A proposal to create bus-only lanes on El Camino Real between Palo Alto and San Jose has hit a political speed bump, with a committee of elected officials from cities along the corridor coming out against the controversial reconfiguration and requesting an analysis of new alternatives.
The committee of elected officials, known as the El Camino Rapid Transit Policy Advisory Board, includes council members from all the Santa Clara County cities along the route, including Lenny Seigel from Mountain View and Cory Wolbach from Palo Alto. Chaired by Los Altos Mayor Pro Tem Jeannie Bruins, the group has been meeting monthly with staff from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to offer feedback about Bus Rapid Transit, the VTA's proposal to greatly improve bus ridership along the busy artery.
Of the seven options that the VTA has analyzed in its draft Environmental Impact Report, none has faced more scrutiny, criticism and opposition from the committee than the proposal to transform the left lanes of El Camino into bus-only lanes. This alternative, according to the draft EIR, would drop the time it takes to ride the bus from Palo Alto to San Jose from the current 85 minutes to 48 minutes.
Staff from the VTA and supporters of the dedicated-lanes proposal see this configuration as the most promising vehicle for enhancing the transit system and encouraging people to switch from cars to buses. Other alternatives on the table include "mixed-flow" lanes, in which Bus Rapid Transit shares the right lane with cars, and different combination of mixed-use and dedicated lanes. The VTA's board of directors is scheduled to make a decision about alternatives in December or January.
Yet council members from cities along the proposed route remain skeptical about dedicating two of El Camino's six lanes to the VTA buses. On Sept. 30, the advisory committee agreed that the transit agency should slow down and take a fresh look at other, less dramatic, alternatives. The advisory was scheduled to hear the VTA's response to its request during its monthly meeting Wednesday afternoon, Oct. 28, after the Voice's press deadline.
According to meeting minutes, the committee made its formal request for a fresh analysis of options on Sept. 30, after numerous council members raised concerns about dedicating El Camino lanes for buses. Chair Jeannie Bruins, noted at the meeting that "a dedicated lane for BRT-only is not supported by the Committee," according to the minutes. She also said the committee would like the VTA to look at the benefits "of a shared-use lane at the right curb with the appropriate environmental review."
The committee also reached consensus in other areas, according to the minutes. This includes supporting dedicated lanes "with some shared use" beyond Bus Rapid Transit. The shared use could include emergency vehicles, private buses, local buses and high-occupancy vehicles, according to the minutes.
In an interview Wednesday, Siegel said that the committee hasn't made any final decision about whether to support dedicated lane. Committee members, he said, still "reserve our opportunity to favor mixed-flow." But the big concern about dedicated lanes, he said, is that under the VTA proposal they would be dedicated solely for BRT. Siegel said the system would make more sense if the new BRT station were integrated with the local bus system so that commuters wouldn't have to run across the street from the standard bus stations (which remain near the curb) and the new BRT stations, which would be built in islands near the left lane.
Another option that Siegel said should be considered is having the lane dedicated to buses only during certain times of the day.
"The idea is to not have a virtually empty lane reserved for one or two buses," Siegel said.
Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian, a former Palo Alto mayor who sits on the advisory committee, offered his own concerns about the dedicated-lanes proposal at the Sept. 30 meeting. Simitian said he was concerned about the lack of "political will" for the project, according to the minutes. Simitian also said he is "not persuaded that the public benefit derived from a dedicated lane is worth the financial cost and the adverse impact on other commuters and other users of the corridor."
Simitian made a similar point last month, during his annual joint meeting with the Palo Alto City Council. At that time, Simitian advocated for having the VTA complete its initial BRT project, in San Jose. That project, which runs along Santa Clara Street, Alum Rock Avenue, Capitol Avenue and Capitol Expressway, is now facing significant delays after construction was halted in July for a "safety shutdown" relating to utilities, according to the VTA. The transit agency also abruptly nixed its agreement with its primary contractor, Goodfellow Top Grade Construction, and is now exploring "alternative delivery methods for bringing BRT to this corridor," according to a VTA announcement. It is now slated to be completed in 2017.
At that joint meeting, Simitian noted that just about every city in the north county has expressed concerns about the dedicated-lanes design. In Palo Alto, Los Altos, Mountain View and Sunnyvale, not a single City Council has a majority that supports the project (though the Mountain View council, which once opposed the project, voted 3-2 in April to support it, with two members recusing themselves). Simitian said that the public is unprepared at this time to understand the VTA's modeling and data.
"I think it would be unwise to push ahead," Simitian said.
At the Sept. 30 meeting, the advisory committee specifically requested that the VTA explore in its environmental analysis two new alternatives, each with four variations. One alternative would involve a right-lane transit lane; another would focus on curbside transit lanes. The analysis would involve looking at each alternative with just buses; with buses and private shuttles; with buses and high-occupancy (carpool) lanes; and with buses, private shuttles and high-occupancy lanes, according to a report from John Ristow, the VTA's director of planning and program development.
This request, however, could spell more delays and cost increases for the El Camino project. According to the report from Ristow, which the committee is scheduled to consider at its Oct. 28 meeting, such an analysis would take between one and two years to complete and cost between $1 million and $2 million. Under the current schedule, construction would begin in 2018 and be completed by 2010.
If the committee wants to move ahead with the request for new analysis, it would have to draft a letter to the VTA board of directors, advising them to increase the scope of the project and its budget. This action could be considered on Nov. 18, according to Ristow. The board of directors would then consider the request in December. If it approves the contract amendment, VTA would then spend three to four months to conduct a "preliminary analysis" that would determine which alternatives merit a more thorough environmental analysis.
Siegel said that even with the additional costs and delays, he believes the study would be "definitely worthwhile." If the study shows that having transit in the right-lane makes sense, this alternative would prompt significant savings over the dedicated-lane proposal.
"We'd end up saving a lot of money over the rather expensive proposal for changing the medians all the way up and down El Camino," Siegel said. "If we're right, it would save money."
Comments
Cuesta Park
on Oct 28, 2015 at 2:24 pm
on Oct 28, 2015 at 2:24 pm
The Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Sunnyvale, City Councils are concerned thMountain View, does the City Council not understand, or not care, about this.
Stierlin Estates
on Oct 28, 2015 at 2:32 pm
on Oct 28, 2015 at 2:32 pm
It isn't that the public is "unprepared to understand VTA modeling and data".
We do understand their modeling and data. They lie to us.
Pretty easy to understand, really.
Sylvan Park
on Oct 28, 2015 at 3:32 pm
on Oct 28, 2015 at 3:32 pm
Here is my assessment and prediction. The VTA "rapid transit" bus-only lanes on El Camino would be all set to receive the "green light" from most of the politicians on the VTA Board of Directors except that approval would jeopardize the VTA's planned 2016 sales tax increase measure. So, the VTA Board majority will say that the project will not go forward unless and until there is more support in the most affected cities. Then, as soon as the measure were approved by voters, it would be full speed ahead with seizing the lanes. But voters will be so informed - and combined with other critics of other VTA projects, ripoffs and mismanagement - the VTA's ballot measure(s) should be defeated. After losing in the election, the VTA would surely prepare another ballot measure - this time containing a legally binding promise to NOT seize the lanes on El Camino or engage in other specified undesirable projects. That second measure might be approved - although the earlier criticism would haunt the VTA and the Board of Supervisors might propose its own sales tax increase measure which could outlaw the tranfer of funds to the VTA unless the VTA were barred from undertaking certain projects. In the alternative, opponents will mysteriously be run over by experimental self-driving buses.
Monta Loma
on Oct 28, 2015 at 4:23 pm
on Oct 28, 2015 at 4:23 pm
We should be making car travel a lot easier, because with all the building going on we will need it. We are a car centric state period.
Suggestions on improving traffic, make the highways double deckers. We have lots of buildings that are over 2 stories high, why not highways? And no need to use eminent domain this way.
Like a child grows, so must it's blood vessels. Same with highways and byways.
Cars are not going away, might as well make it a better place with less traffic.
Anyone else have a good idea for making roads better?
VTA is not the solution for the majority!!
Waverly Park
on Oct 28, 2015 at 4:27 pm
on Oct 28, 2015 at 4:27 pm
Build more roads? Yeah, right. If you want this area to have the air quality of Beijing, that is...
[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
another community
on Oct 28, 2015 at 4:31 pm
on Oct 28, 2015 at 4:31 pm
No matter what the right decision is for BRT on El Camino Real, waiting two years is clearly no problem at all.
It might give time to try more options, such as having the existing 522 bus make additional stops to see if this provides better service to the riders, all things considered. The whole BRT plan hinges on being able to board more riders on the infrequent stops of the 522 service, just about the same 1 per 2 miles that exists now. In some places stops would be eliminated off the 522 service, when converting to BRT.
Meanwhile, BRT service on Eastridge to Diridon Transit Center is already delayed by 2 years itself. When it finally starts operating, the BRT vehicles will make the 522 runs through Mountain View. That might also provide some useful data. Since this will take 2 years,it makes sense to delay a lane dedicating solution for 3 years.
Monta Loma
on Oct 28, 2015 at 4:37 pm
on Oct 28, 2015 at 4:37 pm
[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
Waverly Park
on Oct 28, 2015 at 4:41 pm
on Oct 28, 2015 at 4:41 pm
[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
Blossom Valley
on Oct 28, 2015 at 5:00 pm
on Oct 28, 2015 at 5:00 pm
No El-Camino-only solution will increase ridership by a useful amount. To do that, VTA will have to add feeder routes so that prospective riders can get to and from El Camino in the first place. and the service on those routes will need to be frequent. That's how you get people to leave cars - give them a useful alternative that goes where they need to go, and does so without walking miles at each end.
Old Mountain View
on Oct 28, 2015 at 6:34 pm
on Oct 28, 2015 at 6:34 pm
Many thanks to the El Camino Rapid Transit Policy Advisory Board for this.
I could see a mixed-use right lane concept, restricted at peak hours to carpools, BRT, local buses, shuttles and emergency vehicles, with bus turnouts, and not bulb-outs.
Closing two El Camino Lanes to autos permanently and dedicating them to BRT was a terrible, unrealistic idea. It's appalling that this plan has gotten as far as it did. If VTA pushes lane closure through in spite of widespread public opposition, the 2016 VTA sales tax will be in serious trouble.
Sylvan Park
on Oct 28, 2015 at 7:04 pm
on Oct 28, 2015 at 7:04 pm
Increasing Cal Train capacity would be the best option along with a fare reduction for the poor. Cal Train capacity could be increased in several ways such as adding two more cars to trains at high capacity time, these cars would not have access to the station platforms but could be accessed from the adjoining car with little time lost. A second way would be more trains with less time between trains, this would probably require better train control but would be worth the money and would seem to be doable technology, also more tracks could be added at a high cost.
At any rate taking away already crowded lanes on El Camino while building high density apartments, condos, and offices is sheer madness or simply stupid.
Also hink of the pollution caused by all the cars waiting and waiting to move a little with their engines burning gas and spitting out bad things.
Probably not enough room but I wonder if paved bus lanes could be added to the Cal Train right of way?
another community
on Oct 29, 2015 at 8:22 am
on Oct 29, 2015 at 8:22 am
I agree that a decision on BRT needn't be rushed and that it makes sense to see how the under-construction BRT line in San Jose. No matter how the BRT discussion turns out, however, the proposed sales tax increase on the 2016 ballot needs a strong "NO" vote. Over the last several elections, voters in Santa Clara County have passed multiple tax and fee increases including VTA’s 2000 Measure A ½-cent and 2008 measure B ¼-cent sales taxes, Santa Clara County’s Measure A 1/8 cent sales tax, the state prop 30 ¼ cent sales tax and the 2010 Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee of $10. Additionally, we’re on the hook to pay back numerous state bond issues including high speed rail, last year’s Proposition 1 water bond and the infrastructure bonds of 2006.
All of this nickel and diming has contributed into making the Bay Area a horribly expensive place to live; especially for people of modest means, who must pay the greatest percentage of their income in these regressive taxes and fees. Each increase by itself does not amount to much, say a quarter cent, but the cumulative effect is to add to the unaffordability of the region.
Before increasing taxes YET AGAIN, waste needs to be removed from transportation projects. For example, VTA needs to eliminate waste and “gold plating†of the BART money pit's cost by reducing the scope to eliminate duplicate facilities. Specifically, a revised “build alternative†needs to be added to the study that eliminates the duplicative and wasteful section between the San Jose and Santa Clara Caltrain stations. The BART segment from the San Jose to Santa Clara Caltrain stations would duplicate both the existing Caltrain line and VTA’s 22 and 522 buses to a station that has only about 1000 riders per weekday.