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 (BRT), 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 (EIR), 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.
On Wednesday, in a continuation of its Sept. 30 discussion, the committee of local officials directed VTA staff to 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.
According to meeting minutes, the committee made its first request for a fresh analysis of options on Sept. 30, after numerous council members raised concerns about dedicating El Camino lanes for buses. On Wednesday afternoon, they reaffirmed this direction and asked staff to return with a contract amendment that could be sent to the VTA board, enabling the additional work.
In recent discussions, the committee also agreed that, if implemented, dedicated lanes should include vehicles beyond Bus Rapid Transit buses. The shared use could include emergency vehicles, private buses, local buses and high-occupancy vehicles, according to the minutes.
Siegel is among the leading proponents of studying this option. He said in an interview that 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) to 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, has been more forceful in his opposition to designating left lanes on El Camino for Bus Rapid Transit. In recent meetings, both with VTA officials and with the Palo Alto City Council, Simitian advocated for the transit agency to complete its first BRT project, in San Jose, before moving on to El Camino. 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 recently 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.
Simitian came out swinging Wednesday against creating a dedicated lane near the median and urged like-minded colleagues to send a strong message to the VTA board that the option should not be considered. San Jose Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio agreed and tried to make a motion to eliminate this option, but the rest of the committee agreed that it should remain among the alternatives considered.
Staff from the VTA offered several reasons why the dedicated-lane proposal should be taken seriously. VTA Transportation Planner Adam Burgers said the dedicated-lane proposal would put the agency in the best position to tap into federal funding for the $243-million project. That's because this alternative has been shown to have the most potential for increasing transit ridership and decreasing the time it takes for a commuter to reach a destination.
Simitian wasn't swayed by this argument, noting that it's very possible for federal funding not to materialize, regardless of what alternative is chosen.
"We can do the best job in the world and there will still be no guarantee to accessing these funds," Simitian said.
He cited his recent experiences in the state Senate with another controversial transit project: high-speed rail. In that project, Simitian said, the state made a $68-billion commitment to the system to access between $3 billion and $3.5 billion for future federal funding.
"I'm just anxious about spending federal dollars that have yet to materialize (and that) we have no guarantee of ever materializing, even if we spend a quarter billion," Simitian said.
Simitian was equally unswayed by the VTA's argument that deteriorating "levels of service" (a measure of performance for roads and intersections) will become a less relevant factor for measuring impact because of revisions currently under way to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Once implemented, new guidelines are expected to focus on things like vehicle-miles traveled and vehicles miles traveled per capita, rather than automobile delay and congestion. Once the change takes place, traffic congestion will no longer be considered a "significant impact" on the environment under state law, according to the VTA.
But Simitian noted that these guidelines have yet to be adopted and, even if they were, it wouldn't change the fact that traffic is getting worse.
"As an everyday matter of common parlance, slower is slower whether you want to call it a 'significant impact on the environment' or not," Simitian said. "It doesn't change the impact there, it simply changes the terminology."
Other members were more measured in their criticism of the alternative known as "4c," which would turn the left lanes on El Camino into BRT lanes. While not a single member of committee advocated for this option, many felt it should be included in the analysis. Bruins said she is "not ready to give up the median." And Siegel, while noting that he leans toward the "mixed-flow" alternative, urged more evaluation before ruling anything out.
"I'm against it, but I'm not ready to eliminate is as an option," Seigel said, in urging more study.
County Supervisor Ken Yeager called the curbside-lane proposal the "most doable" one, citing local opposition to dedicated lanes near the median. Though the curbside-lane design "doesn't get us exactly to where we want," Yeager said he doesn't think median lanes will happen, given the resistance.
Wolbach, however, said that he is not prepared to "completely rule out" a dedicated center lane for BRT, shuttles and carpool lanes. Though he said that Palo Alto is currently not in favor of this alignment, he has many constituents who support it. Wolbach also said he thinks a curbside lane is "probably the best" option.
The committee also agreed on Wednesday with a proposal by San Jose Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio's proposal that the VTA consider smaller-scale "pilot projects" that could be implemented in the short term and that would require little more than a painted curb in the right or curbside lane (the latter proposal would require the removal of parking spots along El Camino).
Oliverio acknowledged that "nothing we do will make everyone happy." He suggested going with a small-scale project that would not require a full environmental analysis.
"I'd rather just move forward and try something," he said.
The committee of council members agreed that a pilot should be considered and directed VTA staff to return at a later meeting with further analysis of what it would take to implement the trial.
While the VTA has yet to determine what it would take to analyze the eight new options, an early estimate from the agency suggests that the additional study 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.
These impacts notwithstanding, the committee agreed on Wednesday to request the analysis. The group is scheduled to approve on Nov. 18 a letter to the VTA board urging the additional work. 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 in an interview 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."
Related content:
• Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority seeks to reassure critics of bus-only lanes
• Palo Alto officials protest rapid-bus plan
• Plan for dedicated bus lanes on El Camino Real back on the table
Comments
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 29, 2015 at 11:48 am
on Oct 29, 2015 at 11:48 am
Yes, BRT, as it was originally proposed, only made sense to the clinically insane. I'm glad the clear thinkers are now on the case.
Registered user
Slater
on Oct 29, 2015 at 1:47 pm
Registered user
on Oct 29, 2015 at 1:47 pm
I want to thank Councilman Siegel, Supervisor Simitian, and Councilman Oliverio for the principled and intelligent stands they've taken on this issue.
Dedicating two lanes on ECR to a bus service that will come at most once every ten minutes is a poor use of the limited roadway we have on El Camino Real. The right-hand-lanes and curbside-lanes options are vastly superior to the left-hand-lanes proposal, not only in terms of roadway utilization, throughput, rider safety, and ease of transferring between the local and express services, but also in terms of capital costs. As was reported, the some of the right hand lane options "would require little more than a painted curb in the right or curbside lane". How about we try that solution before we commit to the quarter-billion-dollar one?
I also hope that the rush-hours-only scenario is explicitly enumerated as one of the configurations to be studied in the next round of studies.
Cuesta Park
on Oct 30, 2015 at 8:00 am
on Oct 30, 2015 at 8:00 am
[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2015 at 8:58 am
on Oct 30, 2015 at 8:58 am
That's an absurd generalization. The plan is stupid because of how they want to go about it with designated lanes. It has nothing to do with who rides the bus, and if you actually did ride the bus, you would realize how ignorant the above post actually is.
Registered user
Waverly Park
on Oct 30, 2015 at 9:23 am
Registered user
on Oct 30, 2015 at 9:23 am
The VTA's BRT plan assumes that El Camino traffic will divert onto neighboring side streets running parallel. The problem in Mountain View is that such streets don't exist many places. Around Hwy 85 is a particular bottle neck and barrier.
And, although our Council voted last time to support BRT, they now are proposing taking away half the capacity of California Ave, one of those few parallel streets that is supposed to take on the displaced cars from El Camino.
Very glad to have Lenny Siegel on this Advisory Board. He seems to be one of the few who can hold multiple thoughts in his mind at one to realize when they don't all work together.
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2015 at 9:32 am
on Oct 30, 2015 at 9:32 am
BRT cannot affect CA avenue if it is not put forward. At this time there is very little support for it to go fwd, with a growing group of voters opposed to BRT now keenly watching it.
Registered user
Monta Loma
on Oct 30, 2015 at 9:57 am
Registered user
on Oct 30, 2015 at 9:57 am
Wow, Obvious Guy. That's some grade-A ignorance. I think your friends would suggest that you not proudly display your fear of the poors?
I rode the SamTrans ECR from Daly City to San Mateo yesterday, and it was super convenient for getting from the auto mechanic that was offering a deal, to another workplace. It was also super slow. It was used by hispanic people going to jobs at malls, and by white & asian teenagers.
The idea of putting the BRT lane next to the curb is great... I hate having to cross busy traffic lanes to get to a lonely smoggy transit stop out in the middle of windblown streets (I'm looking at you, T-3rd Muni train).
Bailey Park
on Oct 30, 2015 at 11:28 am
on Oct 30, 2015 at 11:28 am
If you MUST dedicate El Camino lanes, make sure they are usable by all buses, carpools and other HOV vehicles. Not everyone can take buses to their destinations, so allow for smart use of vehicles with multiple riders! And dedicate the RIGHT lane to this use only during rush hours. Use Lawrence Expressway as a model - I don't know if that is an ideal model, but I've been down it often enough to know that it helps the traffic.
Whatever you do, don't put in a BRT only left lane that is unused the majority of the day and drops riders off in the middle of El Camino. Pedestrian safety must be considered as the number one concern.
another community
on Oct 30, 2015 at 1:20 pm
on Oct 30, 2015 at 1:20 pm
Apparently the whole idea of having 2 separate routes on El Camino Real covering the same distance but only one having a priority lane is unusual in the context of BRT.
Take a look at this report in a mass transit trade journal: Web Link
Sylvan Park
on Nov 1, 2015 at 9:40 am
on Nov 1, 2015 at 9:40 am
The very part-time VTA Board of Directors meets next Thursday evening at the Board of Supervisors chambers, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose. One agenda item (8.3) proposes to set aside money to pay something to businesses in San Jose that have lost money because of delays in building the bus-only lanes and median stations on streets leading to The Alameda and El Camino (essentially phase one of the plan for VTA bus-only lanes in several places). If the business owners in San Jose think the project has cost them money, they ain't seen nothing yet. Nothing is what they will make when the bus-only lanes are finally operational, many left and u-turns vanish or are greatly delayed, traffic in remaining lanes stalls and drivers search for other routes. It is a prelude to disaster on El Camino and everywhere the VTA seizes lanes for this or that occasional bus.
Sylvan Park
on Nov 1, 2015 at 10:05 am
on Nov 1, 2015 at 10:05 am
Correction: item 9.3. The November 5 meeting starts at 5:30. It could take an hour or two to get to item 9.3. Any Mountain Viewers wishing to attend could take a couple of light rail vehicles or a couple of buses. I am pretty sure most members of the VTA Board will just drive there.
North Whisman
on Nov 1, 2015 at 12:29 pm
on Nov 1, 2015 at 12:29 pm
VTA bus rider revealed
Mtn View City staff noted that just over 300 people on average rode the Mtn View shuttle each day in August, or about 10 riders per hour. In comparison, the
Valley Transit Authority (VTA) bus routes 34 and 35, which travel from downtown Mountain View to San Antonio and Stanford shopping centers, respectively, average about 27 riders per hour, according to VTA officials.
another community
on Nov 1, 2015 at 2:28 pm
on Nov 1, 2015 at 2:28 pm
The article saying the VTA 34 and 35 routes have ridership of 27 per hour was wrong. VTA has published data in their annual reports on system performance. The 2014 report has the Q4 2014 data in it. This shows the weekday only 34 route, at 11 riders per hour, not 27. Their goal for such service (community bus) is 15 riders per hour. For the 35 route they report weekday usage of 17 riders per hour. They get the best ridership on 35 on Saturdays, where it moves to 22 riders per hour.
There is every reason to think that these local shuttle services are worthwhile, since they then connect people with other routes. The message would be to do more of this, and to have more stops on El Camino Real to provide "last mile" service to 522/22 which should be combined into one route with more stops than 522 and fewer than 22 has now.
Shoreline West
on Nov 4, 2015 at 2:03 pm
on Nov 4, 2015 at 2:03 pm
The City Council of Mountain View voted for high density housing on El Camino.
Within the next 3 years it will all be completed. As you can see this means two incomes in order to afford an apartment or condo. What does that mean two cars for each household. Our cars are a form of independence and we cannot depend upon taking the bus whenever we want. So we drive our cars. That means more cars on El Camino. Two City Council members abstained from the vote. The one City Council member said that hardly anyone rides the bus. Then putting the bus stations in the center of El Camino would be a disaster. That's an accident in the works with cars running yellow lights into the red light.
Sylvan Park
on Nov 9, 2015 at 1:22 am
on Nov 9, 2015 at 1:22 am
On Nov. 5. the VTA Board of Directors dod vote to authorize some financial assistance for small businesses harmed by construction delays on the "bus rapid transit" (BRT) project in San Jose. $1.5 million was grudgingly set aside. It is a drop in the bucket compared to the loses that would befall businesses in San Jose and on and near El Camino when lanes are taken for occasional buses and cars are left to contend for lane space with other vehicles -including VTA buses - in the remaining lanes. Anyone not employed by the VTA or with some other special financial stake in BRT will likely see the folly of the VTA's plan by watching the tape of the meeting online - including the short prior and subsequent agenda items. The VTA Board will not approve BRT using the left lanes on El Camino until after it gets a multi-billion dollar sales tax increase approved by voters. That measure will need to be defeated.
Registered user
Blossom Valley
on Nov 12, 2015 at 3:51 pm
Registered user
on Nov 12, 2015 at 3:51 pm
Hitting a speed bump is not enough for the BRT plan. It needs to run, head-long, into a bridge abutment and die a spectacular fiery death.
another community
on Nov 25, 2015 at 11:54 am
on Nov 25, 2015 at 11:54 am
To put this BRT thing into perspective, they're fighting this in Queens as well. There, it's known as "Select Bus Service" and its installation on Woodhaven Blvd is controversial:
Web Link
another community
on Jan 6, 2016 at 1:09 am
on Jan 6, 2016 at 1:09 am
Those deluxe energy efficient dual-car articulated buses for BRT are now running!
See: Web Link
Why'd they wait so long?