$ Palo Alto 690 6.68% 642,888$ 642,888$ 642,888$ 1,928,664$ Sunnyvale 455 4.41% 423,933$ 423,933$ 423,933$ 1,271,800$ Mountain View 300 2.90% 279,516$ 279,516$ 279,516$ 838,549$ Gilroy 262 2.54% 244,111$ 244,111$ 244,111$ 732,333$ Milpitas 249 2.41% 231,999$ 231,999$ 231,999$ 695,996$ Campbell 189 1.83% 176,095$ 176,095$ 176,095$ 528,286$ Los Gatos 140 1.36% 130,441$ 130,441$ 130,441$ 391,323$ Morgan Hill 135 1.31% 125,782$ 125,782$ 125,782$ 377,347$ Los Altos 90 0.87% 83,855$ 83,855$ 83,855$ 251,565$ SJSU 73 0.71% 68,016$ 68,016$ 68,016$ 204,047$ Community Colleges 43 0.42% 40,064$ 40,064$ 40,064$ 120,192$ South County Fire 31 0.30% 28,883$ 28,883$ 28,883$ 86,650$

10,328 100.00% 28,868,460$

April 13,2015 10,328 354,639$ 9,504,607$ 9,504,607$ 9,504,607$ 28,868,460$

Infrastructre

User Count

7.c

of 19

Operations

and

Maitenance

(FY18/19)

Operations

and

Maitenance

(FY19/20)

Operations

and

Maitenance

(FY20/21)

Operations

and

Maitenance

(FY21/22)

Operations

and

Maitenance

(FY22/23)

Operations

and

Maitenance

(FY23/24)

Operations

and

Maitenance

(FY24/25)

Operations

and

Maitenance

(FY25/26)

Operations

and

Maitenance

(FY26/27)

Operations

and

Maitenance

(FY27/28)

Operations

and

Maitenance

(FY28/29)

San Jose 2,750 26.63% $1,008,125 $1,008,125 997,406$ 1,014,899$ 1,033,175$ 1,052,376$ 1,072,464$ 1,093,484$ 1,115,525$ 1,138,589$ 1,159,952$ Santa Clara County 2,130 20.62% $780,838 $780,838 772,536$ 786,086$ 800,241$ 815,113$ 830,672$ 846,953$ 864,025$ 881,889$ 898,436$ VTA 2,000 19.36% $733,182 $733,182 725,386$ 738,109$ 751,400$ 765,365$ 779,974$ 795,261$ 811,291$ 828,064$ 843,601$ Santa Clara 791 7.66% $289,973 $289,973 286,890$ 291,922$ 297,179$ 302,702$ 308,480$ 314,526$ 320,866$ 327,500$ 333,644$ Palo Alto 690 6.68% $252,948 $252,948 250,258$ 254,647$ 259,233$ 264,051$ 269,091$ 274,365$ 279,895$ 285,682$ 291,043$ Sunnyvale 455 4.41% $166,799 $166,799 165,025$ 167,920$ 170,943$ 174,120$ 177,444$ 180,922$ 184,569$ 188,385$ 191,919$ Mountain View 300 2.90% $109,977 $109,977 108,808$ 110,716$ 112,710$ 114,805$ 116,996$ 119,289$ 121,694$ 124,210$ 126,540$ Gilroy 262 2.54% $96,047 $96,047 95,026$ 96,692$ 98,433$ 100,263$ 102,177$ 104,179$ 106,279$ 108,476$ 110,512$ Milpitas 249 2.41% $91,281 $91,281 90,311$ 91,895$ 93,549$ 95,288$ 97,107$ 99,010$ 101,006$ 103,094$ 105,028$ Campbell 189 1.83% $69,286 $69,286 68,549$ 69,751$ 71,007$ 72,327$ 73,708$ 75,152$ 76,667$ 78,252$ 79,720$ Los Gatos 140 1.36% $51,323 $51,323 50,777$ 51,668$ 52,598$ 53,576$ 54,598$ 55,668$ 56,790$ 57,965$ 59,052$ Morgan Hill 135 1.31% $49,490 $49,490 48,964$ 49,822$ 50,719$ 51,662$ 52,648$ 53,680$ 54,762$ 55,894$ 56,943$ Los Altos 90 0.87% $32,993 $32,993 32,642$ 33,215$ 33,813$ 34,441$ 35,099$ 35,787$ 36,508$ 37,263$ 37,962$ San Jose State 73 0.71% $26,761 $26,761 26,477$ 26,941$ 27,426$ 27,936$ 28,469$ 29,027$ 29,612$ 30,224$ 30,791$ Community Colleges 43 0.42% $15,763 $15,763 15,596$ 15,869$ 16,155$ 16,455$ 16,769$ 17,098$ 17,443$ 17,803$ 18,137$ South County Fire 31 0.30% $11,364 $11,364 11,243$ 11,441$ 11,647$ 11,863$ 12,090$ 12,327$ 12,575$ 12,835$ 13,076$

10,328 100.00% $3,786,150 $3,786,150 3,745,893$ 3,811,593$ 3,880,229$ 3,952,343$ 4,027,786$ 4,106,729$ 4,189,508$ 4,276,125$ 4,356,358$ April 13, 2015 10,328 $3,786,150 $3,786,150 3,745,893$ 3,811,593$ 3,880,229$ 3,952,343$ 4,027,786$ 4,106,729$ 4,189,508$ 4,276,125$ 4,356,358$

User Count

Exhibit B

7.c

RESOLUTION NO. #####

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF

THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY REQUESTING MEMBERSHIP IN THE SILICON VALLEY REGIONAL INEROPERBILITY

AUTHORITY AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO A

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ALLOWING THE VTA TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE SILICON VALLEY REGIONAL INEROPERBILITY AUTHORITY

WHEREAS, VTA currently owns, operates and maintains a land mobile radio (LMR) system to support its transit and public safety communication needs; and

WHEREAS, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) plans to reclaim the radio frequencies VTA is currently using as part of its national “narrowbanding” initiative; and

WHEREAS, the new FCC mandate will require VTA to operate more efficiently, either on narrower channel bandwidths or increased voice paths on existing channels which would require a substantial investment in upgrading VTA’s radio infrastructure if VTA were to continue operating its own radio system; and

WHEREAS, the Silicon Valley Radio Interoperability Authority (“SV-RIA”) is an independent Joint Powers Authority, established pursuant to the Joint Powers Agreement for the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority, dated March 23, 2010 (the “Joint Powers Agreement”) among the County of Santa Clara and a number of cities and other public agencies within Santa Clara County established to build and maintain a county-wide radio system using the 700 MHz frequency, built on state of the art P25 digital radio technology (“SV-RIA Radio System”); and

WHEREAS, VTA’s membership in the SV-RIA would allow it to use the SV-RIA Radio System and pay only its portion of the costs of such system, therefore avoiding the costs of constructing its own new radio system in compliance with the FCC mandates; and

WHEREAS, staff from both the VTA and the SV-RIA have negotiated terms and conditions of a “Memorandum of Understanding” that would permit the VTA to join the SV-RIA as a member and would commit the SV-RIA Board of Directors and staff members to working to gain assent from all SV-RIA members amend the existing SV- RIA Joint Powers Agreement to allow VTA to maintain two voting members on the SF- RIA Board of Directors; and

7.d

WHEREAS, VTA’s membership in the SV-RIA is contingent upon VTA specifically requesting membership in the SV-RIA and approval by both the VTA and SV-RIA of the Memorandum of Understanding or a substantially similar document that obligates the VTA to pay to the SV-RIA, its portion of the cost of the Silicon Valley Regional Communications System (“SVRCS”).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AS FOLLOWS:

1. The VTA requests membership in the SV-RIA on the terms and conditions set

forth in the SV-RIA Board passed Resolution 2015-02, summarized below; and

a. the Board passes this resolution; b. no later than June 30, 2015, the Board of Directors of the VTA approves the signing of the

MOU or similar document committing the Authority to construct the SVRCS and the VTA budgets the funds to pay a portion of the SVRCS cost;

c.. the Working Committee adopts a resolution to amend their Bylaws to require that the VTA’s General Manager appoint two Committee Members to the Working Committee and changing the number of Working Committee members constituting a quorum and the number of votes required to take action, to seven (7);

d. the VTA enters into a membership agreement with SVRIA;

e. The Board authorizes the amendment of the Joint Powers Agreement to include the VTA as

a member and create two seats on the SVRIA Board for VTA, including one for the VTA’s General Manager or his or her designated Executive Staff Member and one for a VTA Board Member or VTA Policy Advisory Committee Member for a City that does not currently have representation on the Board; and

2. The VTA requests membership in the SV-RIA on the terms and conditions set forth in the SV-RIA Board passed Resolution 2015-03, summarized below; and

a. the Board passes this resolution; b. the Board approves the signing of the MOU or similar document committing the Authority

to construct the SVRCS and the VTA to pay its portion of the SVRCS cost; c. the Board of Directors of the VTA approves the signing of the MOU or similar document

committing the Authority to construct the SVRCS and the VTA to pay a portion of the SVRCS cost;

d. the Board passes a resolution by a 2/3 vote approving the increase in the Working Committee membership from eleven (11) Committee Members to thirteen (13) Committee Members; and

7.d

e. the Working Committee adopts a resolution to amend their Bylaws to require that the VTA’s General Manager appoint two Committee Members to the Working Committee and changing the number of Working Committee members constituting a quorum and the number of votes required to take action, to seven (7).

3. The VTA requests membership in the SV-RIA on the terms and conditions set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding; and

4. The General Manager of the VTA is authorized to enter into the Memorandum of

Understanding with the SV-RIA (or any agreement substantially similar thereto) allowing for VTA membership the SV-RIA.


Perry Woodward Chair, Board of Directors VTA

7.d

Date: May 13, 2015 Current Meeting: May 20, 2015 Board Meeting: June 4, 2015



FROM: Director of Planning and Program Development, John Ristow SUBJECT: Follow up Report on SR 85 Express Lanes Implementation



ACTION ITEM

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommend that staff continue to work on the Phases 3 and 4 implementations (design and construction) of express lanes on SR 85 as shown in Attachment D, acknowledging that implementation of future express lanes phases would be based on subsequent actions of the Board of Directors.

BACKGROUND:

The Silicon Valley Express Lane Program is part of the Bay Area regional network of express lanes as shown in Attachment A. The Program was approved by the VTA Board of Directors in December 2008. Work is underway by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to environmentally clear the implementation of express lanes in Santa Clara County. The highway routes for this work are shown in Attachment B. This environmental clearance sets the footprint for where future implementation (design and construction) of express lanes can take place. An action item seeking Board support on an implementation plan for express lanes on State Route 85 (SR 85) was presented at the November 6, 2014 VTA Board of Directors meeting. The Board decided to defer action on the item and asked staff to return with information comparing the single-lane versus double-lane express lanes between SR 87 and I-280. Since November 2014, substantial progress has been made on the environmental clearance for express lanes on SR 85 and US 101 as described in the following sections.

8

of 5

SR 85 Express Lanes Environmental Document The environmental document for express lanes on SR 85 is an Initial Study with Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact. The environmental document includes conversion of the existing HOV lanes in the 24-mile corridor to express lanes, addition of a second express lane between I-280 and SR 87, addition of an auxiliary lane on northbound SR 85 between South De Anza Boulevard and I-280 and conversion of the US 101/SR 85 direct HOV lane-to-HOV lane connectors in south San Jose. The responses to all formal comments received during the 60-day public comment period from December 30, 2013 to February 28, 2014 are included in the final environmental document. There were over 300 commenters and over 800 individual comments received. Master Responses were developed for the frequently raised topics. The top six frequently raised topics include:

(1) Existing congestion issues; (2) Noise; (3) Effect of federal funding on truck ban; (4) Appropriate type of environmental document (Environmental Impact Report vs. Initial

Study); (5) Air quality; and (6) Performance agreements to reserve the freeway median for light rail transit between the

Santa Clara County Traffic Authority, VTA’s predecessor, and several cities along the corridor.

For a summary on responses to these topics, please refer to Attachment C. No new environmental issues were raised during the public circulation period and the environmental conclusions remained the same as was presented in the draft environmental document. Attachment C1 provides additional information on the project traffic benefits. This attachment shows the projected travel time benefits when comparing the general purpose lanes with the express lanes, the travel time benefits when comparing the general purpose lanes with and without express lanes, and the average speeds for these comparisons. In addition to the planned express lanes implementation to help provide a more reliable commute along SR 85, many other improvements have been implemented and planned for the highway. Attachment C2 shows the improvements that have been implemented along SR 85 over the past 15 years. Valley Transportation Plan 2040 (VTP 2040) includes additional improvements that are intended to address other concerns, several of which were raised through the environmental documentation process for express lanes on SR 85, such as questions on improvements to connect to SR 237 and I-280. Attachment C3 shows planned improvements clustered around these areas. The issue to date on implementing these highway improvements has been securing funding to pay for these improvements. Attachments C4 and C5 provide additional background information on the noise data that was collected along SR 85.

8

of 5

US 101 Express Lanes Environmental Document In a parallel path, Caltrans is reviewing the final environmental document for the build-out of express lanes on US 101. The target approval of the final environmental document is summer 2015. The environmental document is an Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact. The scope of work includes 34 miles of converting existing HOV lanes to express lanes operations with the addition of a second express lane for the majority of the route from Dunne Avenue in Morgan Hill to Oregon Expressway in Palo Alto. The responses to all formal comments received during the 45-day public comment period from January 12, 2015 to February 26, 2015 are to be included in the final environmental document. There were 30 commenters and less than 50 comments. The frequently raised topics included safety and accidents, construction noise and delays, access to express lanes, congestion and bottlenecks, noise impacts and need for sound walls, oppose project - waste of taxpayers’ dollars, and air quality and dust. No new environmental issues not already addressed in the draft environmental document were raised during the public circulation period and the environmental conclusions remained the same.

DISCUSSION:

Staff continues to take an incremental approach to implement (i.e., to design and construct) express lanes based on currently available and projected funding per direction from the Board of Directors. As shown in Attachment D, the following four phases have been defined for implementation to date as part of the Silicon Valley Express Lanes Program:

Phase 1: Implementation of express lanes along SR 237 from North First Street to the SR 237/I-880 interchange direct connectors;

Phase 2: Extension of the SR 237 Phase 1 Express Lanes from North First Street to Mathilda Avenue;

Phase 3: Implementation of express lanes on US 101 from the San Mateo County line to on SR 85 from SR 85/101 interchange to approximately I-280;

Phase 4: Implementation of express lanes along SR 85 from approximately SR 87 to US 101 and at the SR 85/US 101 direct HOV lane to HOV lane connector.

Phase 1 of the express lanes program is already operational at the SR 237/I-880 interchange and funding for Phases 2, 3 and 4 has been allocated through the design phase by the VTA Board in a prior action. Although the environmental documents for express lanes on SR 85 (now completed) and US 101 (nearing completing) provide clearance for express lanes on the entire stretch of these routes within Santa Clara County, the future actual implementation of express lanes on all parts of these routes is still dependent on the Board of Directors funding the implementation work. To date, the Board has only allocated funding for work through the design phase for Phases 3 and 4 as previously stated in the memorandum. Future phases of express lanes work for the US 101/SR

8

of 5

85 corridor could include work in any of the following segments:

SR 85 from I-280 in Cupertino to SR 87 in San Jose US 101 from Fair Oaks Avenue in Sunnyvale to SR 85 South in San Jose US 101 from SR 85 South in San Jose to East Dunne Avenue in Morgan

Implementing Express Lanes on SR 85 This section of the memorandum addresses the deferral of the action from the November 2014 Board meeting that resulted in the Board asking staff to return with a comparison of how express lanes could be implemented on the segment of SR 85 between I-280 and SR 87. Attachment E provides this high-level comparison. The comparison is based on data from the environmental document for express lanes on SR 85 that was publicly reviewed and completed. Attachment E shows that the most effective approach to implementing express lanes on the segment of SR 85 between I-280 and SR 87 would be to implement express lanes with two lanes in this stretch as has been cleared in the environmental document. This implementation would require a total investment of about $150 million, generate about $800 million over a 30-year period, provide the longest useful life, and not require repeat construction along the same stretch of SR 85. The conversion of the existing single-lane carpool lane to express lanes operations would cost less, generate about half the revenue of the double-lane express lane, and have a shorter useful life (about three years) requiring a change to the definition of a carpool from two or more persons to three or more persons. Instead of keeping the express lanes as a single-lane facility with a change to the vehicle occupancy requirement for carpools, if the facility was modified to become a two-lane facility later, the total cost would be greater, the revenue generation would be higher than the single-lane facility, but less than the amount for a two-lane facility from the beginning, and construction would affect the operation of the facility as an express lane. The following summarized the key points relative to the implementation of express lanes on the portion of SR 85 between I-280 and SR 87:

A single-lane express lane would be effective for a shorter period of time beyond which additional investment would be needed to ensure that express lanes would be able to operate during the peak periods or a change in the definition of a carpool from two or more persons to three or more persons would be needed.

Construction of the double-lane express lanes in phases, initially as a single-lane followed by the addition of a second lane in the future, would impact the traveling public with two construction periods and would cost more overall due to the additional construction contracts and inflation added to the construction contracts.

Construction of the double-lane express lanes in one construction contract would provide immediate and long term benefits, and minimize construction impacts to the traveling public.

Construction of the double-lane express lanes would provide a greater likelihood of generating the needed funding for other improvements in the corridor such as the planned

8

of 5

noise abatement treatments, improvements to address freeway-to-freeway congestion that exists at locations such as I-280 and SR 85 and for transit improvements such as additional express bus service along SR 85.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact as a result of this action.

Prepared by: Gene Gonzalo Memo No. 4793 ATTACHMENTS:

Attach A_Regional_EL_Network_by_Agency2015-04-24 (PDF) Attach B_SVEL (PDF) Attach C_2015-06-04 Envr Summary (PDF) Attach C1_Project Traffic Benefits (PDF) Attach C2_SR85ProjectsMapCompleted 2015-04-23 (PDF) Attach C3_SR85ProjectsMapPlanned 2015-04-23 (PDF) Attach C4_Previous Noise vs Project Noise-Revised (PDF) Attach C5_Saratoga Noise Element Comparison (PDF) Attach D_SVEL Phases1-4_2015-04-24 (PDF) Attachment E - SingleLanevsDoubleLane (PDF)

8

S:\B Highways\SiliconValleyExpressLanes\ExpressLanesProgram\Board\2014 Board Memos\4349_Board Memo

Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission

ATTACHMENT B: BAY AREA EXPRESS LANES

116

12

116

101

Santa Rosa

12

Petaluma

· .. 116

•••••••• ••••••••

... ... .,

Express Lanes in operation

Express Lanes

Express Lanes to be opera ted byMTC

Express Lanes to be opera ted by other agencies

Operational Gap Closure

~====~----1111![1;;:::::===:::::;? Miles 0 10 20 30 ~===i!!!--1111111!!~==~. Kilometers 0 10 20 30

HOT net System proje<tion Street base map C Thomas Bros. Maps. All rights reserved. MTC Graphics/de- 9.7.2012

128

121 29

··,

Napa, ·.

121

4

Brentwood

84

92

35

130

25

8.a

Schram_M

Text Box

Schram_M

Typewritten Text

Schram_M

Typewritten Text

Attachment A

Schram_M

Typewritten Text

·|}þ732

!"#$680

!"#$880

!"#$280·|}þ78

·|}þ58

·|}þ58

·|}þ71

(/101US

SUNNYVALE

MOUNTAINVIEW

LOS ALTOS

PALOALTO

SANTA CLARA

SAN JOSE

MILPITAS

CAMPBELL

LOS GATOS

SARATOGA

CUPERTINO

MORGAN HILLGILROY

(/101US

!"#$680

SAN MATEOCOUNTY

ALAMEDACOUNTY

S I L I C O N VA L L E Y E X P R E S S L A N E S

Local Highways1-Lane Express Lane2-Lane Express LanesFuture Express Lanes Authorized Under Legislation

0 2 41Miles ©

I-680Led by ACTC

LEGEND

8.b

Schram_M

Typewritten Text

Attachment B

Schram_M

Typewritten Text

Schram_M

Typewritten Text

Schram_M

Typewritten Text

1

SR 85 Express Lanes Project from US 101 in San Jose to US 101 in Mountain View

June 4, 2015 VTA Board of Directors

Attachment C: Environmental Summary

1. Authorization and Approvals

The following is a timeline of the major authorization and approvals related to the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program: 2004 - AB 2032 allows VTA to conduct, administer and operate value pricing programs. 2007 - AB 574 allows VTA to operate express lanes on a permanent basis and issue

bonds backed by future express lanes revenues to finance express lanes. 2008 - VTA Board of Directors approves Program for implementation. 2013 - VTA Board of Directors approves additional funding for continued development

of the Program.

2. Process

Caltrans is the lead agency for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (federal) environmental document. As Lead Agency, Caltrans has the discretion and authority to prepare an Initial Study (IS) and Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine if there is a significant adverse environmental impact. VTA is the implementing agency for the project, established by AB 2032. Policy decisions on how and when to implement express lanes in Santa Clara County is the responsibility of the VTA Board of Directors.

3. Environmental Document Impacts Summary

The environmental document is an Initial Study with Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact. There are no significant adverse environmental impacts identified. Below is a list of the project’s potential impacts for the No Build and Build Alternatives to 24 identified resources. Positive Impacts for Build Alternative vs. No Build Alternative: Traffic – improved travel times for 2015 and 2035 with Build Alternative. Other positive

impacts include increase in average speed, along with reductions in total delay and average delay. Attachment C1 includes the project traffic benefits.

Climate Change – lower carbon dioxide emissions in 2035

No Impacts (or Negligible Impacts) for both Build and No Build Alternatives with Inclusion of Standard Construction Measures:

8.c

2

Land Use, Growth, Farmlands/Timberlands, Community Impacts, Environmental Justice, Utilities/Emergency Services, Hydrology and Floodplain, Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff, Geology/Soils/Seismicity/Topography, Paleontology, Air Quality, Noise, Wetlands and Other Waters, Cumulative Impacts, and Visual/Aesthetics

No Impacts for No Build Alternative; and Negligible Impacts for Build Alternative with Inclusion of ESA Measures, Testing, Surveys, and/or Payment of HCP Fees: Cultural Resources, Hazardous Waste / Materials, Natural Communities, Plant Species,

Animal Species, Threatened and Endangered Species, and Invasive Species

4. Draft Environmental Document, Comments and Master Responses to Frequently

Raised Topics

Comment period on draft environmental document was from December 30, 2013 to February 28, 2014. Two public meetings held in January 2013: one at Calabazas Branch Library and one at Cambrian Branch Library. Over 300 agencies, organizations, or individuals provided comments on draft environmental document, including comments from cities of Cupertino, Los Gatos, Mountain View, and Saratoga. The top six frequently raised topics include: (1) existing congestion issues, (2) noise, (3) effect of federal funding on truck ban, (4) appropriate type of environmental document (Environmental Impact Report vs. Initial Study), (5) air quality, and (6) previous plans to reserve freeway median for LRT through Performance Agreements between Santa Clara Traffic Authority, VTA’s predecessor, with several cities within the corridor. Below is a summary of the Master Responses developed for the frequently raised topics. The background and response to comments relating to the Traffic Authority Performance Agreement with Cupertino, Saratoga and Los Gatos is addressed in Item 5, Response to Performance Agreements Comments Existing congestion issues

While the proposed project does not modify the interchanges at the SR 85/I-280 interchange or at US 101, SR 237, and SR 17/I-880 to address the existing congestion at these locations, the conversion of the current HOV lane into a HOV/express lane will help to alleviate congestion by shifting some of the current single occupancy vehicles into the express lane thus better utilizing the available roadway capacity. This, in turn, reduces the traffic volume in the general purpose lanes and can increase the maximum volume able to pass through a bottleneck location thereby reducing the level of congestion.

VTA has completed several projects along SR 85. Some projects were implemented through the 1996 Measure B Transportation Improvement Program such as the SR 85/US 101 North and South Interchanges which reduced traffic

8.c

3

congestion and improved interchange access and safety. The latest project, implementation of ramp metering on SR 85 between I-280 and US 101 North in January 2015, through MTC’s Freeway Performance Initiative, is expected to reduce congestion on SR 85 by regulating the flow of traffic entering the freeway during peak traffic hours. With this project, ramp metering is operational along the entire length of SR 85.

VTA will be undertaking an I-280 Corridor Study from US 101 to the San Mateo County line. This study is will provide potential improvements at SR 85/I-280 Interchange to be included in the VTA’s countywide long-range transportation plan. The study is expected to start this Fall 2015.

VTA has other improvements that have been identified in the long-range transportation plan for Santa Clara County. The latest plan, VTP 2040, does not include reconstruction of the SR 85 interchanges at I-280, US 101, SR 237, and SR 17/I-880; however, it includes 6 express lanes and 10 highway projects which could improve the traffic operations and provide incremental improvements to bottlenecks at major system interchanges along the SR 85 corridor once funding is available.

Attachment C2 and C3 includes maps of the VTA Completed Projects along SR 85 and VTA Planned Projects along SR 85.

Noise Background: Due to community concerns regarding freeway noise after SR 85 opened in 1994, the following studies and projects were undertaken by Caltrans and VTA:

1998: Caltrans completed a study of potential alternatives that could be expected to reduce freeway noise by 3 dBA.

2001: VTA completed a study recommending a test project to micro-grind (texture-grind) a portion of the freeway and conducted noise analysis to determine if an improvement is achieved.

2003: VTA completed a test project with results that indicated while overall freeway noise levels were not significantly reduced, the frequency characteristics of the noise was modified where it could be harder for humans to hear.

2006: VTA completed a noise mitigation project which included textured grinding of about 11 miles of PCC pavement from east of Almaden Expressway to north of Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Noise will increase with project

Comment: The project will increase existing noise levels by 0 to 3 dBA depending

on the location. Noise increases in the range of 0 to 3 dBA will not be a

substantial noise impact under the CEQA or NEPA.

Project Process: The project evaluated noise impacts using Caltrans’ required approach for state highway projects:

8.c

4

CEQA significance is based on difference in noise between existing and future (design year 2035) with project conditions. No single numerical threshold is currently used on all projects. Project Development Team consisting of Caltrans, environmental consultants, VTA staff, and local agency stakeholders makes the determination of significance.

NEPA significance is based on comparison of future conditions with and without the project. No specific thresholds; however, if project has federal funding, the threshold for a noise impact is when the future noise level with project substantially exceed the existing noise level (defined as a 12 dBA or more increase) or approach (defined as coming within 1 dBA of the Noise Abatement Criteria) or exceed the NAC. If the project will have noise impacts, noise abatement measures must be considered and have to meet Caltrans’ feasibility and reasonableness criteria. The feasibility of a noise abatement is basically an engineering concern. A minimum of 7 dB reduction in the future noise level must be achieved to be considered feasible. The reasonableness determination is basically a cost-benefit analysis based on Federal Highway Administration criteria.

Noise Study Results: The project conducted noise measurements at 149 locations throughout the

corridor, updated and validated noise measurements at 10 locations conducted for the US 101 Auxiliary Project and added 8 non-measurement locations to the model.

CEQA significance: The predicted future with project noise increase over existing for all 167 noise receptors was 0 to 3 dBA. An increase of 3 dBA is considered barely detectable to the human ear. The Project Development Team consisting of Caltrans, environmental consultants, VTA staff, and local agency stakeholders determined that a 3 dBA increase is not substantial and will be less than significant under CEQA.

Breakdown by dBA

Future with Project Noise Increase Over

Existing No of Receptors

0 59

1 98

2 9

3 1

Total 167

8.c

5

NEPA significance:

No future noise level with project substantially exceeded the existing noise level defined as a 12 dBA or more increase. Of the 167 noise receptors, 41 locations approach (defined as coming within 1 dBA of the Noise Abatement Criteria) or exceed the NAC.

Impact No of Receptors

A/E 41

None 124

-- 2

Total 167

A total of 24 walls were evaluated for potential abatement measures. Of the 24 walls, 8 were new walls and 16 were existing walls to be raised up to 16 feet. Only 6 of the new walls had at least one wall height that would meet the noise reduction design goal of 7 dB noise reduction at a minimum of one receptor location. None of the existing walls met the minimum noise reduction design goal. None of the walls evaluated meet both the feasibility and reasonableness criteria. No noise barriers or other abatement measures are included in the project.

Total Walls New Walls Modified Walls up to 16 feet

7dB Noise Reduction or

greater

Reasonable and

Feasible?

US 101 6 3 3 2 (New Wall) No

SR 85 18 5 13 4 (New Wall) No

Total 24 8 16 6 (New Wall) -

Comment : Consider noise abatement techniques such as “quieter pavement”

Project Process:

Potential noise abatement measures were considered for locations where future noise levels with the project approach or exceed the NAC. None of the evaluated sound wall locations met the Caltrans “feasibility” and “reasonableness” criteria. That does not mean noise levels cannot be reduced or that no other noise abatement can be considered or included in the project; rather, the feasibility and reasonableness criteria are used to determine whether project-related noise abatement is eligible for federal funding. Potential noise abatement can be considered if non-federal funds are available.

The use of “quieter pavement” for roadway noise abatement has received attention in recent years, and the effectiveness and application of quieter pavement has been studied by Caltrans and others. At this time, FHWA policy

8.c

6

does not allow quieter pavement to be considered as a noise abatement measure. Quieter pavement is not currently listed in 23 CFR 772 as a noise abatement measure for which federal funding may be used.

VTA’s Noise Reduction Program:

During the environmental circulation period for the project, residents expressed their concerns toward the perceived noise from the SR 85 corridor and added noise from the proposed express lanes, in particular, the new double express lanes between SR 87 and I-280 within the cities of San Jose, Campbell, Los Gatos, Saratoga and Cupertino. To address noise concerns on SR 85, VTA will perform a noise reduction study and prepare a report to identify a range of noise reduction treatments and test location(s). The study will commence this Spring and will encompass the entire highway corridor from US 101 in San Jose to US 101 in Mountain View, within the cities of San Jose, Campbell, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Los Altos and Mountain View. This study is phase 1 of VTA’s Noise Reduction Program. Phase 2 will implement noise reduction treatment as a pilot project at specified test location(s) identified in Phase 1. Based on results of the pilot project, Phase 3 will implement other noise reduction projects along SR 85 with revenue generated from the SR 85 express lanes.

Noise in Saratoga

Comment: Noise levels are already too high in Saratoga In early 2014, VTA offered to meet with the cities within the project limits to discuss noise concerns related to the proposed project. SR 85 passes through the cities of Mountain View, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Campbell, and San Jose. The meeting was attended by the cities of Campbell, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Cupertino, and Mountain View. VTA provided a comparison between the noise analysis for the project and the 1987 EIS for the construction of SR 85 or appropriate other noise study to the meeting attendees. Noise in Other Areas is addressed in subsequent section below.

The 1987 EIS for the construction of SR 85 between US 101 in southern San Jose and I-280 in Cupertino, which includes SR 85 in Saratoga, stated that noise attenuation would be provided at schools and in residential areas whenever forecasted noise levels exceed 67 dBA. Sound walls have been constructed along SR 85 within the entire city limits of Saratoga (from Prospect Road to Quito Road). The Final EIS also notes that while it would be desirable to meet local noise goals, it is not always practical to do so.

The 1987 Final EIS for the construction of SR 85 south of I-280 evaluated 12 receptor locations, two of which are in the City of Saratoga. The residences for the first receptor are shielded by a sound wall. The 2012 existing, future No Build, and future Build noise levels (with the existing sound wall in place) are 5 decibels below the 1987 future peak hour unmitigated level (without the sound wall). These levels are consistent with the expectation of an effective noise reduction of at least 5 dBA from a sound wall.

8.c

7

The residences for the second receptor are shielded by a sound wall. The 2012 existing and future No Build noise levels are the same as the 1987 future peak hour mitigated level, and the 2012 future Build noise level is 1 decibel above the 1987 predicted level. These results indicate that the 1987 modeling is consistent with current measurements and predicted levels at this location.

Attachment C4 includes the table and map showing the comparison results and location of receptors within Saratoga.

Noise measurement from 2013 Saratoga Noise Element Update For the City of Saratoga Draft Noise Element update, one noise measurement was

collected along SR 85. The measurement used in the Noise Element update was in a different metric (measurement unit) than that used for the project. When converted to the same metric and adjusted to correlate with the measurement distance from SR 85 used in the Noise Element update, the project measurements are in the same range, or below the range, shown in the Noise Element update.

Attachment C5 includes the table showing the comparison results. Noise in Other Areas

Background: In early 2014, VTA offered to meet with the cities within the project limits to discuss noise concerns related to the proposed project. SR 85 passes through the cities of Mountain View, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Campbell, and San Jose. The meeting was attended by the cities of Campbell, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Cupertino, and Mountain View. VTA provided a comparison between the noise analysis for the project and the 1987 EIS for the construction of SR 85 or appropriate other noise study to the meeting attendees. Noise in Saratoga is addressed in preceding section above. Noise in Campbell

The 1987 Final EIS for the construction of SR 85 south of I-280 evaluated 12 receptor locations, one of which was in the City of Campbell. The residences for this receptor currently receive acoustic shielding from 10- to 12-foot noise barriers. The 2012 existing and future No Build noise levels are 6 decibels below the 1987 future peak hour mitigated level and the future Build noise level is 5 decibels below the 1987 predicted level. These levels are consistent with the expectation of an effective noise reduction of at least 5 decibels from a sound wall.

Attachment C4 includes the table and map showing the comparison results and location of the receptor within Campbell.

Noise in Los Gatos

The 1987 Final EIS for the construction of SR 85 south of I-280 evaluated 12 receptor locations, one of which is in the Town of Los Gatos. The residences for this receptor currently receive acoustic shielding from noise barriers. The 2012 existing and future No Build noise levels are 1 decibel below

8.c

8

the 1987 future peak hour mitigated level and the future Build noise level is the same as the 1987 predicted level. This indicates that the 1987 modeling is consistent with current measurements and predicted levels at this location.

Attachment C4 includes the table and map showing the comparison results and location of the receptor within Los Gatos.

Noise in Cupertino

The 1987 Final EIS for the construction of SR 85 south of I-280 evaluated 12 receptor locations, two of which are in the City of Cupertino. The residences for the first receptor are currently shielded by a 12-foot noise barrier. The 2012 existing and future No Build noise levels are 2 decibels above the 1987 future peak hour mitigated level and the future Build noise levels is 3 decibels above the 1987 predicted level. This indicates that the 1987 modeling, which assumed a future year of 2010, is generally consistent with current measurements and predicted levels at this location. The commercial land uses for the second receptor are not currently shielded by noise barriers. The 2012 existing and future No Build noise levels are 6 decibels above the 1987 future peak hour unmitigated level, and the future Build noise level is 8 decibels above the 1987 predicted level. This location was identified as a residential land use in the 1987 Final EIS. It is currently a commercial land use; thus, the setting has changed. Interior noise measurements were also collected for this commercial property for this project since there are no active outdoor use areas at this location. The measurements indicated that the worst-hour noise levels in the property are 40 dBA Leq[h] or less. This interior noise level does not approach or exceed the NAC of 52 dBA Leq[h]. No residences or other sensitive land uses were identified on Bubb Road.

Attachment C4 includes the table and map showing the comparison results and location of receptors within Cupertino.

Noise in Mountain View

The Mountain View portion of SR 85 was constructed before 1987 and therefore was not addressed in the 1987 Final EIS for the construction of SR 85. The predicted future noise level data from the 1996 environmental document for the SR 85 HOV Lane Widening Project between Dana Street and north of Moffett Boulevard was used for comparison. Based on the mapping from the 1996 and this project’s 2012 reports, it appears that the barriers identified for the 1996 evaluation have been built. The 2012 existing and future No Build and Build noise levels are within the predicted future with barrier range identified in the 1996 environmental document. For all 2012 measurements, the project will result in a 0 to 1 dBA

8.c

9

increase over existing conditions. These results indicate that the 1996 modeling is consistent with current measurements and predicted levels at these locations.

Attachment C4 includes the table and map showing the comparison results and location of receptors within Mountain View.

Effect of federal funding on truck ban

The current truck restriction on SR 85 between US 101 (PM 0.0) in San Jose and I-280 (PM 18.45) in Cupertino is included in California Vehicle Code Section 35722 and Santa Clara County Ordinance Section B17-5.3. The restriction applies to trucks with gross weight in excess of 9,000 pounds, exceptions apply to Police and Fire Department vehicles and other vehicles which need to enter the area for specific purposes.

The project will not change the existing truck restriction on SR 85 or the requirements to enforce the restriction.

The technical analyses for the project, including for noise, accounted for the existing truck restriction.

Neither Caltrans nor VTA are aware of any current provision that will require changes to the truck restriction as a result of the use of federal transportation funding for projects on SR 85.

Appropriate type of environmental document (Environmental Impact Report vs.

Initial Study)

CEQA requires a lead agency to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. NEPA requires an EIS to be prepared when the proposed federal action (project) as a whole has the potential to “significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” Under NEPA, significance is a function of both context and intensity.

The same technical studies must be prepared whether the ultimate environmental document is an IS/EA or an EIS/EIR. Thus, preparing an EIS/EIR would not change the content or nature of any of the technical studies, or the determination of the project’s impacts on the environment.

The determination that the proposed project will not have significant environmental effects was based on a detailed and comprehensive review of each technical study area. The decision to complete an IS/EA was based on the technical studies’ findings that no significant impacts would result, or that impacts would be avoided or minimized.

Air quality will get worse

The air quality analyses accounted for existing background emissions as well as for changes in future traffic patterns with and without the project. The project will generally decrease delays and increase speeds during peak periods, as some drivers shift from the general purpose lanes to the express lanes. The reduction in delays will also reduce vehicle idling, which tends to be associated with high vehicle emissions.

8.c

10

The project will not increase emissions or concentrations of criteria pollutants that will result in air quality standard violations. The project will not violate standards for carbon monoxide or particulate matter less than 2.5 micrograms in diameter (PM2.5) or interfere with regional planning to achieve compliance with federal and state ozone standards. Mobile source air toxics (MSATs) in the project opening year (2015) and horizon year (2035) will be lower than in the existing condition.

Emissions of the primary pollutants related to project construction were modeled and compared with Bay Area Air Quality Management District criteria to determine when control measures should be implemented during construction. The worst-case construction emissions did not exceed any of these criteria.

Concern that Express Lanes will take travel benefits from carpoolers/HOVs:

Carpoolers/HOVs will continue to use the express lanes for free and the proposed system will maintain travel time benefits for HOVs through installation of roadway equipment and real-time monitoring.

Similar systems on SR 237 and I-680 as well as in Southern California, Minneapolis and Denver have data that show express lanes do not discourage carpooling, transit ridership or other forms of HOV.

Previous plans to reserve freeway median for LRT

Light rail in the median was previously evaluated in the 1987 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the construction of SR 85 between US 101 in San Jose and I-280 in Cupertino. The preferred alternative described in the Final EIS consisted of a total of six lanes (two general purpose lanes and one HOV lane in each direction), with the space in the median reserved for future mass transportation, but not light rail in particular. The purpose of the additional space in the median was for “future mass transportation options only when funding is available”.

Light rail in the median of SR 85 is not a reasonable or feasible project alternative for the SR 85 Express Lanes Project. Light rail in the median of SR 85 will not achieve the project’s purpose and need, will be prohibitively expensive, and will not reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts.

Access point selection and convenience

Work on the development of the SR 85 express lanes has been ongoing since 2007 and project information, including the proposed express lane access points, was presented during public outreach efforts for the project.

The location of the access points met geometric, safety, environmental, operational and policy requirements.

Design modifications to revise the proposed express lane access to continuous or open access—like the existing SR 85 HOV lane, with no buffer separation—will be considered during detailed project design.

Express lane tolls – double taxation

Use of the express lanes is optional, and no driver is forced to use the express lanes and pay the toll. Unlike taxes, which are paid by everyone, the tolls are user

8.c

11

fees for solo drivers only. Tolling solo drivers for express lane use is a way to improve roadway congestion without imposing additional gas taxes, sales taxes, or motor vehicle registration fees. Such additional taxes and fees place the burden of congestion relief on taxpayers who do not necessarily use the project corridor, or in the case of sales tax, do not necessarily drive.

Toll revenues from the SR 85 express lanes will be reinvested for HOV, transportation, and transit service improvements within the SR 85 corridor.

Public noticing for environmental document

Public Outreach:

VTA began seeking public input on express lanes for SR 85 and US 101 in Santa Clara County in 2004.

City Staff from Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, San Jose, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, and the County of Santa Clara were invited to monthly project meetings beginning in October 2012.

The project has been included in several public regional transportation planning documents, including the MTC’s Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) since 2011. The TIP lists Bay Area transportation projects that are to receive federal funding or are subject to a federally required action, or are considered regionally significant.

Caltrans and VTA circulated the IS/EA for public review and comment on December 30, 2013. A Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse on December 30, 2013. Federal, state, regional and local agencies, libraries within the project limits, and federal, state and local elected officials received printed or electronic copies of the document or mailers. The public meetings were advertised through VTA press release and newspaper ads containing this information were run in local English-language newspapers and foreign-language newspapers that serve the project corridor.

On January 30, 2014, the end of the public comment period was extended from January 31, 2014 to February 28, 2014, in response to public requests for additional time to review and comment on the IS/EA. Additional newspaper advertisements were run to notify the public of the comment period extension in local English-language newspapers and foreign-language newspapers that serve the project corridor.

Disclosure of Second Express Lane in the Median between SR 87 and I-280:

The IS/EA included and described the proposed addition of a second express lane. Additional newspaper advertisements were run to clarify that the project would include this second express lane in each direction of SR 85 between SR 87 and I-280 in local English-language newspapers and foreign-language newspapers.

Mass Transit Alternatives

The SR 85 express lanes will not restrict consideration of other mass transportation and/or transit options. Express lanes will offer immediate congestion relief during a time when funding to advance major projects is limited.

8.c

12

The express lane project is intended to provide additional revenue for HOV, transportation, and transit service improvements within the SR 85 corridor.

Consideration of other alternatives

The preliminary studies completed in 2005 and 2008 focused on the conversion of the existing HOV lanes to express lanes in each direction of SR 85.

By 2010, approximately 15 express lane configurations had been evaluated. The Project Study Report (PSR) recommended three feasible alternatives: the current proposed Build Alternative that was evaluated in detail in the IS/EA, and two single express lane alternatives—one with shared ingress/egress zones and one with separate ingress/egress zones. The other options that had been evaluated were variations on the three feasible alternatives that differed in their placement of access zones and access configuration.

The PSR reported that all three feasible alternatives will improve congestion compared to the No Build Alternative. However, the alternative with a second express lane in the median between SR 87 and I-280 will provide additional congestion relief to some of the existing HOV lane segments between SR 87 and I-280 that are currently operating at peak-hour demand volumes near the 1,650 vph threshold operation to provide reliable HOV travel time savings. Hence, the second express lane is needed to meet the future demands on the corridor between SR 87 and I-280.

The PSR indicated that the project team also evaluated a configuration that included two express lanes in each direction for the entire length of SR 85. The two-express-lane configuration was determined infeasible because it would require additional right-of-way; reconfiguration of interchanges, overcrossings, and other structures; major utility work; and substantially higher costs than the other alternatives. The extension of the second express lane north of I-280 was not determined feasible for the same reason.

Project Funding, Cost and Revenue Funding and Cost

The project approval and environmental phase of the project is funded with federal Earmarks, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and VTA local funds.

Full funding for the design development and construction has yet to be determined but can be from a combination of toll bonds, third party loans, local contributions, or federal grants. AB 574 also allowed VTA to issue of bonds, backed by future SVEL Program revenues, to finance express lanes construction.

The total project cost, based on the preliminary engineering and environmental documentation process, is about $176 million. This includes about $145 million in capital construction cost.

Revenue

The terms of toll collection and reinvestment are dictated by California Streets and Highways Code Section 149.6. The planning level estimate for gross toll

8.c

13

revenue projections ranges from $2 million in the beginning year to $10 million in year five of express lane operation. The planning level estimate for annual toll system maintenance and operating cost is about $2 million a year. The planning level estimates show that tolls generated will be enough to cover the cost of operating the express lanes within two years of operation. The planning level estimate for the range of net revenues varies between $1 million to $8 million in the first five years.

An investment grade traffic and revenue analysis is necessary and will be performed before the project can be constructed. This study is not available at this planning level stage. The project will only be constructed if the revenue analysis indicates that the project can be successfully financed based on the traffic and revenue projections. The VTA-led SR 237 Express Lanes have been operating with net revenues since opening to tolling operations two years ago. The direction on how the net revenues will be spent will be based on a future expenditure plan that will have to be approved by the VTA Board of Directors.

The purpose of the net toll revenue from the SR 85 express lanes, after payment of direct expenses (meaning operating and maintenance expenses for the express lanes), is to fund HOV, transportation, and transit service improvements within the SR 85 corridor.

The Bay Area Toll Authority, which is the toll collection entity for all Bay Area bridges and express lanes, will collect the tolls.

Income equity of express lanes tolls

The technical analysis for the project describes low-income populations in the project area and concluded that the project will not cause disproportionately high and adverse effects on any minority or low-income populations.

Data from existing express lanes in California and other parts of the U.S. show that low-income drivers are using express lanes, appreciate the opportunity to use express lanes when needed, and appear to place particular value on reliable travel times compared with middle-income or high-income drivers who may have more schedule flexibility. Although express lane tolls represent a different economic choice to low-income drivers versus middle- and high-income drivers, the choice does not represent a disproportionate burden because express lane use is voluntary.

Express lanes will make traffic worse

The analysis showed that in 2015 and 2035 without the proposed project, the general purpose lanes in many segments of SR 85 will have high traffic density and congestion during the AM and PM peaks, and some HOV lane segments will also have impaired flow.

The proposed project will improve travel times and speeds compared to the No Build condition in 2015 and 2035. Most notably, in the AM northbound peak period, the project will increase average speed by 16 mph compared to No Build in 2015, and by 15 mph in 2035. Most express lane segments will operate at or close to free-flow conditions.

Attachment C1 includes the project traffic benefits.

8.c

14

Traffic Outside of the Project Corridor

The project did not include an analysis of local arterials and roadways. The reason is that the project focuses on a corridor perspective and seeks to manage traffic congestion in the HOV/express lanes to maintain operations at an acceptable condition as mandated state statutory requirements that govern the operations of HOV/express lanes.

In response to comments from the Cities of Saratoga and Cupertino, a supplemental assessment of project-related traffic impacts on the local roadways was conducted for 19 intersections in the Cities of Saratoga and Cupertino, including the intersections of local roadways with SR 85 ramps. Saratoga and Cupertino staff reviewed and provided comments on the assessment materials, and their comments were incorporated into the final versions. The assessment showed that none of the studied intersections will be significantly impacted by the proposed project.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCLUSION

No new environmental issues not already addressed in the draft environmental document were raised during the public circulation period and the environmental conclusions remained the same.

5. Response to Performance Agreements Comments

Background: VTA’s predecessor, the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority (Traffic Authority), was the agency created to implement the construction of SR 85, funded from the 1984 countywide sales tax. The Traffic Authority entered into a Performance Agreement with several cities, including the Cities of Cupertino and Saratoga and the Town of Los Gatos. Each agreement states that SR 85 will be maintained as a freeway and the median will be reserved for mass transportation. Mass transportation is comprised of all forms of bus (rapid, express and local service) and rail (commuter, heavy and light.) VTA is committed to improving mobility in the SR 85 corridor through the highest performing, most cost-effective transportation infrastructure available today. Cupertino 1989 Performance Agreement

The Traffic Authority entered into a 1989 Performance Agreement with the City of Cupertino to ensure that no improvements would be undertaken to SR 85 that would preclude future mass transit development within the highway’s median.

The 1989 Performance Agreement did not commit to the construction of light rail in the median. As shown in agreement exhibit, the freeway was described as “a 6 through-lane facility with a median width of 46'.” The exhibit does not identify a specific use for the median. The exhibit also states: “Bridges will be designed and constructed in a manner not to preclude future mass transit development in the freeway median.” The reference to future mass transit development is not specific to light rail and does not distinguish between bus and rail service. SR 85 in the City of Cupertino was constructed as described in the Performance Agreement.

8.c

15

Saratoga 1989 Performance Agreement

How does VTA plan to move forward with the Project consistent with its 1989 commitment to (i) limit SR 85 to 6 lanes and (ii) reserve the 46 foot median for mass transportation?

The 1989 Performance Agreement stated that SR 85 would be “a 6-lane facility with a median width of 46' reserved for mass transportation”. The Performance Agreement does not specify that the median must be reserved for light rail or define mass transportation as rail instead of transit buses. SR 85 in the City of Saratoga was constructed as described in the Performance Agreement.

It should be noted that the City of Saratoga General Plan Circulation Element states that VTA does not have plans to extend light rail in the SR 85 corridor through Saratoga in the foreseeable future, and the City “will continue to implement policies and actions that support local and regional transit access”.

VTA General Counsel is of the opinion that the provisions cited in the comment are unenforceable to the extent that they restrict VTA’s ability to independently exercise its legislative authority.

Los Gatos 1990 Performance Agreement

Under the 1990 Performance Agreement, it was agreed that “Route 85 through the Town will be a 6-lane facility with a median width of 46 feet from Winchester Boulevard to Pollard Road and 48 feet from Bascom Avenue to Winchester Boulevard and a vertical profile as shown in agreement attachment. This agreement would need to be resolved. Also, under the same agreement, the Traffic Authority agreed that no new freeway lanes shall be constructed in the Route 85 median or in the shoulders of Route 85 within the limits of Los Gatos without prior written approval by the Town Council.

The description of SR 85 in the 1990 Performance Agreement is noted. SR 85 in the Town of Los Gatos was constructed as described in the Performance Agreement.

VTA will continue to coordinate with the Town of Los Gatos regarding the prior agreement that no new freeway lanes shall be constructed in the median or shoulder of SR 85 within the town limits without prior written approval by the Town Council.

6. Attachments:

C1: Project Traffic Benefits C2: VTA Completed Projects along SR 85 C3: VTA Planned Projects along SR 85 C4: Saratoga, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino and Mountain View Noise Comparison

between previous Predicted Noise Levels versus Project Noise Study C5: Saratoga Noise Measurement Comparison between 2013 Saratoga Noise Element

Update versus Project Noise Study

8.c

Attachment C1:

Project Traffic Benefits *

Travel Time Savings (Minutes) with Project Using Express Lanes versus General Purpose Lanes

Segment Morning Commute

(Northbound) Evening Commute

(Southbound)

US 101S to SR 87 (1 Lane) 1.3 0.2

SR 87 to SR 17 (2 Lanes) 2.3 0.9

SR 17 to I-280 (2 Lanes) 0.7 1.1

I-280 to SR 237 (1 Lane) 0.7 3.5

SR 237 to US 101N (1 Lane) 0.1 3.7

SR 85 5.1 9.4

Travel Time Savings (Minutes) Using General Purpose Lanes with Project versus General Purpose Lanes without Project

Segment Morning Commute


(Southbound)

US 101S to SR 87 (1 Lane) 0.4 0.2

SR 87 to SR 17 (2 Lanes) 10.9 4.8

SR 17 to I-280 (2 Lanes) 2.9 0.6

I-280 to SR 237 (1 Lane) 0.1 -1.1

SR 237 to US 101N (1 Lane) 0.4 2.3

SR 85 14.7 6.8

Average Speed with Project Using Express Lanes versus General Purpose Lanes

Morning Commute


(Southbound)

Express Lanes 23% higher than

General Purpose Lanes 25% higher than

General Purpose Lanes

Average Delay Reduction (Hours) with Project Using Express Lanes and General Purpose Lanes

Morning Commute


(Southbound)

Express Lanes 5.5 13.9

General Purpose Lanes 11.2 7.4

* based on 2015 projection

8.d

!

! !

"

!! ! "

!! ! "

!

! !

"

!! ! "

!

! !

"

!! ! "

!

! !

"

·|}þ732

!"#$680!"#$880

!"#$280·|}þ78

(/101

·|}þ58

·|}þ58

·|}þ71

(/101

(/101

SUNNYVALE

MOUNTAINVIEW

LOS ALTOS

PALOALTO

LOS ALTOS HILLS

SANTA CLARA

SAN JOSE

MILPITAS

CAMPBELL

MONTESERENO

LOS GATOS

SARATOGA

CUPERTINO

H

G F

E

D

C

B

A

VTA Completed Projects Along SR 85

SR 85 Express Lanes ProjectCompleted SR 85 Projects

A - SR 85/87 InterchangeB - SR 85/US 101 South InterchangeC - SR 17 Improvements between I-280 and SR 85D - SR 85 Noise Mitigation between I-280 and SR 87E - SR 87 South HOV Lanes between I-280 and Branham LnF - SR 85/US 101 North InterchangeG - US 101 Auxiliary Lanes from Embarcadero to SR 85H - SR 85 Ramp Metering between US 101N and US 101S

©0 2.5 51.25Miles

8.e

Deleon_Re

Text Box

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Express Lanes on SR 85

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Schram_M

Typewritten Text

Attachment C2

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

!

! !

"

!! ! "

!

! !

"

!! ! "

!

! !

"

!! !"

!

! !

"

!! ! "

!

! !

"

!

! !

"

!!!"

! !!" ! !!"

!!!"

!!!"

!!!"

!!!"

H26

H22

H45

H35

H40

H44

H38

H21H32

H49

H43H6

H4

H2H5

H2

H16

H14

H11

H13

·|}þ732

!"#$680

!"#$880

!"#$280

·|}þ78

(/101

·|}þ58

·|}þ58

·|}þ71

(/101

(/101

SUNNYVALE

MOUNTAINVIEW

LOS ALTOS

PALOALTO

LOS ALTOS HILLS

SANTA CLARA

SAN JOSE

MILPITAS

CAMPBELL

MONTESERENO

LOS GATOS

SARATOGA

CUPERTINO

VTA Planned Projects Along SR 85

SR 85 Express Lanes Project

NT1 S R 8 5 Noise Reduction Program Between US 101N and US 101S

HighwayH21 - S R 8 5 N B t o E B S R 2 3 7 C o n n e c t o r R a m p a n d N B S R 8 5 A u x L a n e

H22 - SR 85/Cottle Rd Interchange Improvements

H26 - US 101/Blossom Hill Road Interchange Improvements

H32 - SR 237 Westbound On-ramp at Middlefield Road

H35 - I-280 Northbound - Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway

H38 - SR 237/El Camino Real/Grant Road Intersection Improvements

H40 - SR 85/ El Camino Real Interchange Improvements

H44 - SR 237 WB to SB SR 85 Connector Ramp Improvements

H45 - I-280 NB Braided Ramps between Foothill Expressway and SR 85

H49 - SB Auxiliary Lane Improvement Between Ellis Street and SR 237

Express LanesH11 - I-280 Express Lanes

H13 - I-280 Express Lanes: SB El Monte to Magdalena

H16 - SR 17 Express Lanes

H2 - Convert existing HOV lanes to E x p r e s s L a n e s o n U S 1 0 1

H4 - SR 87 Express Lanes: SR 85 to US 101

H5 - SR 237 Express Lanes: Mathilda Avenue to SR 85

©0 2.5 51.25Miles

*NT2 - I-280 Corridor Study from US 101 to San Mateo County (Project not symbolized)

8.f

Deleon_Re

Text Box

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Express Lanes on SR 85

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Note: NT = NEAR TERM IMPROVEMENTS

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Schram_M

Typewritten Text

Schram_M

Typewritten Text

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Schram_M

Typewritten Text

Attachment C3

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Deleon_Re

Rectangle

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

Schram_M

Typewritten Text

Deleon_Re

Typewritten Text

1

Attachment C4: Comparison between Previous Predicted Noise Levels and Project Noise Study Comparison of 1987 and 2012 Existing and Future Noise Levels Along SR 85 in Saratoga Location 1987 SR 85 Final Environmental Impact

Statement Table Most comparable location from 2012 SR 85 Express Lanes Noise Study Report

Comparison to 1987 Future Peak Hour

Receptor ID

24‐hr Average Ambient dBA Leq

Future Peak Hour, Unmitigated dBA Leq

Future Peak Hour, Mitigated dBA Leq

Receptor ID

Existing dBA Leq

Future No Build dBA Leq

Future Build dBA Leq

Existing and Future No Build

Future Build

1 N‐9 59 67 N/A ST‐58 62 62 62 ‐5 ‐5 2 N‐10 52 68 63 ST‐52 63 63 64 Same +1 Comparison of 1987 and 2012 Existing and Future Noise Levels Along SR 85 in Campbell Location 1987 SR 85 Final Environmental Impact


Comparison to 1987 Future Peak Hour, Mitigated

Receptor ID




Receptor ID

Existing dBA Leq




Future Build

1 N‐8 48 79 66 ST‐71 60 60 61 ‐6 ‐5 Comparison of 1987 and 2012 Existing and Future Noise Levels Along SR 85 in Los Gatos Location 1987 SR 85 Final Environmental Impact


Comparison to 1987 Future Peak Hour, Mitigated

Receptor ID




Receptor ID

Existing dBA Leq




Future Build

1 N‐7 53 63 59 ST‐69 58 58 59 ‐1 Same

8.g

2

Comparison of 1987 and 2012 Existing and Future Noise Levels Along SR 85 in Cupertino Location 1987 SR 85 Final Environmental Impact


Comparison to 1987 Future Peak Hour

Receptor ID




Receptor ID

Existing dBA Leq




Future Build

1 N‐11 52 79 66 ST‐42 68 68 69 +2 +3 2 N‐12 54 68 63 ST‐35 74 74 76 +6 +8 N‐12 previously identified as residential ST‐35 currently identified as commercial; change in setting Interior noise level of 40 dBA Leq does not approach exceed noise

abatement criteria of 52 dBA Leq for property type

8.g

3

Comparison of 1996 and 2012 Existing and Future Noise Levels Along SR 85 in Mountain View Location From 1996 SR 85 HOV Lane Widening Initial

Study/Environmental Assessment Most comparable location from 2012 SR 85 Express Lanes Noise Study Report

Comparison to 1996 Future with barrier

Receptor ID

1996 Existing dBA Leq

Future Without Barrier dBA Leq

Future With Barrier dBA Leq

Receptor ID

Existing dBA Leq



Existing Future Build and No Build

1 R1 59.9 65–69 60–64 ST‐10 61 62 62 Within predicted 60–64

Within predicted 60–64





4 R20 69.1 68–74 63–65 ST‐3 59 59 59 Below predicted 63–65

Below predicted 63–65

5 R23A 68.8 68 61–65 ST‐5 63 63 63 Within predicted 61–65


6 R26 62.5 68–70 61–63 ST‐2 57 58 58 Below predicted 61–63

Below predicted 61–63

8.g

Attachment C5: Saratoga Noise Measurement Comparison between 2013 Saratoga Noise Element Update and Project Noise Study

2013 Saratoga Noise Element Update

Measurement Description Measured Range Noted by City (dB)

Along SR 85 between Prospect Road and Cox Avenue (100 feet away with barrier shielding) 67 to 71

Project Noise Study

Location Receptor ID Distance (feet) from SR 85 centerline

Estimated Day‐Night Average Sound Level (dB)

Estimated Day‐Night Average Sound Level at 100 feet (dB)

1 ST‐46 240 60 65

2 ST‐50 120 66 67

3 ST‐51 170 62 66

4 ST‐52 170 63 66

5 ST‐53 125 65 66

6 ST‐54 240 60 65

7 ST‐55 115 67 68

8 ST‐56 285 60 66

9 ST‐57 290 57 64

10 ST‐58 215 61 66

11 ST‐59 260 57 64

12 ST‐60 190 59 63

13 ST‐61 390 52 61

14 ST‐63 200 59 63

15 LT‐5 215 65 70

8.h

·|}þ732

!"#$680

!"#$880

!"#$280·|}þ78

·|}þ58

·|}þ58

·|}þ71

SUNNYVALE

MOUNTAINVIEW

LOS ALTOS

PALOALTO

SANTA CLARA

SAN JOSE

MILPITAS

CAMPBELL

LOS GATOS

SARATOGA

CUPERTINO

MORGAN HILLDunne Avenue

S I L I C O N VA L L E Y E X P R E S S L A N E S

0 2.5 51.25Miles ©

Freeways and Express LanesPhase 1 (In Operation)Phase 2Phase 3Phase 4

Future Phases - TBDFreewaysHOV Lane to HOV Lane Connector

8.i

Schram_M

Typewritten Text

Attachment D

Schram_M

Typewritten Text

Schram_M

Typewritten Text

Schram_M

Typewritten Text

Schram_M

Typewritten Text

SR 85 Express Lanes - I-280 to SR 87Single-Lane Express Lanes versus Double-Lane Express Lanes Comparison

ATTACHMENT E

CategorySingle-Lane Express

LanesPhased Double-Lane

Express LanesDouble-Lane Express Lanes

Total Cost of Segment between US 101 and US 101

$ 65 million $198 million $ 176 million

Segment Length between I-280 and SR 87

11 miles 11 miles 11 miles

Total Cost of Segment between I-280 and SR 87

$ 35 million $170 million $150 million

Total Right of Way Width (on average)

178 feet 178 feet 178 feet

Total Pavement Width1

(on average)112 feet 138 feet 138 feet

Changes Truck Ban on SR 85? No No No

Requires EIR/EIS rather than IS/EA? No No No

Range of Noise Levels To be studied2 0 - 3 dBA Increase 0 - 3 dBA Increase

Air Quality Assessment To be studiedNo significant impacts;

improved air quality over No Build

No significant impacts; improved air quality over No

Build

Travel Speeds between I-280 and SR 87 3

GP = 23 to 39 mphEL = 53 to 64 mph

GP = 29 to 59 mphEL = 55 to 65 mph

Total Time Savings over Do Nothing (Annual weekday hrs)

Less than savings for double lane alternative

750,000 hrs at the time of double EL implementation

750,000 hrs

Projected Gross Annual Revenue Generation Level in 2020 (US 101 to US 101)

$8 million $8 million $12 million

Projected Gross Cumulative Revenue Generation over 30-year Period (US 101 to US 101)

$ 400 million less than $800 million $ 800 million

Planned Development PhaseFuture Phase (Design in

2016 to 2018)Future Phase (Design in 2016

to 2018 and 2023 to 2025)Future Phase (Design in

2016 to 2018)

Notes:1Measured at maximum pavement width. 2The noise level is expected to be less than or similar to alternative with dual lanes. 3Existing travel speed ranges are: GP = 22 to 46 mph; HOV = 42 to 70 mph.

8.j

Date: May 12, 2015 Current Meeting: May 20, 2015 Board Meeting: N/A



FROM: Chief Operating Officer, Michael A. Hursh SUBJECT: Transit Operations Performance Report - FY2015 Third Quarter


FOR INFORMATION ONLY

BACKGROUND:

The FY 2015 Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report presents the third fiscal quarter's Year-To-Date (July 2014-March 2015) key performance information for VTA Operations. This report is routinely produced after each quarter and at the end of the fiscal year. A summary of the FY 2015 Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report follows.

Ridership (page 9 of the report)

Bus ridership through the first nine months of FY2015 totaled 24.22 million, a 0.2% decrease compared to the same period of the previous fiscal year. Average weekday ridership was 105,216, down 0.5% compared to FY2014’s third quarter. Light rail ridership recorded 8.58 million boardings through the third quarter of FY2015, an increase of 5.2% compared to the prior fiscal year. Average weekday ridership was 35,368, up 1.7% from the same period last year. Overall, system ridership (bus and rail) was up 1.2%. Overall average weekday ridership stayed flat. It was 140,536 last year and 140,584 this year. However, it may be noted that the last two months of the third quarter recorded ridership growth with average weekday ridership up by 1.4%. Special Event Service

This is the third quarter of events and service to Levi’s Stadium and the first quarter of service to the new Avaya Stadium. A total of 19 stadium events have been recorded through the Fiscal year’s 3rd quarter. Events at Levi’s Stadium included an outdoor San Jose Sharks game and

9

of 3

Wrestlemania, which was considered an excellent preparation for Super Bowl 50 in 2016. Total event ridership for these two events far exceeded averages for Levi’s Stadium and totaled 55,610, an average of 27,805 per event. Overall, Levi’s stadium has contributed significantly to ridership increases especially during the weekends with a total of 313,271 riders from the 17 events and an average of 18,428 riders. Express bus service ridership to Avaya Stadium averaged 1,334 riders with a total of 2,668 riders from the two events. Details of the events are as follows:

Year Month Riders (Levi’s) 2014 August 56,174 2014 September 53,448 2014 October 38018 2014 November 55,083 2014 December 54,938 2015 February 31,948 2015 March 23,662 Year Month Riders (Avaya) 2015 February 807 2015 March 1,861

Key Performance Indicators (page 8 of the report)

Service reliability performance for the system (both bus and light rail) in the third quarter of FY2015 was 99.65%. Bus on-time performance was 85.2%, down slightly from 85.5% last year. Light rail on-time performance was 77.6%, an improvement compared to 76.7% last quarter, but down from last year’s 85.3%. Bus recorded 9,268 miles between major mechanical schedule losses, down 9.4 % compared to the same period in FY 2014, but exceeding the goal of 8,000 miles between major mechanical schedule losses. Light rail recorded 21,327 miles between major mechanical schedule losses, down 44.8% compared to FY 2014’s third quarter, and did not meet the goal of 40,000 miles. Absenteeism goals were met in all categories except Way, Power, and Signal staff. Paratransit (page 22 of the report) Through the first nine months of FY 2015, total paratransit passenger trips were 538,915, a 0.8% decrease compared to last year. The number of active riders decreased by 7.5% compared to last year. The fiscal year-to-date passengers per revenue hour rate of 2.6 exceeds the goal of 2.4. At the end of March 2015, Fiscal Year to date, net cost per passenger trip, including eligibility

9

of 3

program expenses, was $23.95. This net cost per trip is 5.0% higher than last year at this time, but is 10.5% below the paratransit net cost per trip performance goal of $26.75. This increase is primarily due to the vendor’s contractual rate increase that took effect July 1, 2014, staffing expense increases and hardware and software training. OUTREACH is meeting all contractually established performance measures. Inter-Agency Partners and Contracted Services (page 10 of the report) All of VTA’s Inter-agency partners and contracted services, except Dumbarton Express and Monterey-San Jose Express, showed increased ridership results for FYTD 2015 through March 2015 as follows:

Dumbarton Express ridership was 234,776, down 1.6%. Highway 17 Express ridership was 280,834, up 4.3%. Monterey-San Jose Express ridership was 23,074, down 0.2%. ACE ridership was 891,791, up 11.3%. Caltrain ridership was 13.6 million, up 9.2%. ACE shuttle ridership was 311,244, up 11.1%.

Prepared By: Lalitha Konanur Memo No. 4763

9

Transit Operations Performance Report

2015 Third Quarter Report (July 1, 2014-March 31, 2015)

9.a

Transit Operations Performance Report

Second Quarter FY 2015 Report (July 1, 2014 – March 31, 2015)

9.a

Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityFY 2015 Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS page

Executive SummarySummary of Performance 1Event Highlights 3

Key Performance Indicators 8

Ridership Summary 9

Route Performance

Route details 10Boardings Per Revenue Hour 11Average Peak Load (Express) 15Route Productivity 16

Paratransit Operating Statistics 22

Glossary

Prepared by: Operations Analysis, Reporting & Systems

9.a

Executive Summary

9.a


SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE FY 2015 Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

Ridership (page 9 of the report) Bus ridership through the first nine months of FY2015 totaled 24.22 million, a 0.2% decrease compared to the same period of the previous fiscal year. Average weekday ridership was 105,216, down 0.5% compared to FY2014’s third quarter. Light rail ridership recorded 8.58 million boardings through the third quarter of FY2015, an increase of 5.2% compared to the prior fiscal year. Average weekday ridership was 35,368, up 1.7% from the same period last year. Overall, system ridership (bus and rail) was up 1.2%. Overall average weekday ridership stayed flat. It was 140,536 last year and 140,584 this year. However, it may be noted that the last two months of the third quarter recorded ridership growth with average weekday ridership up by 1.4%. Special Event Service: This is the third quarter of events and service to Levi’s Stadium and the first quarter of service to the new Avaya Stadium. A total of 19 stadium events have been recorded through the Fiscal year’s 3rd quarter. Events at Levi’s Stadium included an outdoor San Jose Sharks game and Wrestlemania, which was considered an excellent preparation for Super Bowl 50 in 2016. Total event ridership for these two events far exceeded averages for Levi’s Stadium and totaled 55,610, an average of 27,805 per event. Overall, the Levis stadium has contributed significantly to ridership increases especially during the weekends with a total of 313,271 riders from the 17 events and an average of 18,428 riders. Express bus service ridership to Avaya Stadium averaged 1,334 riders with a total of 2,668 riders from the two events. Details of the events are as follows: Year Month Riders (Levis) Average per event 2014 August 56,174 18,725 2014 September 53,448 17,816 2014 October 38018 19,009 2014 November 55,083 18,361 2014 December 54,938 13,735 2015 February 31,948 31,948 2015 March 23,662 23,662 Year Month Riders (Avaya) Average per event 2015 February 807 807 2015 March 1,861 1,861

At the end of March 2015 (Fiscal Year to Date), net cost per passenger trip, including eligibility program expenses, was $23.95. This net cost per trip is 5.0% higher than last year at this time, but is 10.5% below the paratransit net cost per trip performance goal of $26.75. This increase is primarily due to the vendor’s contractual rate increase that took effect July 1, 2014, staffing expense increases, hardware and software training. OUTREACH is meeting all contractually established performance measures. Inter-Agency Partners and Contracted Services (page 10 of the report) All of VTA’s Inter-agency partners and contracted services, except Dumbarton Express and Monterey-San Jose Express, showed increased ridership results for FYTD 2015 through March 2015 as follows:

• Dumbarton Express ridership was 234,776, down 1.6%. • Highway 17 Express ridership was 280,834, up 4.3%. • Monterey-San Jose Express ridership was 23,074, down 0.2%. • ACE ridership was 891,791, up 11.3%. • Caltrain ridership was 13.6 million, up 9.2%. • ACE shuttle ridership was 311,244, up 11.1%.

2

9.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY EVENT HIGHLIGHTS FY 2015 Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report (July 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015) This section shows events that can affect normal service operations and system ridership. Ridership historically follows unemployment trends in the Valley, for example. Weather, public events, strikes, traffic, construction, new service, area gasoline prices, and other changes to our operating environment also affect system ridership and service conditions.

July 4, 2014 – Due to the fireworks event in downtown San Jose, VTA light rail service was extended to 11:30 p.m.

July 7, 2014 – VTA quarterly service changes are implemented. One major change adds Saturday service every 15 minutes from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for Line 323.

July 25, 2014 – Spare the Air Day.

July 30, 2014 – PG&E Flip the Switch Day declared due to high temperatures.

July 2014 – Service changes and reroutes were in effect due to the Morgan Hill Cruise’n Show and Parade, The Rotary Centennial Fireworks Show in San Jose, Sunnyvale Music in the Market, the Thursday Night Live Summer Concert Series in Mountain View, and construction projects in Morgan Hill and San Jose.

July 2014 – Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 5.9%.

July 2014 – There was no measurable rainfall in July.

July 2014 – Unleaded fuel averaged $4.06 a gallon.

August 1, 2014 – Spare the Air Day.

August 2, 2014 – First event at Levi’s Stadium – Major League Soccer – San Jose Earthquakes vs. Seattle Sounders.

August 6, 2014 – Warren Avenue in Southern Fremont reopens to traffic.

August 13, 2014 – Cisco Systems announces layoffs of 6,000 workers, 900 in San Jose.

August 17, 2014 – First (pre-season) San Francisco ‘49ers football game at Levi’s Stadium.

August 24, 2014 – A 6.1 magnitude earthquake hits Napa. Caltrain service is delayed connecting to VTA for Levi’s Stadium football game due to track inspections. Local VTA service is not affected.

3

9.a

August 2014 – Service changes and reroutes were in effect due to the Thursday Night Live Summer Concert Series in Mountain View, Jazz Summer Fest in San Jose, and construction projects in Mountain View and San Jose.

August 2014 – Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 5.5%.

August 2014 – There was no measurable rainfall in August.

August 2014 – Unleaded fuel averaged $3.93 a gallon.

September 11-12, 2014 – Spare the Air Days.

September 14, 2014 – ‘49ers Opening Day at Levi’s Stadium. 9,400 attendees ride VTA to the game.

September 30, 2014 – Stevens Creek Boulevard/I-880 interchange opens.

September 2014 – Service changes and reroutes were in effect due to the South First Friday Street Market in San Jose; the Mountain View Art & Wine Festival; the Morgan Hill Auto Show; the Willow Glen Founders’ Day Parade; the National Drive Electric Week Parade in Cupertino; construction on the Santa Clara Alum Rock Bus Rapid Transit project on Alum Rock Avenue; and construction projects in Gilroy, San Jose, and Palo Alto.

September 2014 – Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 5.2%.

September 2014 – Rainfall was 200% of normal.

September 2014 – Unleaded fuel averaged $3.79 a gallon.

October 3, 2014 – Spare the Air Day.

October 5, 2014 – Regular game at Levi’s Stadium, ‘49ers vs. Philadelphia Eagles

October 10, 2014 – Cisco Systems layoffs affect 903 workers in San Jose.

October 17, 2014 – Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) announces layoffs of 7% of its workforce (approximately 710 workers).

October 24, 2014 – College football game at Levi’s Stadium, Cal Bears vs. Oregon Ducks.

October 2014 – Service changes and reroutes were in effect due to a memorial event for former San Jose Police Chief McNamara; the annual Rock & Roll Half Marathon in San Jose; parades in Gilroy, Santa Clara, and Cupertino; and various construction projects in San Jose.

October 2014 – Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 5.1%.

4

9.a

October 2014 – Rainfall was 78% of normal.

October 2014 – Unleaded fuel averaged $3.53 per gallon.

November 2, 2014 – Regular game at Levi’s Stadium, ‘49ers vs. St. Louis Rams.

November 7, 2014 – Work began on double-tracking light rail between Mountain View and Whisman stations.

November 23, 2014 – Regular game at Levi’s Stadium, ‘49ers vs. Washington Redskins.

November 9 and 25-27, 2014 – Winter Spare the Air Days.

November 27, 2014 – Regular game at Levi’s Stadium, ‘49ers vs. Seattle Seahawks.

November 28, 2014 – VTA’s Historic Holly Trolley Historic holiday service begins.

November 2014 – Service changes and reroutes were in effect due to the Morgan Hill Marathon; the annual Turkey Trot in San Jose; events at Levi’s Stadium; and construction projects in San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto. A major gas leak in San Jose also caused disruption of service at the Downtown Customer Service Center and reroutes in downtown San Jose for several days.

November 2014 – Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 5.1%.

November 2014 – Rainfall was 93% of normal.

November 2014 – Unleaded fuel averaged $3.17 per gallon.

December 5, 2014 – PAC 12 Championship football game at Levi’s Stadium.

December 11, 2014 – Major storm hits Bay Area. VTA Lines 22, 55, 63, 522, 58, and light rail in the downtown San Jose area were affected due to flooding.

December 20, 2014 – Regular game at Levi’s Stadium, ‘49ers vs. San Diego Chargers.

December 28, 2014 – Regular game at Levi’s Stadium, ‘49ers vs. Arizona Cardinals.

December 28-29, 2014 – Winter Spare the Air Days.

December 29, 2014 – Qualcomm announces layoffs affecting more than 100 San Jose and Santa Clara workers.

December 30, 2014 – Foster Farms Bowl college football game at Levi’s Stadium.

December 2014 – Service changes and reroutes were in effect due to the Children’s Holiday Christmas Parade in Los Gatos; Christmas tree lighting event in Sunnyvale; Holiday Parade in

5

9.a

Gilroy; Hussain Day Procession in San Jose; Levi’s Stadium events; and construction projects in San Jose and Sunnyvale.

December 2014 – Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 4.5%.

December 2014 – Rainfall was 297% of normal.

December 2014 – Unleaded fuel averaged $2.86 per gallon.

January 2-12, 15-17, and 24-25, 2015 – Winter Spare the Air Days – an unprecedented 16 days.

January 5, 2015 – VTA adds hours to weekday and Saturday service and adds all-new Sunday service to Line 323.

January 5, 2015 – Google-funded Mountain View Community Shuttle begins service.

January 26, 2015 – Nine-month closure of Sierra at Lundy in San Jose begins for BART construction.

January 28, 2015 – Citrix announces 900 job cuts or 10% of its workforce.

January 2015 – Service changes and reroutes were in effect due to Levi’s Stadium events, bus stop relocations, police activity, and construction projects in San Jose and Palo Alto.

January 2015 – Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 4.7%.

January 2015 – Rainfall was 1% of normal.

January 2015 – Unleaded fuel averaged $2.57 per gallon.

February 2, 2015 – EBay and PayPal cut 2,500 jobs (7% of workforce).

February 3, 2015 – Winter Spare the Air Day.

February 4-5, 2015 – Palo Alto Transit Center closed overnight for maintenance work.

February 5, 2015 – New Eastridge Transit Center opened.

February 28, 2015 – Avaya Stadium opening event and VTA Express service to Earthquakes’ soccer games begins.

February 2015 – Service changes and reroutes were in effect due to the San Jose 408k Run; Cupid’s Undie Run; Levi’s Stadium events; rail rehab work; street closures; police activity; and construction projects in San Jose and Mountain View.

February 2015 – Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 4.5%.

6

9.a

February 2015 – Rainfall was 56% of normal.

February 2015 – Unleaded fuel averaged $2.72 per gallon.

March 12, 2015 – Cypress Semiconductor and Spansion announce 1,600 layoffs.

March 16, 2015 – Evelyn Light Rail Station closes permanently for double-tracking project.

March 23, 2015 – Montague Light Rail Station closes for 5 months for BART construction.

March 29, 2015 – WWE Wrestlemania at Levi’s Stadium draws record light rail event ridership.

February 2015 – Service changes and reroutes were in effect due to Levi’s Stadium events; street closures; police activity; and construction projects in San Jose.

March 2015 – Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 4.2%.

March 2015 – Rainfall was 7% of normal.

March 2015 – Unleaded fuel averaged $3.31 per gallon.

7

9.a

Key Performance

Indicators

9.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYKEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORSThird Quarter FY 2015 Transit Operations Performance Report

FY 2012 Annual

FY 2013 Annual

FY 2014 Annual

FYTD 2015 3rd

Quarter

Met Goal? FY 2015 Goals

SYSTEM (Bus & Light Rail)Total Boarding Riders (in millions) 42.43 43.15 43.43 32.80 No 34.18>= Average Weekday Boarding Riders 137,299 140,402 140,965 140,584 No 142,800>= Boardings per Revenue Hour 31.9 31.9 29.6 29.1 No 31.7>= Percent of Scheduled Service Operated 99.72% 99.73% 99.67% 99.65% YES 99.55%>= Miles Between Major Mechanical Schedule Loss1 11,065 13,110 10,839 9,876 YES 9,000>= Miles Between Chargeable Accidents 94,649 88,300 80,812 85,406 No 112,300>= Passenger Concerns per 100,000 Boardings 12.5 13.7 16.2 17.9 No 10.6<=

BUS OPERATIONSTotal Boarding Riders (in millions) 32.05 32.40 32.48 24.22 No 25.50>= Average Weekday Boarding Riders 104,583 106,161 105,969 105,216 No 107,500>= Boardings per Revenue Hour 26.9 26.7 26.0 25.1 YES 24.0>= Percent of Scheduled Service Operated 99.69% 99.70% 99.64% 99.61% YES 99.50%>= Miles Between Major Mechanical Schedule Loss1 10,202 12,080 9,964 9,268 YES 8,000>= Miles Between Chargeable Accidents 85,926 80,608 73,702 77,852 No 100,000>= On-time Performance 88.4% 87.4% 85.9% 85.2% No 92.5%>= Operator Personal Time-off 8.8% 8.5% 8.1% 7.2% YES 10.0%<= Maintenance Personal Time-off 8.2% 7.4% 8.2% 5.7% YES 8.0%<= Passenger Concerns per 100,000 Boardings 15.5 17.1 20.2 21.4 No 11.8<=

LIGHT RAIL OPERATIONSTotal Boarding Riders (in millions) 10.37 10.74 10.95 8.58 No 8.68>= Average Weekday Boarding Riders 32,716 34,241 34,996 35,368 YES 35,300>= Boardings per Revenue Hour 75.4 78.3 78.8 81.7 YES 74.0>= Percent of Scheduled Service Operated 99.97% 99.98% 99.97% 99.96% YES 99.90%>= Miles Between Major Mechanical Schedule Loss1 32,489 40,723 37,381 21,327 No 40,000>= Miles Between Chargeable Accidents2 441,847 366,503 367,582 415,876 No 1,663,504>= On-time Performance 89.4% 88.5% 84.5% 77.6% No 95.0%>= Operator Personal Time-off 6.6% 5.9% 7.2% 7.5% YES 10.0%<= Maintenance Personal Time-off 7.1% 7.3% 8.1% 5.1% YES 10.0%<= Way, Power, & Signal Personal Time-off 6.3% 6.3% 4.0% 8.8% No 8.0%<= Passenger Concerns per 100,000 Boardings 3.3 3.3 4.3 7.9 No 2.8<= Fare Evasion Rate 7.8% 3.9% 3.1% 2.9% YES 5.0%<=

PARATRANSIT 7.8Passengers per Revenue Hour³ 2.60 2.50 2.60 2.60 YES 2.30>= Net Cost per Passenger $22.73 $22.69 $24.30 $23.95 YES $27.00<= Ontime Performance ³ 96.5% YES 92.0%>= Complaints per 1,000 passenger Trips³ 0.40 YES 1.0<= Schedule Calls Response Time (minutes)³ 1.61 YES 2.0<= Days of Service Calls Response Time (minutes)³ 1.39 YES 2.0<= ADA Eligibility Certification within 21 Days³ 100.0% YES 100.0%>= Preventative Maintenance Inspections Ontime³ 100.0% YES 95.0%>= Major Accidents and Incidents per 85,000 Passenger Trips³ 0 YES 1.0<= Non-Major Accidents and Incidents per 85,000 Passenger Trips³ 0.00 YES 2.0<=

Note: Ridership goals were developed using budget projections.1 Mechanical failure that prevents the vehicle from completing a scheduled service due to limited vehicle movement or safety concerns.2 Goal is no more than one chargeable accident in a year.3 New ADA Paratransit Performance Indicators for Paratransit effective FY 2014

8

9.a

Ridership Summary

9.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYRIDERSHIP SUMMARY(Directly Operated, Inter-Agency Partners, and Contracted Services)Third Quarter FY 2015 Transit Operations Performance Report

FYTD 2015 (3rd Quarter)

FYTD 2014 (3rd Quarter) % Change

Directly Operated ServicesBus 24,219,512 24,257,525 -0.2% Average Weekday Riders 105,216 105,749 -0.5%

Light Rail 8,582,336 8,157,626 5.2% Average Weekday Riders 35,368 34,787 1.7%

Total Directly Operated Services 32,801,848 32,415,151 1.2% Average Weekday Riders 140,584 140,536 0.0%

Inter-Agency Partners

Dumbarton Express 234,776 238,632 -1.6% Average Weekday Riders 1,236 1,256 -1.6%

Highway 17 Express 280,834 269,311 4.3% Average Weekday Riders 1,165 1,120 4.0%

Monterey-San Jose Express 23,074 23,118 -0.2% Average Weekday Riders 83 83 0.0%Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) 891,791 801,212 11.3% Average Weekday Riders 4,736 4,239 11.7%

Caltrain 13,604,161 12,456,541 9.2% Average Weekday Riders 57,185 52,141 9.7%

Caltrain Shuttles (in Santa Clara County) 1,229,912 1,036,015 18.7% Average Weekday Riders 6,275 5,313 18.1%Contracted ServicesParatransit 538,915 543,211 -0.8% Average Weekday Riders 2,547 2,570 -0.9%

ACE Shuttles 311,244 280,262 11.1% Average Weekday Riders 1,656 1,483 11.7%

Total Contracted / Inter-Agency 8,457,122 7,669,029 10.3%

Combined Total Ridership (in Santa Clara County) 1 41,258,970 40,084,180 2.9%1 These figures are based on estimated ridership in the VTA service area for Caltrain, ACE, Highway 17 Express, Dumbarton Express, and Monterey-San Jose Express. Paratransit, Light Rail Shuttles, ACE Shuttles, and Caltrain Santa Clara County Shuttles are operated wholly within the service area, therefore, 100% of the ridership is included.

9

9.a

Route Performance

9.a

Route Destination Route Destination

10 Santa Clara Transit Ctr.-San Jose International Airport-Metro Airport LRT Station 70 Capitol LRT Station-Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr.

12 San Jose Civic Ctr.-Eastridge Transit Ctr. via San Jose Flea Market 71 Eastridge Transit Ctr.-Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr. via White Rd.

13* Almaden Expwy. & McKean-Ohlone/Chynoweth LRT Station 72 Senter & Monterey-Downtown San Jose

14* Gilroy Transit Ctr. to St. Louise Hospital 73 Snell/Capitol-Downtown San Jose 16* Morgan Hill Civic Ctr. to Burnett Ave. 77 Eastridge Tran Ctr.-Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr. via King Rd.

17* Gilroy Transit Ctr. to Monterey & Las Animas 81 Weekday-Vallco-San Jose State University ; Sat-Vallco-Santa Clara Tran.Ctr

18* Gilroy Transit Ctr. to Gavilan College 82 Westgate-Downtown San Jose 19* Gilroy Transit Ctr. to Wren & Mantelli 88* Palo Alto Veteran's Hospital-Middlefield & Colorado

22 Palo Alto Transit Ctr.-Eastridge Transit Ctr. via El Camino 89 California Ave. Caltrain Station-Palo Alto Veteran's Hospital

23 DeAnza College-Alum Rock Transit Ctr. via Stevens Creek 101 Camden & Hwy 85-Palo Alto

25 DeAnza College-Alum Rock Transit Ctr. via Valley Medical Ctr. 102 South San Jose-Palo Alto

26 Sunnyvale/Lockheed Martin Transit Ctr.-Eastridge Transit Ctr. 103 Eastridge Transit Ctr.-Palo Alto

27 Good Samaritan Hospital-Kaiser San Jose 104 Penitencia Creek Transit Ctr.-Palo Alto31 Evergreen Valley College-Eastridge Transit Ctr. 120 Fremont BART-Lockheed Martin/Moffett Park-Shoreline

32* San Antonio Shopping Ctr.-Santa Clara Transit Ctr. 121 Gilroy Transit Ctr.-Lockheed Martin/Moffett Park 34* San Antonio Shopping Ctr.-Downtown Mountain View 122 South San Jose-Lockheed Martin/Moffett Park35 Downtown Mountain View-Stanford Shopping Ctr. 140 Fremont BART-Mission College & Montague Expwy.

37* West Valley College-Capitol LRT Station 168 Gilroy Transit Ctr.-San Jose Diridon Transit Ctr. 39* The Villages-Eastridge Transit Ctr. 180 Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr./Aborn & White-Fremont BART

40 Weekday & Sat-Foothill College-La Avenida & Shoreline Sun-San Antonio & Lyell-La Avenida & Shoreline 181 San Jose Diridon Transit Ctr.-Fremont BART via Great Mall/Main

Transit Ctr. late evenings & weekends

42* Weekday-Kaiser San Jose-Evergreen Valley College Sat-Santa Teresa LRT-Monterey & Senter 182 Palo Alto-IBM/Bailey Ave.

45* Alum Rock Transit Ctr.-Penitencia Creek Transit Ctr. 201 DASH San Jose Diridon Station-Downtown San Jose LRT Stations46 Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr.-Milpitas High School 251 Fremont BART-Levi's Stadium (Gamedays Only)47 Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr.-McCarthy Ranch 252 Vallco-Levi's Stadium (Gamedays Only)

48* Los Gatos Civic Ctr.-Winchester Transit Ctr. via Winchester Blvd. 253 Gilroy/Morgan Hill-Levi's Stadium (Gamedays Only)

49* Los Gatos Civic Ctr.-Winchester Transit Ctr. via Los Gatos Blvd. 254 Eastridge Transit Ctr.-Levi's Stadium (Gamedays Only)

51 De Anza College-Moffett Field/Ames Ctr. 255 Almaden-Levi's Stadium (Gamedays Only)52 Foothill College-Downtown Mountain View 256 Ohlone-Chynoweth-Levi's Stadium (Gamedays Only)53 West Valley College-Sunnyvale Transit Ctr. 304 South San Jose-Sunnyvale Transit Ctr. via Arques54 De Anza College-Sunnyvale/Lockheed Martin Transit Ctr. 321 Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr.-Lockheed Martin/Moffett Park55 De Anza College-Great America 323 De Anza College-Downtown San Jose57 West Valley College-Great America via Quito Rd. 328 Almaden Expy. & Via Valiente-Lockheed Martin/Moffett Park58 West Valley College-Alviso via Fruitvale 330 Almaden Expy. & Via Valiente-Tasman Drive60 Winchester Transit Ctr.-Great America 522 Palo Alto Transit Ctr.-Eastridge Transit Ctr.61 Good Samaritan Hospital-Sierra & Piedmont via Bascom LRT Line 902 - Mountain View-Winchester62 Good Samaritan Hospital-Sierra & Piedmont via Union Line 901 - Alum Rock-Santa Teresa63 Almaden Expy & Camden-San Jose State University Line 900 - Ohlone/Chynoweth-Almaden

64 Almaden LRT Station-McKee & White via Downtown San Jose 970 Highway 17 Express - Santa Cruz & Scotts Valley-San Jose Diridon

Transit Ctr. 65* Kooser & Meridian-13th & Hedding 971 Dumbarton Express - Union City BART-Palo Alto

66 Kaiser San Jose-Milpitas/Dixon Rd. via Downtown San Jose 972 Monterey-San Jose Express (MST55)

68 Gilroy Transit Ctr.-San Jose Diridon Transit Ctr.

Route Listing

10

9.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYWeekday Boardings per revenue hourThird Quarter FY 2015 Transit Operations Performance Report

23.1 20.7

22.0 34.2

26.6 21.6

25.6 25.5

31.0 29.5

21.5 23.0

25.3 25.4

26.1 28.4

33.9 32.2

522

323

77

73

72

71

70

68

66

64

62

61

60

55

26

25

23

22

Core Standard: 26.4 boardings

per rvenue hour

22.1 24.3

15.6 18.4

15.6 22.4

26.6 26.4

19.0 24.9

23.9 25.2 25.5

16.2 17.7

17.4 22.1

89

82

81

63

58

57

54

53

52

51

47

46

40

35

31

27

10

Local Standard: 21.4 boardings

per revene hour

32.2

10.4

13.6

15.7

11.7

14.9

16.0

13.9

21.7

15.0

11.6

19.9

18.6

19.0

6.9

13.3

13.8

12.4

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

201

200

88

65

49

48

45

42

39

37

34

32

19

18

17

16

14

13

Community Bus Standard: 15.6 boardings

per revenue hour

24.7 ACEShuttles

Note: ACE shuttles are not considered in the calculation of the Community Bus standard, which is VTA-based only.

11

9.a


76.4

95.0

51.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Express Standard: is 60% Maximum Load

Factor

Light Rail Standard: 74.2 boardings

per revenue train hour

* Line 900 is the Ohlone/Chynoweth – Almaden line * Line 901 is the Alum Rock - Santa Teresa Line * Line 902 is the Mountain View - Winchester Line.

13.8

10.4

11.1

14.7

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

Limited Standard 15.0 Boarding Per

Revenue Hour

12

9.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYSaturday Boardings per revenue hourThird Quarter FY 2015 Transit Operations Performance Report

66.5

63.5

51.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

902*

901*

900* Light Rail Standard: 60.5

boardings per revenue

train hour

15.0

3.0

12.3

15.4

13.9

17.5

10.1

10.5

11.6

6.9

12.9

29.1

19.6

82

81

63

57

54

47

46

40

35

31

27

12

10

6.5

10.0

8.5

5.8

14.7

8.6

13.6

3.3

8.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60200

4948423932191814


per revenue hour


per revenue hour


17.2

25.9

18.1

19.9

19.9

15.3

20.3

22.2

22.9

18.3

17.1

13.6

17.8

13.9

19.5

21.7

26.3

27.1

522

323

77

73

72

71

70

68

66

64

62

61

60

55

26

25

23

22


per revenue hour

13

9.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYSunday Boardings per revenue hourThird Quarter FY 2015 Transit Operations Performance Report

53.0

34.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

902*

901*

900*Light Rail

Standard 60.6 boardings per revenue train hour

16.6

10.5

17.0

22.9

23.6

20.3

21.2

25.7

28.0

18.6

15.3

13.0

19.8

18.6

17.4

26.6

29.3

29.1

522

323

77

73

72

71

70

68

66

64

62

61

60

55

26

25

23

22


per revenue hour

14.5

11.2

15.2

12.5

18.1

10.4

14.1

6.1

11.4

17.1

22.5

82

63

57

54

47

40

35

31

27

12

10


per revenue hour

1.4

6.2

6.8

12.7

9.1

2.2

5.1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

200

49

48

39

19

18

14


per revenue hour

* Line 900 is the Ohlone/Chynoweth – Almaden line * Line 901 is the Alum Rock - Santa Teresa Line * Line 902 is the Mountain View - Winchester Line

14

9.a

Saturday / Sunday

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Express Routes Average Peak LoadThird Quarter FY 2015 Transit Operations Performance Report

Weekday

42.4%

56.3%

57.9%

47.9%

53.2%

52.4%

54.7%

63.7%

60.0%

31.2%

56.5%

39.7%

34.8%

44.0%

13.4%

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

101

102

103

104

120

121

122

140

168

180

181

182

DB

Hwy 17

MST 55

Express Standard: 60% Peak Load

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

Saturday, 51.3%

Sunday, 78.7%

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

181

181

15

9.a


23.1 20.7

22.0 34.2

26.6 21.6

25.6 25.5

31.0 29.5

21.5 23.0

25.3 25.4

26.1 28.4

33.9 32.2

522

323

77

73

72

71

70

68

66

64

62

61

60

55

26

25

23

22


per rvenue hour

22.1 24.3

15.6 18.4

15.6 22.4

26.6 26.4

19.0 24.9

23.9 25.2 25.5

16.2 17.7

17.4 22.1

89

82

81

63

58

57

54

53

52

51

47

46

40

35

31

27

10


per revene hour

32.2

10.4

13.6

15.7

11.7

14.9

16.0

13.9

21.7

15.0

11.6

19.9

18.6

19.0

6.9

13.3

13.8

12.4

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

201

200

88

65

49

48

45

42

39

37

34

32

19

18

17

16

14

13


per revenue hour

24.7 ACEShuttles

Note: ACE shuttles are not considered in the calculation of the Community Bus standard, which is VTA-based only.

11

9.a


76.4

95.0

51.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Express Standard: is 60% Maximum Load

Factor

Light Rail Standard: 75.6 boardings

per revenue train hour


13.8

10.4

11.1

14.7

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

Limited Standard 15.3 Boarding Per

Revenue Hour

12

9.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYSaturday Boardings per revenue hourThird Quarter FY 2015 Transit Operations Performance Report

66.5

63.5

51.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

902*

901*

900* Light Rail Standard: 59.4

boardings per revenue

train hour

15.0

3.0

12.3

15.4

13.9

17.5

10.1

10.5

11.6

6.9

12.9

29.1

19.6

82

81

63

57

54

47

46

40

35

31

27

12

10

6.5

10.0

8.5

5.8

14.7

8.6

13.6

3.3

8.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60200

4948423932191814

Local Standard: 17. boardings

per revenue hour


per revenue hour


17.2

25.9

18.1

19.9

19.9

15.3

20.3

22.2

22.9

18.3

17.1

13.6

17.8

13.9

19.5

21.7

26.3

27.1

522

323

77

73

72

71

70

68

66

64

62

61

60

55

26

25

23

22


per revenue hour

13

9.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYSunday Boardings per revenue hourThird Quarter FY 2015 Transit Operations Performance Report

53.0

34.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

902*

901*

900*Light Rail

Standard 64.4 boardings per revenue train hour

16.6

10.5

17.0

22.9

23.6

20.3

21.2

25.7

28.0

18.6

15.3

13.0

19.8

18.6

17.4

26.6

29.3

29.1

522

323

77

73

72

71

70

68

66

64

62

61

60

55

26

25

23

22


per revenue hour

14.5

11.2

15.2

12.5

18.1

10.4

14.1

6.1

11.4

17.1

22.5

82

63

57

54

47

40

35

31

27

12

10


per revenue hour

1.4

6.2

6.8

12.7

9.1

2.2

5.1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

200

49

48

39

19

18

14


per revenue hour

* Line 900 is the Ohlone/Chynoweth – Almaden line * Line 901 is the Alum Rock - Santa Teresa Line * Line 902 is the Mountain View - Winchester Line

14

9.a

Saturday / Sunday

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Express Routes Average Peak LoadThird Quarter FY 2015 Transit Operations Performance Report

Weekday

42.4%

56.3%

57.9%

47.9%

53.2%

52.4%

54.7%

63.7%

60.0%

31.2%

56.5%

39.7%

34.8%

44.0%

13.4%

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

101

102

103

104

120

121

122

140

168

180

181

182

DB

Hwy 17

MST 55

Express Standard: 60% Peak Load

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

Saturday, 51.3%

Sunday, 78.7%

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

181

181

15

9.a

Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time PeriodFY 2015 Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

Core Routes

WEEKDAYROUTE PEAK MIDDAY OFF PEAK TOTAL

22 27.0 41.8 29.2 32.223 28.3 42.6 29.7 33.9 Weekday Service Periods25 24.9 33.5 24.2 28.4 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM &26 21.8 35.0 21.2 26.1 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM55 22.6 32.2 22.5 25.4 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM60 20.6 35.1 20.4 25.3 Off Peak 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM61 19.9 31.8 11.3 23.062 19.0 27.1 11.8 21.564 26.0 37.3 16.6 29.566 25.4 41.5 26.4 31.068 20.5 36.3 21.7 25.570 22.4 30.9 21.9 25.671 18.5 27.9 20.8 21.672 23.5 31.0 25.5 26.673 27.9 43.4 27.6 34.277 19.9 25.5 18.5 22.0

323 19.3 23.1 11.7 20.7 Legend:522 21.0 26.2 23.3 23.1 Below standard

Standard 22.7 33.5 21.4 26.4 No Service

16

9.a


Core Routes

SATURDAYROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL

22 33.5 37.6 31.5 35.223 29.4 35.9 27.5 33.1 Saturday Service Periods25 23.3 26.7 23.7 25.9 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM26 25.4 24.1 24.8 24.4 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM55 20.2 18.8 19.0 19.0 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM60 26.5 21.7 21.1 22.161 12.7 20.7 8.1 17.062 19.3 19.6 13.7 18.964 17.9 23.8 15.1 21.366 21.4 33.2 19.6 27.868 23.1 32.9 21.3 28.270 25.4 27.2 25.0 26.671 44.2 23.3 19.9 24.372 21.3 25.5 20.4 24.273 22.5 27.0 29.4 26.577 22.1 29.2 28.0 28.3

522 13.8 20.0 16.3 18.7Standard 23.6 26.3 21.4 24.8

SUNDAYROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL

22 24.2 28.4 33.4 28.523 27.8 32.9 26.8 31.1 Sunday Service Periods25 21.9 31.6 16.7 27.5 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM26 13.8 15.9 20.4 16.0 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM55 16.6 18.6 17.2 18.3 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM60 21.6 24.3 12.5 22.261 9.5 14.8 6.1 12.662 14.9 16.2 10.1 15.364 15.3 19.5 12.4 18.066 22.4 32.2 18.7 27.968 18.1 30.8 21.6 25.970 19.3 22.3 18.7 21.471 12.3 19.9 16.5 18.372 23.4 23.7 19.2 23.073 18.0 24.1 16.6 22.577 14.5 16.7 12.5 16.2 Legend:

522 3.6 16.4 0.0 15.8 Below standardStandard 17.5 22.8 17.5 21.2 No Service

17

9.a

Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time PeriodFY 2015 Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance ReportLocal Routes

WEEKDAYROUTE PEAK MIDDAY OFF PEAK TOTAL

10 21.4 23.2 21.5 22.127 14.2 23.3 13.7 17.4 Weekday Service Periods31 15.5 22.4 10.8 17.7 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM &35 15.0 18.8 11.9 16.2 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM40 24.2 28.4 18.6 25.5 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM46 23.3 29.4 0.0 25.2 Off Peak 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM47 19.1 31.5 18.7 23.951 24.1 26.0 0.0 24.952 18.8 20.4 9.2 19.053 22.2 32.4 0.0 26.454 28.1 25.1 26.0 26.657 16.9 30.5 16.9 22.458 16.9 10.6 18.4 15.663 15.9 23.1 15.1 18.481 14.9 17.2 9.3 15.6 Legend:82 21.0 30.3 15.8 24.389 21.0 33.1 0.0 22.1 Below standard


18

9.a

Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time PeriodFY 2015 Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance ReportLocal Routes

SATURDAYROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL

10 18.2 27.9 16.6 22.812 0.0 25.4 0.0 25.427 18.5 18.5 10.5 17.8 Saturday Service Periods31 12.9 16.5 13.9 15.8 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM35 24.1 21.7 12.8 20.8 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM40 17.3 16.1 0.0 16.2 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM46 0.0 12.8 0.0 12.847 19.8 16.6 20.9 17.154 16.1 19.2 20.5 19.057 18.4 17.3 17.5 17.463 14.7 17.0 7.8 16.381 0.0 10.5 0.0 10.582 16.4 19.9 11.1 18.6

Standard 17.6 18.4 15.0 17.7

SUNDAYROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL

10 16.4 36.2 24.4 29.012 0.0 14.6 0.0 14.627 0.0 10.3 0.0 10.3 Sunday Service Periods31 0.0 4.5 0.0 4.5 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM35 12.2 13.5 6.4 13.0 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM40 0.0 9.3 0.0 9.3 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM47 31.6 16.1 16.2 16.554 6.8 12.5 2.2 11.857 13.6 20.9 4.5 18.763 0.0 10.5 0.0 10.5 Legend:82 0.0 12.9 0.0 12.9 Below standard


19

9.a

Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time PeriodFY 2015 Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance ReportCommunity BusWEEKDAY

ROUTE PEAK MIDDAY OFF PEAK TOTAL13 11.8 13.0 0.0 12.4 Weekday Service Periods14 11.6 15.2 0.0 13.8 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM &16 14.8 7.2 0.0 13.3 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM17 6.3 7.4 0.0 6.9 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM18 16.9 21.4 0.0 19.0 Off Peak 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM19 18.5 19.4 9.8 18.632 18.3 23.6 15.6 19.934 0.0 11.6 0.0 11.637 14.7 16.9 3.4 15.039 18.4 29.0 14.3 21.742 11.5 17.0 7.0 13.945 17.5 14.4 0.0 16.048 13.4 18.5 8.2 14.949 10.3 14.9 7.3 11.765 13.3 18.8 0.0 15.788 11.9 15.6 0.0 13.6200 0.0 0.0 10.4 10.4201 35.7 28.6 25.8 32.2

Standard 15.3 17.2 15.0 15.6

20

9.a

Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time PeriodFY 2015 Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance ReportCommunity Bus

SATURDAYROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL Saturday Service Periods

14 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM18 0.0 6.0 0.0 6.0 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM19 7.1 17.3 0.0 15.8 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM32 4.2 18.4 0.0 16.939 16.7 20.8 0.0 19.642 4.1 13.1 0.0 12.648 10.3 12.5 0.0 10.349 27.4 13.2 7.5 13.9200 0.0 0.0 6.8 6.8

Standard 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0

SUNDAYROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL Sunday Service Periods

14 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.3 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM18 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.3 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM19 5.5 6.9 0.0 6.739 0.0 9.6 0.0 9.648 0.0 5.7 0.0 5.749 0.0 5.1 0.0 5.1 Legend:

200 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Below standardStandard 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 No Service

21

9.a


Light Rail

WEEKDAYROUTE PEAK MIDDAY OFF PEAK TOTAL Weekday Service Periods

900* 54.2 56.6 36.2 51.2 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM &901* 87.5 135.5 59.7 95.0 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM902* 70.5 108.4 59.5 76.4 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM

Standard 70.7 100.2 51.8 74.2 Off Peak 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM

SATURDAYROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL Saturday Service Periods

900* 62.6 129.3 90.4 114.8 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM901* 64.1 147.6 112.3 120.6 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM902* 75.2 144.0 112.7 121.8 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM

Standard 67.3 140.3 105.1 119.1

SUNDAYROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL Sunday Service Periods

900* 17.6 45.7 30.1 39.7 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM901* 38.7 90.1 63.2 72.3 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM902* 46.4 104.9 60.2 81.3 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM

Standard 34.2 80.2 51.2 64.4Legend:Below standard No Service

* Line 900 is the Ohlone/Chynoweth – Almaden line * Line 901 is the Alum Rock to Santa Teresa Line * Line 902 is the Mountain View to Winchester Line.

22

9.a

Paratransit Operating

Statistics

9.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYPARATRANSIT OPERATING STATISTICSThird Quarter FY 2015 Transit Operations Performance Report

FYTD 2015 3rd Quarter

FYTD 2014 3rd Quarter Percent Change

RIDERSHIPClients 381,229 390,933 -2.5%Attendants 87,004 86,074 1.1%Companions 70,682 66,204 6.8%

Total Ridership 538,915 543,211 -0.8%Average Weekday Trips 2,547 2,570 -0.9%Average Weekday Client Trips 1,796 1,846 -2.7%Active Clients 6,846 7,398 -7.5%Average Trips per Client 56 53 5.4%PREMIUM SERVICESSame Day Trips 1,108 1,098 0.9%Second Vehicles 124 161 -23.0%Open Returns 195 320 -39.1%Service Area Surcharge Trips 2,144 2,190 -2.1%Subscription Trips 68,634 75,227 -8.8%

Total 72,205 78,996 -8.6%LEVEL OF SERVICERevenue Miles 4,373,039 4,610,440 -5.1%Revenue Hours 209,810 213,203 -1.6%Passenger Miles (NTD) 5,091,221 6,020,426 -15.4%ELIGIBILITYTotal Data Cards Received 5,137 5,178 -0.8%New Applicants Certified 1,682 1,626 3.4%New Applicants Denied 401 431 -7.0%Clients Recertified 1,798 1,817 -1.0%Clients Denied Recertification 475 488 -2.7%

Total Eligibility Assessments 4,356 4,362 -0.1%EXPENSES AND REVENUES

EXPENSESEligibility Certification Costs $457,379 $393,533 16.2%Broker Costs $3,173,250 $2,698,592 17.6%Vendor Costs $11,699,648 $11,557,943 1.2%

Total Operating Costs $15,330,277 $14,650,068 4.6%REVENUES

Client Fare $1,451,331 $1,482,561 -2.1%Other Fare $959,306 $769,008 24.7%Non-VTA Broker Revenue $11,116 $10,336 7.5%

Total Revenue $2,421,752 $2,261,906 7.1%Net Expenses $12,908,525 $12,388,162 4.2%

Fare Recovery Rate 15.72% 15.37% 2.3%Capital Expenses $69,259 $60,619 14.3%Total Expenses $12,977,784 $12,448,781 4.2%

COST PER PASSENGER TRIP (excludes capital expenses)Total Reported Costs $28.45 $26.97 5.5%Fare Revenue $4.47 $4.14 7.9%Non-fare revenue $0.02 $0.02 0.0%

Net Cost $23.95 $22.80 5.0%

22

9.a

Glossary

9.a

GLOSSARY

AVERAGE FARE PER BOARDING – This measure is calculated by dividing the total fare revenue (cash, passes, tokens, and Eco Pass) by total boarding riders. It measures the rider contribution towards the farebox recovery ratio. AVERAGE WEEKDAY BOARDINGS – The average number of persons who board the transit system on a day that normal weekday revenue service is provided. BOARDINGS PER REVENUE HOUR – This is a productivity measure comparing the number of boardings to the number of revenue hours operated. It measures service utilization per unit of service operated. The Revenue hours is the time when a vehicle is available to the general public to carry passengers. This will include layover but exclude deadheads. BRT (BUS RAPID TRANSIT) ROUTES – The BRT route is a multi-component transit improvement that includes preferential treatment at traffic signals to improve bus operating speed and on-time performance. It operates in mixed traffic and relies on priority for buses at traffic signals to provide much of its time advantage over conventional buses. COMMUNITY BUS ROUTES – Community Bus service is characterized by weekday frequencies of 30 minutes or more in both the peak and midday periods. Service span is 14 hours or less, usually 12 hours for weekdays. Community Bus services operate seven days per week or less. These routes are defined as neighborhood-based circulator and feeder routes that travel within a limited area .They may be distinguished from Core and Local service by a unique and smaller vehicle. CORE ROUTES – Core network routes are defined as bus routes or shared corridors that feature weekday frequencies of 15 minutes or less during the peak and midday periods and/or service spans of 18 hours or more. Core routes operate seven days per week. They typically travel on long distance corridors, which connect major trip generators such as universities, regional shopping malls and high-density housing and employment sites. Multiple core routes will sometimes operate on the same corridor where demand warrants, providing additional service frequency and transfer opportunities. Core network corridors are typically large arterial streets and intersect with freeways and expressways. DEADHEAD: Time during movement of a transit vehicle without passengers aboard, typically from the operating division to the start of the route. EXPRESS & LIMITED SERVICE ROUTES – Express routes generally operate during peak periods and are primarily commuter oriented. Midday, evening, and weekend service may be offered on regional express lines. Express routes emphasize direct service, use freeways and expressways to reduce travel time, and make few stops. Limited Service routes are characterized by limited stops. FEEDER ROUTES – Feeder routes are short-length lines, usually less than 10 miles in length, that provide feeder or distribution service to and from major stops, transit centers, activity centers or rail stations. This classification of service includes neighborhood lines, which link residential areas to rail stations, activity centers, and/or transit centers; and shuttle lines, which serve industrial areas from nearby rail stations or transit centers.

9.a

LAYOVER: Break the driver or the vehicle is given at the end of a trip before it starts operating its reverse route, or if the route is circular, before beginning its next trip LIMITED STOP ROUTES – Limited-stop service generally operates during peak periods and is primarily commuter oriented. Midday, evening, and weekend service may be offered on limited-stop lines. Limited-stop routes use major arterials, freeways, and/or expressways; and make fewer stops than grid routes, but more stops than express routes. LOCAL ROUTES – Local network routes are defined as bus routes or corridors that feature weekday frequencies of thirty minutes or more during the peak and midday periods and/or service spans less than 18 hours. Local Network routes operate seven days per week or less. They typically travel on medium distance corridors, serving minor trip generators such as schools, hospitals and medium-density housing and employment. They also provide feeder service to the core network or to rail stations and transit centers. MILES BETWEEN CHARGEABLE ACCIDENTS – Safety measure that captures the number of total scheduled miles traveled between each occurrence of a preventable accident. A preventable accident is defined as accidents in which the transit driver is normally deemed responsible or partly responsible for the occurrence of the accident. MILES BETWEEN MECHANICAL SERVICE LOSS – Service quality measure capturing the number of total scheduled miles traveled between each mechanical breakdown that result in a loss of service to the public. SPECIAL SERVICE ROUTES – Special services routes only operate on certain days of the week or on a seasonal basis to address a specific service need. NATIONAL TRANSIT DATABASE (NTD) – The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA's) primary national database for statistics on the transit industry. Recipients of FTA’s Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307) grants are required by statute to submit data to the NTD. Each year, NTD performance data are used to apportion over $4 billion of FTA funds to transit agencies in urbanized areas (UZAs). Annual NTD reports are submitted to Congress summarizing transit service and safety data. The NTD is the system through which FTA collects uniform data needed by the Secretary of Transportation to administer department programs. The data consist of selected financial and operating data that describe public transportation characteristics. The legislative requirement for the NTD is found in Title 49 U.S.C. 5335(a). ON-TIME PERFORMANCE – A reliability measure capturing the percentage of transit vehicles departing or arriving at a location on time. On-time performance is measured only for specific locations called timepoints for which a schedule is published. A bus transit vehicle is considered “on time” if it departs a location within three minutes before and five minutes after its published scheduled time. A light rail transit vehicle is considered “on time” if it departs a location within one minute before and three minutes after its published scheduled time. At the last timepoint location of a trip, early arrival is considered on-time. PASSENGER CONCERNS PER 100,000 BOARDINGS – A customer service measure that captures the number of passenger complaints/concerns per 100,000 boardings. This measure reports the amount of customer complaints received on the service that is attributed to an operating division.

9.a

PEAK LOAD (Express) - The Express bus standard is 60 percent of the seated vehicle loading capacity. This singular standard is needed due to the special characteristics of Express Bus lines where seat turnover is low. PERCENT SCHEDULED SERVICE OPERATED – This service reliability measure indicates the percent of service hours completed based on published schedule. A service is considered not completed when scheduled service hours are lost due to equipment failure, missed or late pull-outs caused by operator absenteeism, pullouts, accidents/incidents, or natural causes. PERSONAL TIME OFF (PTO) – This is defined as time off for non-scheduled absences such as: sick, industrial injury, FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act.), excused/unexcused leave, union business, and suspensions. REVENUE HOURS: Time when a vehicle is available to the general public to carry passengers. This will include layover but exclude deadhead. STANDARD (Boardings per revenue Hour): This is the average boardings per Revenue Hour and applies to Community Bus, Local, BRT, and Light Rail. The minimum standard is 15 boardings per revenue hour. TOTAL BOARDINGS – The total number of boarding riders using VTA directly operated bus service and light rail service. Riders are counted each time they board a bus or light rail vehicle.

9.a

transit planning & operations committee...

Documents