BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE …vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site... ·...

BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

6:30 PM

VTA Conference Room B-106

3331 North First Street

San Jose, CA

AGENDA

COMMITTEE MISSION STATEMENT:

The VTA BPAC provides expertise and guidance to the Board of Directors on promoting

and enhancing non-motorized transportation opportunities throughout Santa Clara

County and serves as liaison between VTA and the Member Agency bicycle and pedestrian

advisory committees.

CALL TO ORDER

1. ROLL CALL

2. ORDERS OF THE DAY

3. 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.

4. Receive Committee Staff Report. (Verbal Report) (Ledbetter)

SB 743 implementation update

Discuss 2018 VTA Board priorities and BPAC’s role in supporting priorities.

5. Receive Santa Clara County Staff Report. (Verbal Report) (Talbo)

6. Receive Chairperson's Report. (Verbal Report) (Hertan)

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee January 10, 2018

CONSENT AGENDA

7. ACTION ITEM -Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2017.

REGULAR AGENDA

8. ACTION ITEM -Conduct voting to determine the Committee's chairperson and vice

chairperson for 2018.

9. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive final report for I-280 Corridor Study.

10. INFORMATION ITEM -Review and comment on Metropolitan Transportation

Commission (MTC) Complete Streets Checklists.

OTHER

11. Receive Reports from BPAC subcommittees. (Verbal Report)

Travel Reimbursement Subcommittee

Complete Streets Subcommittee

Best Practices for Transit Operators Training

12. Receive Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog

Committee (CWC) Report. (Verbal Report) (Wadler)

13. Review BPAC Work Plan. (Ledbetter/Talbo)

14. ANNOUNCEMENTS

15. ADJOURN

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, VTA will make reasonable arrangements to ensure meaningful access to its meetings

for persons who have disabilities and for persons with limited English proficiency who need

translation and interpretation services. Individuals requiring ADA accommodations should notify

the Board Secretary’s Office at least 48-hours prior to the meeting. Individuals requiring language

assistance should notify the Board Secretary’s Office at least 72-hours prior to the meeting. The

Board Secretary may be contacted at (408) 321-5680 or e-mail: [email protected]

or (408) 321-2330 (TTY only). VTA’s home page is on the web at: www.vta.org or visit us

on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/scvta. (408) 321-2300: 中文 / Español / 日本語 /

ÇÑ±¹¾î / tiếng Việt / Tagalog.

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.

Young_T

Text Box

Agenda Item #3

VTA Advisory Committees Committee Staff Liaison Report

January 2018 Advisory Committee Meetings (BPAC)

At its meeting last week, the VTA Board of Directors:

Welcomed its 2018 chairperson, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, and 2018 vice chairperson, Santa Clara City Council Member Teresa O’Neill.

It also took the following key actions:

Approved VTA’s 2018 Legislative Program that guides VTA’s advocacy efforts at the federal, state and regional levels.

Awarded a contract with Allied Telesis to install new mobile closed-circuit TV (CCTV) systems for 99 light rail car vehicles

Identified the Five Priorities for 2018, which we will discuss later.

• Improve congestion management • Establish path to financial stability • Define the future of transportation • Deliver promise of 2016 Measure B • Champion Santa Clara County Projects and Programs

Other items the Committee should be aware of are:

Fare AND service changes for 2018

VTA’s new fare structure went into effect January 1st, which includes a new mobile app, EZfare, where passengers can purchase fare on their smart phone. Electronic fare purchased on VTA’s EZfareapp, or with a Clipper Card, includes a 2-hour window for free transfers among light rail and bus service.

Service changes include an increase in frequency on the Mountain View to Winchester light rail line, the Rapid 522 bus, and on bus lines 72 and 73 between southeast San Jose and Downtown. More significant service changes will take place when BART Silicon Valley passenger service begins later this year.

SR 85 Corridor Study

While VTA waits for the lawsuit against Measure B to be resolved, we are moving forward with a study on how to improve mobility along the Highway 85 corridor. As a reminder, Measure B outlines $350 million for improvements to Highway 85. VTA staff is currently reviewing the results of an extensive study which included hundreds of public comments on how to improve that corridor. The SR-85 Policy Advisory Board will develop project design alternatives in the spring of 2018.

2018 APBP Monthly Webinars VTA will continue to host the monthly APBP webinars at its River Oaks Campus. They are typically scheduled for the third Wednesday of the month between noon and 1 pm. All members of the public and city staff are welcome. 2018 Webinar Topics are: Jan 17 Why Don’t We Do It in the Road – Implementing Open Streets

Young_T

Text Box

Agenda Item #4

Feb 21 Be Creative Art, Placemaking and Funding Mar 21 Managing Freight in Urban Corridors Apr 18 Got Counts? Now What? May 16 Quick Builds – Tactical Urbanism Toolbox Jun 20 Safety Manuals – The Good Stuff Jul 18 Roundabouts that Work for Cyclists and Pedestrians Aug 15 Moving Beyond the Centerline – Advisory Bicycle Lanes, Best Kept Secret Sep 19 Placemaking in the Burbs Oct 17 Ten Years of Safe Routes to School – Where do we go from here? Nov 14 Conflict Resolution: Good Sidepath Design Dec 12 What Do You Do? Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator Skills

Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB) –Federal Highway Association Interim Approval Rescinded The FHWA has rescinded the 2008 Interim Approval for RRFBs (IA-11). The action was taken after FHWA became aware of four issued U.S. patents covering aspects of RRFBs. It is Federal policy to prohibit patented devices from experimentation, interim approval, or inclusion in the Manual of Traffic Control Devices.The FHWA rescinds interim approval for all new installations of RRFBs. Installed RRFBs may remain in service until the end of their useful life. VTA staff has shared this information with city staff, and is actively working with Caltrans to understand the implications. FHWA has provided an FAQ and informational brief on alternate options. The Caltrans HQ Office of Traffic Engineering is assessing the impact of the termination of IA 11 in California and will provide additional guidance on this matter in a couple of weeks.

Young_T

Text Box

Agenda Item #5

Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) was called to order at 6:32 p.m. by Chairperson Hertan in Conference Room B-106, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San José, California.

1. ROLL CALL

Attendee Name Title Representing StatusWes Brinsfield Member City of Los Altos Present Kristal Caidoy Member City of Milpitas Present Barry Chaffin Member City of Monte Sereno Present Susan Cretekos Member Town of Los Altos Hills Present Jaime Fearer Vice Chairperson City of San José Present Paul Goldstein Member City of Palo Alto Present Tom Granvold Member City of Santa Clara Present Bill Haskell Member City of Morgan Hill Present Peter Hertan Chairperson Town of Los Gatos Present Erik Lindskog Member City of Cupertino Absent Carolyn Schimandle Member City of Gilroy Present David Simons Member City of Sunnyvale Present Jim Stallman Member City of Saratoga Present Paul Tuttle Member City of Campbell Present Greg Unangst Member City of Mountain View Present Herman Wadler Member County of Santa Clara Present Colin Heyne Ex-Officio Member SV Bicycle Coalition Present Shiloh Ballard Alt. Ex-Officio Member SV Bicycle Coalition n/a

A quorum was present.

2. ORDERS OF THE DAY

Staff requested that Agenda Item #11. Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Project Status Report, be heard before Agenda Item #10. VTA Complete Streets Policy.

M/S/C (Haskell/Fearer) to accept the Orders of the Day.

7

Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Minutes Page 2 of 5 November 8, 2017

RESULT: ACCEPTED – Orders of the Day MOVER: Bill Haskell, Member SECONDER: Jaime Fearer, Vice Chairperson AYES: Brinsfield, Caidoy, Chaffin, Cretekos, Fearer, Goldstein, Haskell,

Hertan, Simons, Stallman, Tuttle, Unangst, Wadler NOES: None ABSENT: Lindskog, Schimandle

3. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

Tim Oey, Interested Citizen, expressed support for the following: 1) El Camino Real becoming a mixed use roadway; and 2) scheduling a Síclovía event for the North County cities with VTA’s support.

Doug Muirhead, Interested Citizen, requested an update on bike collision avoidance.

Member Schimandle arrived and took her seat at 6:37 p.m.

4. Committee Staff Report

Lauren Ledbetter, Senior Transportation Planner and Staff Liaison, provided an overview of the written staff report highlighting the following: 1) the Pedestrian and Bicycle Group planners tour of completed and construction projects around the County; 2) 2016 Measure B Bike & Pedestrian Program Category update; 3) Countywide Bicycle Plan update; 4) Monthly Webinar on November 15, 2017 at noon on “Street Lighting – Best Practices and Innovations in Illumination Technology”; 5) VTA Board of Directors’ actions taken in October and November; 6) Electric Bus Prototype Delivery; 7) BART Berryessa Extension Progress; 8) Breast Cancer Awareness Walk; 9) Regional Business Diversity Programs; 10) Donation of Community Buses; 11) VTA Access Paratransit Move to Eastridge Loop; 12) State Route 85 Transit Guideway Study Community Meetings; and 13) Tamien Station Joint Development Project Community Meeting.

The Committee discussed the following: 1) Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan; 2) Joint Development; 3) inventory of VTA property; and 4) hydrogen fuel cell powered buses.

On order of Chairperson Hertan, and there being no objection, the Committee received the Committee Staff Report.

5. Santa Clara County Staff Report

Ellen Talbo, County Transportation Planner, provided a brief report, highlighting: 1) San Tomas Expressway Widening Project; and 2) Page Mill Road/Interstate 280 Interchange.

On order of Chairperson Hertan, and there being no objection, the Committee received the Santa Clara County Staff Report.

6. Chairperson’s Report

Chairperson Hertan expressed interest in a ridership feedback app and forming a subcommittee to look into what other transit agencies are doing in California.

7


CONSENT AGENDA

7. Regular Meeting Minutes of September 13, 2017

M/S/C (Simons/Wadler) to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of September 13, 2017.

8. Development Review Quarterly Report for July-September 2017

M/S/C (Simons/Wadler) to receive the Development Review Quarterly Report for July to September 2017.

RESULT: APPROVED – Consent Agenda Items #7-8 MOVER: David Simons, Member SECONDER: Herman Wadler, Member AYES: Brinsfield, Caidoy, Chaffin, Cretekos, Fearer, Goldstein, Haskell,

Hertan, Schimandle, Simons, Stallman, Tuttle, Unangst, Wadler NOES: None ABSENT: Lindskog

REGULAR AGENDA

9. Election Process for 2018 Advisory Committee Leadership: Appoint Nomination Subcommittee

Stephen Flynn, Advisory Committee Coordinator, provided a brief overview of the staff report.

M/S/C (Brinsfield/Unangst) to appoint Members Simons and Stallman as the nomination subcommittee to identify Committee members interested in serving as the chairperson or vice chairperson for 2018.

RESULT: APPROVED – Agenda Item #9 MOVER: Wes Brinsfield, Member SECONDER: Greg Unangst, Member AYES: Brinsfield, Caidoy, Chaffin, Cretekos, Fearer, Goldstein, Haskell,


11. TFCA Project Status Report

Marcella Rensi, Deputy Director of Programming and Congestion Management, provided a brief overview of the status of Santa Clara County Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) projects.

Discussion ensued on TFCA projects.

7


On order of Chairperson Hertan, and there being no objection, the Committee reviewed the status of ongoing Santa Clara County Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Program Manager Fund projects.

10. VTA Complete Streets Policy

Ms. Ledbetter provided an overview of VTA’s Complete Streets Policy.

Members of the Committee discussed the following: 1) continuity of projects crossing jurisdiction lines; and 2) determining future needs.

Members of the Committee requested the following changes to the Complete Streets Policy: 1) language consistency; and 2) using stronger language.

M/S/C (Hertan/Unangst) to defer making a recommendation on the Complete Streets Policy, so that the Committee’s suggestions can be incorporated or an explanation be provided of why the changes were not included.

RESULT: APPROVED – Agenda Item #10 MOVER: Wes Brinsfield, Member SECONDER: Greg Unangst, Member AYES: Brinsfield, Caidoy, Chaffin, Cretekos, Fearer, Goldstein, Haskell,


OTHER

12. Reports from BPAC Subcommittees

Travel Reimbursement Subcommittee

Mr. Flynn provided a report, noting that the subcommittee has proposed reimbursement be the equivalent of a day pass and not a round trip fare, which has support of General Counsel. The day pass reimbursement would require changing VTA’s Administrative Code.

Complete Streets Subcommittee

There was no report.

Best Practices for Transit Operators Training

Vice Chairperson Fearer restated the purpose of the subcommittee and indicated they will be meeting soon.

7


13. Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee (CWC) Report

Member Wadler provided a report, highlighting VTA’s proposed Commuter Shuttle Program policy.

14. BPAC Work Plan

Ms. Ledbetter provided an overview of the BPAC Work Plan.

Members of the Committee requested adding the following to the Work Plan: 1) State Route 237 high occupancy toll lanes; 2) collision avoidance; and 3) reviewing signage at bus stops.

15. ANNOUNCEMENTS

Ex-Officio Member Heyne announced that there are a series of events sponsored by 8 80 Cities, a non-profit organization bringing people together to enhance mobility and public spaces creating healthy communities, the week of November 6, 2017.

Member Granvold announced that the Santa Clara BPAC filled the three open seats.

Member Chaffin and his wife recently rode their bikes to the Mexican border.

Member Brinsfield announced that the Los Altos BPAC is now a Complete Streets Commission.

Member Wadler provided a brief update on the Santa Clara County Roads Commission.

Member Simons expressed concern about the Atria housing development in Sunnyvale being on the sidewalk with no landscape and is not pedestrian friendly. Mr. Simons mentioned that there are plans to change the landscaping.

Member Goldstein announced the following: 1) Palo Alto adopted guidelines for bike share companies to operate within the city; and 2) Stanford University recently renewed their general use permit.

Vice Chairperson Fearer provided a flyer for World Day of Remembrance on November 19, 2017, and encouraged Members to share with networks.

16. ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson Hertan, and there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Thalia Young, Board Assistant VTA Office of the Board Secretary

7

Date: December 27, 2017

Current Meeting: January 10, 2018

Board Meeting: N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM

TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityBicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee

THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez

FROM: Board Secretary, Elaine Baltao

SUBJECT: Election Process for 2018 Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Leadership: Conduct Elections

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

ACTION ITEM

RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct voting to determine the Committee's chairperson and vice chairperson for 2018.

BACKGROUND:

The Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) bylaws require that the committee elect from its membership a chairperson and a vice chairperson annually to serve as the committee leadership for the upcoming year. The bylaws also provide that the chairperson and vice chairperson positions serve one-year terms coinciding with the calendar year and are eligible for election to multiple terms. Only members, not alternates, are eligible to serve in these positions. The elections for the BPAC leadership positions are conducted during the committee’s last meeting of the calendar year (usually December), if practical.

The duties of the chairperson are to preside at all meetings of the committee and represent the committee before the Board of Directors. The duty of the vice chairperson is to perform the duties of the chairperson when the chairperson is absent. It is the responsibility of all advisory committee chairpersons and vice chairpersons to participate in periodic coordination meetings between themselves and the leadership of the VTA Board of Directors.

8

of 3

DISCUSSION:

The election process for chairperson and vice chairperson is comprised of three distinct steps. The first step is appointing the nomination subcommittee. The second is presentation of the nomination subcommittee’s report. The final step is conducting elections to select the chairperson and vice chairperson. Each of these components is conducted during the committee meeting.

Appointing the Nomination Subcommittee

The chairperson requests volunteers to serve on the nomination subcommittee, which is typically comprised of two or three members. If there are no volunteers or an insufficient number, it is the chairperson’s prerogative to appoint committee members to serve on it. It is required that the committee votes to approve the appointment of members to the nomination subcommittee. This step normally takes place two meetings prior to conducting the elections.

The nomination subcommittee identifies members interested in serving as the chairperson or vice chairperson. This is done by soliciting nominations from members, either for themselves or other members, and is done at a time other than during the committee meeting. Additionally, it is the nomination subcommittee’s responsibility to determine that members who have been nominated are willing to serve. The nomination subcommittee may, but is not required to, make a recommendation on its recommended candidate for each position.

Due to cancellation of the October 2017 BPAC meeting, the nomination subcommittee was empanelled at the November 2017 meeting when the BPAC approved the appointment of members David Simons and Jim Stallman to serve on the subcommittee.

Report from the Nomination Subcommittee

At the meeting immediately preceding the elections, the nomination subcommittee provides a verbal report to the committee identifying committee members who have confirmed their willingness to serve. This establishes the initial list of candidates for the elections to be held at the next meeting. The nomination subcommittee is automatically discharged when its report is formally presented to the committee. No action is required of the committee other than to receive the report.

Due to cancellation of the December 2017 BPAC meeting, the nomination subcommittee report was emailed to the membership on December 27, 2017. It indicated that the following individuals had been nominated and had confirmed their willingness to serve:

Chair: (A) Wes Brinsfield, representing the City of Los Altos and BPAC chairperson for 2015 and 2014 and vice chairperson for 2013

(B) Peter Hertan, representing the Town of Los Gatos and 2017 BPAC chairperson and 2016 vice chairperson

8

of 3

Vice Chair: (C) Wes Brinsfield, representing the City of Los Altos and BPAC chairperson for 2015 and 2016 and vice chairperson for 2013

(D) Jaime Fearer, representing the City of San Jose and BPAC vice chairperson for the latter part of 2017

Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson

Due to cancellation of the December meeting, the elections for these positions are now scheduled to be conducted at the January 10, 2018 BPAC meeting. The elections for the chairperson and vice chairperson positions are conducted individually and in sequence. Immediately preceding the vote, the nomination subcommittee report on individuals willing to serve in either position will be reiterated, and the chairperson will verify that the named candidates still wish to be considered for the respective position. Next, the chairperson will ask if there are any nominations from the floor, then close the nomination process to establish the final list of candidates for each position. For instances of multiple candidates for the same position, the order of voting for each candidate is alphabetically by last name.

For BPAC, the affirmative vote of a majority of the total authorized membership, which is nine votes, is required to elect each position. The term of office for each position for 2018 begins immediately following the successful vote for each position.

ALTERNATIVES:

There are no alternatives since the Committee’s bylaws specify the election process.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact resulting from the election process.

Prepared by: Stephen Flynn, Advisory Committee CoordinatorMemo No. 6301

8



Board Meeting: January 4, 2018

BOARD MEMORANDUM



FROM: Chief Engineering & Program Delivery Officer, Carolyn M. Gonot

SUBJECT: I-280 Corridor Study Update

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

BACKGROUND:

The I-280 corridor study’s primary objective was to identify multi-modal improvement projects for Santa Clara County’s next iteration of its long range transportation plan, Valley Transportation Plan (VTP). It is envisioned that the study also serves as the multi-modal study for identified projects to qualify for Senate Bill 1 transportation funding. The study area extends from the US 101/I-680/I-280 interchange in San Jose to the Santa Clara/San Mateo county line as shown on the attached map.

Through a collaborative effort with local, state, and regional stakeholders, the study considered a multitude of factors in the evaluation of improvement projects. The factors were: improved mobility, promotion of multiple modes of transportation, transportation system benefits, cost, environmental and socio-economic effects, and community input.

The corridor study cost of $750,000 was funded by the City of Cupertino from the Apple 2 campus voluntary contributions to transportation improvements ($500,000) and local VTA funds for the remaining balance. In their November 2014 meeting, the VTA Board of Directors approved receiving the grant funds from the City of Cupertino.

The key milestones and schedule for the project were as follows:

Project Initiation: January - March 2016Community/Public Outreach: April - October 2016Conceptual Alternatives Analysis: March 2016 - April 2017Final Corridor Study Report: April 2017 - October 2017

VTA staff, along with a wide variety of stakeholders, vetted the study and completed the study within budget in October 2017.

9

of 3

DISCUSSION:

The study evaluated various highway projects, multi-modal local street and interchange improvements, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The evaluation of projects took into consideration both public and technical input to ultimately determine the projects which best improved mobility to reduce traffic congestion, promote mode shift, help drive economic growth, and enhance the quality of life for Santa Clara county residents.

VTA engaged the public through a unique approach relying on crowdsourcing and obtained over 1000 suggestions on how the corridor could be improved. The crowdsourcing-based approach involved soliciting input from the public through the use of a specialized website. Based on the public and local agency transportation professionals’ inputs, the study sorted potential projects into tiers.

Weighting factors varied depending on the type of facility. Highways, expressways and local roadway improvements were evaluated for mobility effects such as reducing congestion and reducing delays. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities were evaluated for enhanced accessibility, safety and security.

The study recommended following strategies and improvements to improve the corridor:

Develop projects that focus on improving corridor-wide mobility

• Extend high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to provide for more shared mobility benefits.

• Implement conversion of HOV lanes to express lanes (EL) to expand mobility options, for more reliable travel and a potential new funding source for transportation improvements.

• Study in detail improvements to downtown San Jose access between US 101 and SR 87.

Prioritize funding for multi-modal improvements

• Continue to develop multi-modal interchange improvements at Wolfe Road and Winchester Boulevard.

• Study transit ramp access at Tantau Avenue.

• Implement HOV bypass lanes, including the implementation of transit signal priority at interchange traffic signals and ramp meters.

Empower Innovation

• Develop a transportation technology strategic plan.

• Work with Caltrans to deploy smart solutions such as demand based pricing, bus on shoulders and active transportation management (ATM) strategies as demonstration projects.

The study recommended a number of improvement projects: seven mainline HOV/EL, twenty-four interchange, eighteen local street, and seventeen ATM/intelligent transportation system (ITS). The study met its objective of supporting the next iteration of VTA’s VTP to address existing multi-modal needs as well as future needs of the corridor and Santa Clara County.

9

of 3

For further information, the study final report can be found at:

http://www.vta.org/projects-and-programs/highway/i280-corridor-study

ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) received this item as part of their consent agenda at their December 2017 Meeting.

The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) received this item as part of their consent agenda at the December 2017 meeting, and further requested an informational presentation on this item at their January 2018 meeting.

STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Congestion Management Program and Planning Committee received a brief presentation on this item on December 21, 2017. After a short discussion, the Committee recommended the item be placed on the regular agenda for the January 4, 2018, VTA Board of Directors’ meeting.

Prepared By: Shanthi Ganji-ChatradhiMemo No. 6346

9

I-280 Corridor StudyBicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee

January 10, 2018

Item 9

Project Development Process

2

Multi-modal Corridor Studies

VTP

(Valley Transportation Plan)

Conceptual Planning

Environmental Clearance

Design & Construction

I-280

3

Study Overview

Corridor: 22-mile (US 101 to San Mateo County Line)

Study Goal: Identify projects for long range planning

Funding Partners: Cupertino & VTA

Study Objectives

Promote multiple modes of travel

Improve mobility for all modes

Improve freeway mainline and interchange operations

Improve travel times

Promote transit alternatives

4Corridor Improvement Projects

5

Public Engagement Responses

6

• Online Survey, Public Meetings – Received over 1000 responses

• Public Input – Cars - Congestion at Magdalena Ave

– Pedestrian - lack of cross-walks, signage on Race Street

– Bicycle - lack of Bicycle facilities at Foothill Expwy

Public Engagement Responses

Potential Solutions for Key Public Inputs

7

Road Diet & Class 2 Bike lanes with 2 ftbuffer & walk ways, improve crosswalks, curb ramps at I-280/Race Street Interchange

I-280/Foothill Expwy ramps:modify signing striping, detectors, communication system, CCTV for traffic monitoring, overhead CMS and lane use signsSquare-up I-280/Foothill Expwy rampsConstruct Class IV Cycle Tracks (Along Stevens Creek Blvd from Foothill Expwy)

Potential Bicycle & Pedestrian Projects

• Multimodal improvements at all interchanges

• Consider Class IV Cycle Tracks– Stevens Creek Blvd (Foothill Avenue to Tantau Ave and

extend to downtown San Jose)

– Add wayfinding signs and CMS

– Install signal detectors and communication system for real time information to bicyclists

8ABC – Across Barrier Connection

Potential Bicycle & Pedestrian Projects Contd.

• Generally supports full build out of Stevens Creek trail between Sunnyvale and Cupertino

• Study supports 2008 Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan ABCs

9ABC – Across Barrier Connection

Evaluation Criteria

Improve Mobility

Promote Multiple Modes of Transportation

Transportation System Benefits

Cost Effectiveness

Public/Stakeholder Input

10

• Weighting Factors

• Priorities

• Priority 1• Priority 2• Priority 3

• Within each priority

• Short-Term projects • Mid-Term projects • Long-Term projects

Key Local Street Improvements

• Near Term – Improvements El Monte Rd, Magdalena Ave,N De Anza Rd, N Tantau

Ave, Saratoga Ave, MacArthur Ave, S Bascom Ave, Leland Ave, Meridian Ave, Race St, Lincoln Ave, Bird Ave, 3rd St to 7th St, and McLaughlin Ave

• Mid-Term – Construct Class IV cycle tracks on N Blaney Ave, N. Stellng Rd,

Stevens Creek Blvd, and W. San Carlos St

• Long-Term – Pedestrian connector between Lawrence Expwy and Saratoga Ave

11

Next Steps

12

• Include projects in long range transportation plan

• Pursue funding for specific improvements

Questions

13



Board Meeting: N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM



FROM: Director - Planning & Programming, Chris Augenstein

SUBJECT: MTC Complete Streets Checklist

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

BACKGROUND:

Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Resolution 3765, adopted in June 2006, sets forth MTC’s regional policy for accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities during transportation project planning, design, funding, and construction. As directed by the resolution, MTC developed a complete streets checklist for local agencies to use to evaluate bicycle and pedestrian facility needs and accommodations for roadway and transit projects that apply for regional funds. The checklist is intended to be used at the earliest conception or design phase of a project.

Under Resolution 3765, all roadway and transit projects that apply for regional funding after 2006 are required to fill out a complete streets checklist. The resolution also requires congestion management agencies, including Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), to review completed complete street checklists and make them available to their Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) for review and input to ensure that bicyclist and pedestrian accommodation is considered at the earliest stages of project development.

DISCUSSION:

In August 2017, the VTA Board of Directors approved funding a program of projects through the Vehicle Emissions Reductions Based at Schools (VERBS) grant program. VERBS is administered by MTC and project sponsors are required to submit a complete streets checklist. In compliance with MTC’s Resolution 3765, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority is providing the following checklists to the VTA BPAC for review:

• Eden Avenue Sidewalk Improvements, Campbell

• Miramonte Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Improvement Project Phase 1, Los Altos

10

of 2

• Waverley Multi-Use Path, E Meadow Dr. and Fabian Way Enhanced Bikeways, Palo Alto

• Mount Pleasant Schools Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Traffic Safety Improvements, San Jose

• Santa Clara Schools Access Improvements, Santa Clara

• Homestead Road at Homestead High School-Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements, Sunnyvale

• Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements, Sunnyvale

Checklists are provided in Attachment A. BPAC members are asked to review the checklists with the following questions in mind:

• Are all existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities listed?

• Are all needed bicycle and pedestrian facilities listed?

• Are all existing challenges for bicyclists and pedestrians listed?

• Are public meeting comments in line with your understanding of community concerns?

• Will the proposed project block or hinder bicycle or pedestrian movement?

• Any other comments, requests for clarification, questions, or concerns?

NEXT STEPS:

VTA will forward comments from the BPAC to project sponsors.

Prepared By: Lauren LedbetterMemo No. 6362

10

MTC Complete Streets Checklists Attachment A 12/15/2017

The following checklists are provided to the VTA Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee for review

and comment. Checklists in this packet were printed from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s

website. Links in the table of contents direct to the online version of the checklist, and are provided for the

readers’ convenience. Online and printed versions of the checklists are identical.

Table of Contents

Project Summaries from VERBS Cycle 3 application ................................................................................... 2

Eden Avenue Sidewalk Improvements, Campbell (online checklist) ............................................................ 5

Miramonte Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Improvement, Los Altos (online checklist) ...................... 14

Waverly Multi-Use Path, E. Meadow Dr. and Fabian Way Enhanced Bikeways,

Palo Alto (online checklist) .......................................................................................................................... 23

Mt. Pleasant Schools Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Traffic Safety Improvements,

San Jose (online checklist) ......................................................................................................................... 34

Santa Clara Schools Access Improvements Santa Clara (online checklist) ............................................... 44

Homestead Road at Homestead High School-Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements,

Sunnyvale (online checklist)........................................................................................................................ 53

Pedestrian and Bicyclists Infrastructure Improvements Sunnyvale (online checklist) ................................ 62

1

10.a

http://completestreets.mtc.ca.gov/checklists/1172







C

2

10.a

Ledbetter_L

Typewritten Text

Ledbetter_L

Typewritten Text

Ledbetter_L

Typewritten Text

Ledbetter_L

Typewritten Text

3

10.a

4

10.a

12/15/2017 MTC | Complete Streets

http://completestreets.mtc.ca.gov/checklists/1172 1/9

(/checklists/1172/edit) (/checklists/1172)Project:Eden Avenue Sidewalk Improvements (/projects/994)

Checklist:Eden Avenue Sidewalk Improvements

Name:Eden Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Description:Design and install flashing beacon system, sidewalk, curb, gutter, curb ramps, signs, striping, and storm drain improvements on Eden Avenue Status:Approved Project:Eden Avenue Sidewalk Improvements (/projects/994) Location:Campbell Contact Name:Matthew Jue Contact Email:[email protected] Contact Phone:4088662154 Contact Address:70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008

1a: What bicycle and pedestrian accommodations are currently included on the facility or on facilities it intersects or crosses? Please check all that apply.

(/)

External usersMTC usersSponsorsCitiesChecklistsHome / projects

Welcome vta 2 (/external_users/34/edit) ( Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) (/sponsors/205/edit) ) | log out(/external_user_sessions/0)

5

10.a

http://completestreets.mtc.ca.gov/checklists/1172/edit


http://completestreets.mtc.ca.gov/projects/994


http://completestreets.mtc.ca.gov/

http://completestreets.mtc.ca.gov/external_users/34/edit

http://completestreets.mtc.ca.gov/sponsors/205/edit

http://completestreets.mtc.ca.gov/external_user_sessions/0



Class I bicycle pathsClass II bicycle lanesClass III bicycle routesClass IV bikewaysBicycle boxesRaised separated bikewaysBicycle BoulevardsBicycle parkingSidewalks on one side or both sides of streetMarked crosswalksProtected intersectionPainted conflict zonesNarrow unpaved pathPedestrian-actuated traffic signals or routine pedestrian cycleBulb-outsBicycle actuated traffic signals or routine bicyclist cycleHigh visibility crosswalksPedestrian-level lightingADA-compliant rampsTraffic signal push buttonsRefuge islands on roadwaysTransit shelterWide curb lanesRight turn only lanesTransit vehicle stopsPedestrian countdown signalsWay-finding or directional signageNone

: Other Shared lane bike markings are scheduled to be installed in May 2017

: Please provide specifics of any items checked above. Class II bike lanes on Hamilton Avenue. Class III bike route on Eden Avenue after shared lane bike markings are installed; this project will install bike route signs. Eden Avenue has somesidewalk but there are also gaps in sidewalk or narrow unpaved paths that this project would fill with sidewalk. High-visibility marked crosswalk at Eden/Rosemary intersection. Protectedsignalized intersection at Hamilton/Eden with pedestrian- and bicycle-actuated detection, pedestrian countdown signals, and traffic signal push buttons.

1b: If there are no existing pedestrian or bicycle facilities, how far from the proposed project are the closest parallel bikeways and walkways?

6

10.a



0-1/4 mile1/4 mile to 1/2 mile1/2 mile to 1 mile1+ mile

1c: Please indicate needed pedestrian, bicycle, or transit improvements in the project area that staff or the public have identified Improved lightingsidewalksImprove intersectionsMid-block crossingsAccommodations for the elderly or disabled or school age childrenSchool age childrenTransit sheltersADA facilitiesWidened curb lanesBicycle parkingTraffic signals responsive to bicyclesShorter vehicular traffic signal cyclesAddressing choke points or gaps in pedestrian or bicycleRR crossingsBike racks on bussesWidened or better-lit under crossingsRemoved slip lanesRight turn only lanesNone

: Other Flashing beacons for Eden/Rosemary crosswalk

1d: Please describe the overall context of the project area: Project is located immediately adjacent to Rosemary Elementary School and in a Community of Concern--Census Tract 5065.01, Santa Clara County. The project is on Eden Avenue just north ofHamilton

1e: What existing challenges could the proposed project improve for bicycle, pedestrian, or transit travel in the vicinity of the proposed project?

7

10.a



Unresponsive signals to bicyclesLack of bicycle parkingFreeway on-off rampsNarrow curb lanesChoke pointsRR crossingsNo bike racks on busesWide roadway crossingsLong signal cycles which require pedestrians to wait long periods of timeShort signal crossing timesNarrow undercrossings, overcrossingsSlip lanesSidewalk obstruction or missing sidewalkPedestrian-level lightingLack of ADA compliant facilitiesLack of Transit vehicle stops

: Other Flashing beacon system for Eden/Rosemary marked crosswalk Flooding problem with insufficient storm drain system

2a: What trip generators (existing and future) are in the vicinity of the proposed project that might attract walking or bicycling customers, employees, students,visitors or others? Educational institutionsTransit stationsSenior centersHigh-density land usesDowntownsShopping areasMedical centersMajor public venuesGovernment buildingsParks

: Other

3a: Have you considered collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians along the route of the facility?

8

10.a



Yes

: If so, please provide the number of collisions and describe the outcomes of each: Between 2013 and 2017 there have been nine collisions, but seven were in the Hamilton/Eden intersection beyond the project limits; one was a solo crash involving an unsafe turn at night; onewas a hit-and-run crash into a parked vehicle. None of these collisions are relevant to this project.

: If so, what resources have you consulted? City maintains a GIS-based Crossroads traffic collision database.

4a: Do any adopted plans call for the development of bicycle or pedestrian facilities on, crossing or adjacent to the proposed facility/project? City or town bicycle planCountywide bicycle planCity or town pedestrian planCountywide pedestrian planCombined bicycle and pedestrian planADA transition planGeneral planSpecific planRegional transportation PlanSales tax expenditure planStation area access planNo plans

: Other City has an ADA transition plan. General plan includes a bikeways map.

: Is the proposed project consistent with these plans? Yes

5a: Do any local, statewide or federal policies call for incorporating bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities into this project? 9

10.a



Caltrans Deputy Directive 64Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000)ACR 211MUTCD 2003MUTCD California supplementAmericans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG)MTC Pedestrian Districts StudyNonemore

: Other VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

: If so, have the policies been followed? Yes

5b: N/A No

5c: If this project includes a bicycle and/or pedestrian facility, which applicable design standards or guidelines have been followed? AASHTO bicycle and pedestrian design guidesAmericans with Disabilities Act Accessibility GuidelinesCaltrans Design Information Bulletin 89Caltrans Highway Design ManualCaltrans California MUTCDCaltrans Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in CaliforniaFHWA MUTCDITE Designing Urban Walkable ThoroughfaresNACTO Urban Bikeway Design GuideN/A - no bicycle or pedestrian facilities includedNone

6a: What comments have been made regarding bicycle and pedestrian accommodations at BPAC, stakeholder, or public meetings at which the proposed projecthas been discussed? 10

10.a



BPAC has been supportive of this project. School parents have asked for sidewalks, ADA ramps, flashing beacons, bike markings and signs, and better storm drainage improvements.

: How have you responded to comments received? We told the BPAC and school parents that we would pursue grant funding. We applied for the ATP Cycle 2 grant but were unsuccessful. We are now applying for the Santa Clara County VERBSgrant.

7a: What accommodations, if any, are included for bicyclists and pedestrians in the proposed project design? Class I bicycle pathsClass II bicycle lanesClass III bicycle routesClass IV bikewaysBicycle boxesRaised separated bikewaysBicycle BoulevardsBicycle parkingSidewalks on one side or both sides of streetWidened sidewalksMarked crosswalksProtected intersectionPainted conflict zonesNarrow unpaved pathPedestrian-actuated traffic signals or routine pedestrian cycleBulb-outBicycle actuated traffic signals or routine bicyclist cycleHigh visibility crosswalksPedestrian-level lightingADA-compliant rampsTraffic signal push buttonsRefuge islands on roadwaysTransit sheltersWide curb lanesRight turn only lanesTransit vehicle stopsPedestrian countdown signalsWay-finding or directional signageNone

: Other

11

10.a



The flashing beacon system will make the existing high-visibility crosswalk more visible. The project will eliminate at the Eden/Rosemary intersection a flooding problem that is a deterrent towalking and bicycling.

8a: Will the proposed project remove an existing bicycle or pedestrian facility or block or hinder bicycle or pedestrian movement? No

: If yes, please describe situation in detail.

8b: If the proposed project incorporates neither bicycle nor pedestrian facilities, or if the proposed project would hinder bicycle or pedestrian travel, list reasonswhy the project cannot be re-designed to accommodate these facilities.

: Was a road diet or car parking removal considered?

: What would be the cost of the added bicycle and/or pedestrian facility? 702000

: If the proposed project incorporates bicycle or pedestrian improvements, what proportion is the bicycle and/or pedestrian facility of the total project cost? 100

: If right-of-way challenges are the reason for the hindrance, please explain the analysis that led to this conclusion.

9a: How will access for bicyclists and pedestrians be maintained during project construction?

12

10.a



Alternative signed bicycle routeAlternative signed pedestrian routeSeparated pedestrian pathwayOther

: Other

10a: What agency will be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the facility? City of Campbell

10b: How will ongoing maintenance be budgeted? City's operating budget

Edit checklist (/checklists/1172/edit) Delete checklist (/checklists/1172)

Metropolitan Transportation Commission

375 Beale Street San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415.778.6700 [email protected](mailto:[email protected])

© 2017 MTC

13

10.a



mailto:[email protected]



(/checklists/1203/edit) (/checklists/1203)Project:Miramonte Ave SRTS (/projects/1026)

Checklist:Aruna Bodduna

Name:Aruna Bodduna Description:This project upgrades existing bicycle route on Miramonte Ave to a bicycle path between City Limits at the north end to Foothill Expressway at the south end. Status:Approved Project:Miramonte Ave SRTS (/projects/1026) Location:Los Altos Contact Name:Aruna Bodduna Contact Email:[email protected] Contact Phone:6509472626 Contact Address:1 N San Antonio Rd, Los Altos, CA 94022


(/)



14

10.a












: Other

: Please provide specifics of any items checked above.

1b: If there are no existing pedestrian or bicycle facilities, how far from the proposed project are the closest parallel bikeways and walkways? 0-1/4 mile1/4 mile to 1/2 mile1/2 mile to 1 mile1+ mile

15

10.a




: Other

1d: Please describe the overall context of the project area: The pathway connects the residential neighborhoods in Los Altos and commercial centers in Mountain View and Los Altos. Also provides connection to three schools in the vicinity.


16

10.a




: Other This project will provide continuous bicycle lane that currently ends at the City of Mountain View limit to the north.


: Other


17

10.a



Yes

: If so, please provide the number of collisions and describe the outcomes of each:

: If so, what resources have you consulted?


: Other


5a: Do any local, statewide or federal policies call for incorporating bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities into this project?

18

10.a




: Other

: If so, have the policies been followed? No

5b: N/A Yes



10.a



Comments at the BPAC meeting and various public meetings indicated that the lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities on this roadway should be priority as it connects to various schools inthe vicinity.

: How have you responded to comments received? Preliminary analysis was performed to present the concept to the stakeholders on the proposed improvements, and a preferred alternative was selected based on the feedback received.


: Other rectangular rapid flashing beacon installation

20

10.a





8b: If the proposed project incorporates neither bicycle nor pedestrian facilities, or if the proposed project would hinder bicycle or pedestrian travel, list reasonswhy the project cannot be re-designed to accommodate these facilities. N/A

: Was a road diet or car parking removal considered? N/A



: If right-of-way challenges are the reason for the hindrance, please explain the analysis that led to this conclusion. N/A


21

10.a




: Other traffic control plans will be developed for construction phase to maintain pedestrian and bicycle access.

10a: What agency will be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the facility? City of Los Altos

10b: How will ongoing maintenance be budgeted? General Fund





© 2017 MTC

22

10.a






(/checklists/1202/edit) (/checklists/1202)Project:Waverley Multi-Use Path Improvements and East Meadow Drive and Fabian Way Enhanced Bikeways(/projects/1025)

Checklist:Waverley Multi-Use Path Improvements and East Meadow Drive and Fabian Way Enhanced Bikeways

Name:Waverley Multi-Use Path Improvements and East Meadow Drive and Fabian Way Enhanced Bikeways Description:The proposed South Palo Alto Enhanced Bikeways project consists of work on three connecting corridors: 1. Fabian Way Enhanced Bikeway 2. Meadow Drive/El Camino Way/Los Robles Enhanced Bikeway3. Waverley Multi-Use Path Improvements The Fabian Way Enhanced Bikeway and the Meadow St/El Camino Way/Los Robles Enhanced Bikeway are identified in the City of Palo Alto’s 2012 Bicycle andPedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) as key projects for the City. The Fabian Way Enhanced Bikeway reconfigures Fabian Way with a travel lane reduction to add protected bicycle facilities. The west end ofthe Meadow Drive/El Camino Way/Los Robles Bikeway was recently completed by the City, so this proposal requests funding for the installation of a protected facility on the East Meadow segment only. Thethird corridor, the Waverley Multi-Use Path, is an essential part of the School Commute Corridors Network. This Class 1 path on Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) land was identified for upgrades andwidening in the 2010 VERBS-funded Walk and Roll Recommendations Maps for the adjacent schools. Taken together, the three components will effect significant safety improvements for students and familiesaccessing the ten public and private schools serviced by Fabian Way and East Meadow Drive, both challenging corridors for young cyclists. While the bicycle mode share at adjacent schools is relatively highfor Santa Clara County, Palo Alto parents note that the current state of bicycle infrastructure (unprotected bike lanes) on these high speed and/or heavily traveled corridors limits growth in the bicycle modeshare for school commutes. Parents are unlikely to bike with their children next to multiple lanes of fast-moving traffic (Fabian Way) or in congested school zones (East Meadow Drive) without the protection ofbuffer zones or physical barriers such as bollards. In fact, in November of 2015, the Palo Alto City Council directed staff to develop a Class 4 separated bikeway on East Meadow, representing an increasedmeasure of design safety than what was envisioned in the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan for this corridor. Status:Approved Project:Waverley Multi-Use Path Improvements and East Meadow Drive and Fabian Way Enhanced Bikeways (/projects/1025) Location:Palo Alto Contact Name:Reanna Tong Contact Email:[email protected] Contact Phone:6503292568 Contact Address:

(/)



23

10.a











250 Hamilton Avenue Floor 5 Palo Alto, CA 94301

1a: What bicycle and pedestrian accommodations are currently included on the facility or on facilities it intersects or crosses? Please check all that apply. Class I bicycle pathsClass II bicycle lanesClass III bicycle routesClass IV bikewaysBicycle boxesRaised separated bikewaysBicycle BoulevardsBicycle parkingSidewalks on one side or both sides of streetMarked crosswalksProtected intersectionPainted conflict zonesNarrow unpaved pathPedestrian-actuated traffic signals or routine pedestrian cycleBulb-outsBicycle actuated traffic signals or routine bicyclist cycleHigh visibility crosswalksPedestrian-level lightingADA-compliant rampsTraffic signal push buttonsRefuge islands on roadwaysTransit shelterWide curb lanesRight turn only lanesTransit vehicle stopsPedestrian countdown signalsWay-finding or directional signageNone

: Other

: Please provide specifics of any items checked above. Bicycle parking and high visibility crosswalks for adjacent middle and elementary schools.

24

10.a





: Other Upgrading bicycle facilities

1d: Please describe the overall context of the project area:

25

10.a



Fabian Way is a north/south roadway that begins at San Antonio Road in the south and ends just past East Meadow Drive in the north, where it becomes West Bayshore Road. The segment ofFabian Way included in this project extends approximately one‐half mile from East Meadow Drive to East Charleston Road. Fabian Way currently has four travel lanes (two in each direction) andbecomes a two‐lane road with one lane in each direction north of East Meadow. It has a posted speed limit of 30 mph. Average daily volume on Fabian Way ranges from approximately 10,000 to17,000 vehicles per day. Bike lanes and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. Most of the parking for the adjacent industrial and residential uses are provided in private surfaceparking lots and garages, although on‐street parking within a shared bike and parking lane is provided on some segments of Fabian Way. East Meadow Drive is an east/west roadway thatbegins at Fabian Way in the east and ends at Alma Street in the west, where it becomes West Meadow Drive. In the immediate vicinity of Fabian Way, East Meadow Drive has two lanes (one ineach direction). The intersection of Fabian Way and East Meadow Drive is stop‐controlled on the East Meadow Drive approach. There are crosswalks on two legs of the intersection. EastMeadow Drive is traveled by approximately 7,100 cars on an average day. Fabian Way terminates at its south end at East Charleston Road. Charleston Road and East Meadow Drive roughlyparallel each other and are connected by the Waverley Multi‐Use Path. The block that is defined by East Meadow Drive, the Waverley Path, East Charleston Road, and Middlefield Road is knowninformally as the superblock and is a focal point for South Palo Alto residents. The superblock contains a 21.4‐acre park, a community center and library, three public schools, a little leagueballfield, a fire station, a senior housing community, two private schools, two pre‐schools, and two churches. The superblock draws many users of all ages. Multi‐use park paths through thecenter of the block function as car‐free walking and biking routes for school children crossing from one side of the block to another.

1e: What existing challenges could the proposed project improve for bicycle, pedestrian, or transit travel in the vicinity of the proposed project? Unresponsive signals to bicyclesLack of bicycle parkingFreeway on-off rampsNarrow curb lanesChoke pointsRR crossingsNo bike racks on busesWide roadway crossingsLong signal cycles which require pedestrians to wait long periods of timeShort signal crossing timesNarrow undercrossings, overcrossingsSlip lanesSidewalk obstruction or missing sidewalkPedestrian-level lightingLack of ADA compliant facilitiesLack of Transit vehicle stops

: Other Inadequate room between parking lane and bike lane to prevent dooring. Existing multi-use path does not meet multi-use path width standards and paving has been damaged by tree roots.Network gap in existing bicycle facilities.

2a: What trip generators (existing and future) are in the vicinity of the proposed project that might attract walking or bicycling customers, employees, students,visitors or others?

26

10.a



Educational institutionsTransit stationsSenior centersHigh-density land usesDowntownsShopping areasMedical centersMajor public venuesGovernment buildingsParks

: Other Community centers

3a: Have you considered collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians along the route of the facility? No



4a: Do any adopted plans call for the development of bicycle or pedestrian facilities on, crossing or adjacent to the proposed facility/project?

27

10.a



City or town bicycle planCountywide bicycle planCity or town pedestrian planCountywide pedestrian planCombined bicycle and pedestrian planADA transition planGeneral planSpecific planRegional transportation PlanSales tax expenditure planStation area access planNo plans

: Other


5a: Do any local, statewide or federal policies call for incorporating bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities into this project? Caltrans Deputy Directive 64Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000)ACR 211MUTCD 2003MUTCD California supplementAmericans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG)MTC Pedestrian Districts StudyNonemore

: Other

: If so, have the policies been followed? No

28

10.a



5b: N/A Yes


6a: What comments have been made regarding bicycle and pedestrian accommodations at BPAC, stakeholder, or public meetings at which the proposed projecthas been discussed?

29

10.a



Stakeholders with the school district (including PAUSD, school administrators, PTA) support the enhanced bikeways to better connect the bicycle network in South Palo Alto and to providesafer biking routes on school corridors. They acknowledge that the current Waverley Bike Path is cracked, uneven, has a substandard width, and inadequate for the volume of bike andpedestrian traffic. Upgrading the path will provide a safe, off-road bike/pedestrian option for school commuters. Some specific comments include: 1) Our school entrance is located on 3450Louis between Greer Road and Ames Avenue. The entry to the car drop off south of Ames, is very tight and is also used by pedestrians, bikers coming into Palo Verde or biking on to JLS/Gunn.Oftentimes and especially right before the morning bell at 8:12 am, cars that line up on Louis to drop off Palo Verde kids, crowd into the bike lane coming into our school or block the pedestriancrossing. This creates a dangerous situation for bikers coming in from near Ames forcing them on to the road because there are parked cars blocking half the bike lane. In addition when carsare blocking one side of the pedestrian walkway it makes it impossible for kids crossing to determine whether it is safe to cross or not. This problem gets aggravated on cold and rainy days. Tominimize the bottleneck and prevent cars from moving into the bike lanes or blocking the pedestrian crossing, our principal and staff have been doing their best to man the drop off zonewhenever possible. They personally open doors so kids can get out easily and the drop off is smooth. However it would really help our school if we could create a permanent fix to demarcatethe south bound bike lane near our school entrance from the road so cars are unable to get onto the bike lane to drop off. It would also be great if we could have flashing lights on the pedestriancrossing so cars coming from both directions slow down and our kids can cross safely. 2) On the south side of our school at the intersection of East Meadow drive and Circle off of Fabian Way,there are two townhome communities. Kids from the community either go Palo Verde, Fairmeadow, Ohlone or Hoover Elementary Schools, JLS Middle School and Gunn High School. That blockis a mix of housing and commercial space. There is an intersection at East Meadow Drive and Circle that kids use to come to school and that is also used by cars coming off Fabian way andheading to work in the offices on East Meadow Circle. Between 7:30 am- 8:30 am that intersection gets busy as cars come into work and kids head off to school. I used to live there and havewalked and biked my kids to Palo Verde. I have been in situations where impatient and sometimes aggressive drivers in a rush to get to work, enter the intersection to go straight or make a rightturn even when there are kids on bikes or pedestrians in the crossing. I personally know a lot of families who have stopped biking or walking to school because that intersection can be unsafeduring the school/rush hour especially for elementary school kids. It would be great if we could use some of the funds from the VERBS grant to make that intersection safer for bikes andpedestrians by installing flashing lights or speed bumps to slow cars coming off Fabian way. It would encourage more families to walk/bike to school thus reducing the number of single drivercars on the roads. The City of Palo Alto and PTA Safe Routes to School parent volunteers like myself are always looking to encourage more of our kids and families to walk or bike to school.However, we would like to make sure that our young school commuters have safe options to get to and from school especially since the volume of traffic has been increasing in Palo Alto. As anavid biker myself and a parent of two children ages 9 and 12 who love to bike to school, I would like to request you to please consider the City of Palo Alto’s grant application to fundimprovements that will help Palo Alto become more safer for our walkers and bikers. 3) Fabian Way is a local truck route and traveled by residents, students, and seniors in South Palo Alto.Enhanced bikeway improvements on Fabian Way will improve safety and better integrate Fabian Way into the city's bicycle network, especially with the future addition of the Highway 101bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing. The addition of Fabian Way to the city's bicycle network will provide an essential link between East Charleston, East Meadow, and the Adobe Creek Trail,and the Baylands. Visitors to JCC will have safer routes to travel to and from our community center.

: How have you responded to comments received? Plans for the project area were previously discussed as part of the development of the City of Palo Alto's 2012 Bicycle + Pedestrian Plan. As a result, stakeholders are generally in favor and theCity has not responded to comments. However, some designs have not yet been finalized and the City will conduct community outreach to further develop the design.

7a: What accommodations, if any, are included for bicyclists and pedestrians in the proposed project design?

30

10.a



Class I bicycle pathsClass II bicycle lanesClass III bicycle routesClass IV bikewaysBicycle boxesRaised separated bikewaysBicycle BoulevardsBicycle parkingSidewalks on one side or both sides of streetWidened sidewalksMarked crosswalksProtected intersectionPainted conflict zonesNarrow unpaved pathPedestrian-actuated traffic signals or routine pedestrian cycleBulb-outBicycle actuated traffic signals or routine bicyclist cycleHigh visibility crosswalksPedestrian-level lightingADA-compliant rampsTraffic signal push buttonsRefuge islands on roadwaysTransit sheltersWide curb lanesRight turn only lanesTransit vehicle stopsPedestrian countdown signalsWay-finding or directional signageNone

: Other



31

10.a





: What would be the cost of the added bicycle and/or pedestrian facility?

: If the proposed project incorporates bicycle or pedestrian improvements, what proportion is the bicycle and/or pedestrian facility of the total project cost?


9a: How will access for bicyclists and pedestrians be maintained during project construction? Alternative signed bicycle routeAlternative signed pedestrian routeSeparated pedestrian pathwayOther

: Other

10a: What agency will be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the facility? The City of Palo Alto will maintain the segments of East Charleston and Fabian, street segments that are in the public right-of-way. The Palo Alto Unified School District will maintain theWaverley Multi-Use Path on their property.

32

10.a



10b: How will ongoing maintenance be budgeted? This project is enhancing existing facilities, thus it will not have an expected increase in ongoing maintenance over the existing facilities. However, street segments and the path have existingmaintenance budgets through the general fund. The City of Palo Alto's adopted FY 2018 operating budget has the goal: "Ensure the City's assets and infrastructure inventory are updated andwell-maintained."





© 2017 MTC

33

10.a






(/checklists/1204/edit) (/checklists/1204)Project:Various intersection improvements (/projects/2)

Checklist:Mount Pleasant Pedestrian and Bike Traffic Safety Improvements

Name:Mount Pleasant Pedestrian and Bike Traffic Safety Improvements Description:Improvements include a missing sidewalk segment, ADA Ramps, Rectangular Flashing Beacons, enhanced signage and pavement markings, and bicycle parking. Status:In Progress Project:Various intersection improvements (/projects/2) Location:San Jose Contact Name:Beza Kedida Contact Email:[email protected] Contact Phone:408-535-3534 Contact Address:200 E. Santa Clara St. 8th Flr, San Jose, 95113


(/)



34

10.a












: Other N/A

: Please provide specifics of any items checked above. This project includes various improvements in the Mount Pleasant neighborhood within 1/3-mile radius on direct routes to the seven area schools most of which are located within the MTCCommunity of Concern. These improvements will improve safety conditions and increase walking and cycling to the subject schools, thereby reducing vehicle emissions. The improvements areillustrated on Attachment C and include the following: • Increase safety and connectivity by providing a missing sidewalk section on the west side of Mt. Pleasant Road just south of RockyMountain Drive, along with changes to pavement marking and improvements to signage. • Enhance safety of the uncontrolled school crossing across Ocala Avenue on the westerly leg of itsintersection with Oakton Court with RRFB system, and enhanced signage and markings. • Improve accessibility by providing curb ramps where missing at intersection corners on accessstreets to the schools. • Other enhancements to school related signage and pavement markings at various locations within the area. • Provision of bike racks at five locations servicing theschool sites.

35

10.a





: Other N/A

1d: Please describe the overall context of the project area: All proposed safety improvements are within the 1/3-mile radius of the seven area schools of Robert Sanders Elementary School, August Boeger Middle School, Ida Jew Academies (TK-8th),Summit Rainier High School, Mount Pleasant High School, Adelante Dual Language Academy (TK-8th), Ocala STEAM Middle School. These elementary, middle and high schools haveenrollments that of 4,437 students mostly generated from the MTC Communities of Concern. It should also be noted that five out of the school sites are located within Communities of Concern.

36

10.a



1e: What existing challenges could the proposed project improve for bicycle, pedestrian, or transit travel in the vicinity of the proposed project? Unresponsive signals to bicyclesLack of bicycle parkingFreeway on-off rampsNarrow curb lanesChoke pointsRR crossingsNo bike racks on busesWide roadway crossingsLong signal cycles which require pedestrians to wait long periods of timeShort signal crossing timesNarrow undercrossings, overcrossingsSlip lanesSidewalk obstruction or missing sidewalkPedestrian-level lightingLack of ADA compliant facilitiesLack of Transit vehicle stops

: Other Need for safe school crossing to serve students generated by area schools.


: Other Seven elementary, middle and high schools namely: Robert Sanders Elementary School, August Boeger Middle School, Ida Jew Academies (TK-8th), Summit Rainier High School, MountPleasant High School, Adelante Dual Language Academy (TK-8th), Ocala STEAM Middle School.

37

10.a



3a: Have you considered collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians along the route of the facility? Yes

: If so, please provide the number of collisions and describe the outcomes of each: Collisions data within the 1/3-mile of the school sites for years 2012-2016 add-up to 392 collisions including 1 fatality, 15 severe injuries, 66 moderate injuries and 148 minor injuries. Pedestrianswere involved in 16 collisions, and bicyclists were involved in 21 collisions. Speeding is the highest contributing factor to the reported collisions. Other factors include failing to yield topedestrians in crosswalks, unsafe turn, DUI, and following to close. Main objective of the proposed improvements is to improve safety conditions, and hence increase walking and cycling.Achievement of this objective is planned through: Separating pedestrians from auto traffic, increasing visibility of the traffic control devices including signage and pavement markings,increasing visibility of the uncontrolled school crossings and clearly establishing the right-of-way, and improving accessibility of the sidewalks to increase their usage. With a rising pedestrianfatalities on the national, state and local levels, these improvements are timely and essential in a heavily populated Community of Concern with a concentration of elementary, middle and highschools.

: If so, what resources have you consulted? City's up-to-date collision data reporting.


: Other The Vision Zero Action Plan and the City’s Walk n’ Roll program.

38

10.a




5a: Do any local, statewide or federal policies call for incorporating bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities into this project? Caltrans Deputy Directive 64Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000)ACR 211MUTCD 2003MUTCD California supplementAmericans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG)MTC Pedestrian Districts StudyNonemore

: Other All improvements are consistent with the federal, state and local standards and guidelines.


5b: N/A Yes

5c: If this project includes a bicycle and/or pedestrian facility, which applicable design standards or guidelines have been followed?

39

10.a



AASHTO bicycle and pedestrian design guidesAmericans with Disabilities Act Accessibility GuidelinesCaltrans Design Information Bulletin 89Caltrans Highway Design ManualCaltrans California MUTCDCaltrans Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in CaliforniaFHWA MUTCDITE Designing Urban Walkable ThoroughfaresNACTO Urban Bikeway Design GuideN/A - no bicycle or pedestrian facilities includedNone

6a: What comments have been made regarding bicycle and pedestrian accommodations at BPAC, stakeholder, or public meetings at which the proposed projecthas been discussed? Planned improvements resulted from staff review and establishment of safe routes to schools in the area. They are also based on received community concerns reported in meetings andcorrespondence.

: How have you responded to comments received? We utilize our ongoing Walk n Roll activities to regularly communicate with the community's representatives, in addition to other verbal and written correspondence.

7a: What accommodations, if any, are included for bicyclists and pedestrians in the proposed project design?

40

10.a



Class I bicycle pathsClass II bicycle lanesClass III bicycle routesClass IV bikewaysBicycle boxesRaised separated bikewaysBicycle BoulevardsBicycle parkingSidewalks on one side or both sides of streetWidened sidewalksMarked crosswalksProtected intersectionPainted conflict zonesNarrow unpaved pathPedestrian-actuated traffic signals or routine pedestrian cycleBulb-outBicycle actuated traffic signals or routine bicyclist cycleHigh visibility crosswalksPedestrian-level lightingADA-compliant rampsTraffic signal push buttonsRefuge islands on roadwaysTransit sheltersWide curb lanesRight turn only lanesTransit vehicle stopsPedestrian countdown signalsWay-finding or directional signageNone

: Other



41

10.a




: Was a road diet or car parking removal considered? N/A



: If right-of-way challenges are the reason for the hindrance, please explain the analysis that led to this conclusion. N/A


: Other

10a: What agency will be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the facility? The City of San Jose.

42

10.a



(/checklists/1176/edit) (/checklists/1176)Project:Santa Clara School Access Improvements (/projects/998)

Checklist:Santa Clara School Access Improvements

Name:Santa Clara School Access Improvements Description:The project will improve bicycle and pedestrian access for several Santa Clara schools. These improvements include sidewalks, ADA ramps, high visibility crosswalks, bulb-outs, RFB's, HAWKs, and upgradedschool zone signage. Status:Approved Project:Santa Clara School Access Improvements (/projects/998) Location:Santa Clara Contact Name:Marshall Johnson Contact Email:[email protected] Contact Phone:4086153023 Contact Address:1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050


(/)



44

10.a












: Other



45

10.a




: Other

1d: Please describe the overall context of the project area: Pedestrian access surrounding multiple Santa Clara schools.


46

10.a




: Other


: Other

3a: Have you considered collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians along the route of the facility? Yes

47

10.a






: Other



48

10.a




: Other


5b: N/A No



10.a



BPAC members recommended City Staff make recommendation for safe routes to school for new school (Central Park Elementary School).

: How have you responded to comments received? This project will help facilitate these safe routes to Central Park school.


: Other

50

10.a











51

10.a



: Other Traffic Control Plans with "share the road" signage.

10a: What agency will be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the facility? City of Santa Clara

10b: How will ongoing maintenance be budgeted? General Budget





© 2017 MTC

52

10.a






(/checklists/1177/edit) (/checklists/1177)Project:Homestead Road at Homestead High School Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Project (/projects/999)

Checklist:Homestead Road At Homestead High Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Project

Name:Homestead Road At Homestead High Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Project Description:This is a joint project with the City of Cupertino, the Fremont Unified High School District, the Homestead High School and the City of Sunnyvale. The proposed improvements at Homestead Road/MaryAvenue and Homestead Road/Kennewick Drive intersections, will update the phasing from 6 phase to 8 phase at the Mary Avenue intersection, allowing protected left turns for the northbound and southbounddirections and timing the pedestrian crosswalks concurrently; tighten the radius of the south-west corner of the intersection, shortening the south and west pedestrian crosswalks; provide direct path forbicycles to high school from EB Homestead Road to Mary Avenue Bridge Trail, install high visibility crosswalks in all directions, install accessible pedestrian system push buttons; upgrade existing traffic signalto allow for in and out circulation at Kennewick Drive signal and install high visibility crosswalks. Additionally, the project will install green buffered bike lane between McKenzie Drive and Mary Avenue on thesouth side, install green buffered bike lane between Mary Avenue and Kennewick Drive on the north side (south side already has a green buffered bike lane), and update bicycle specific detection in alldirections. Status:Approved Project:Homestead Road at Homestead High School Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Project (/projects/999) Location:Sunnyvale Contact Name:Shahid Abbas Contact Email:[email protected] Contact Phone:4087307330 Contact Address:456 W. Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94086


(/)



53

10.a












: Other



54

10.a




: Other Shorter crosswalks Buffered bike lanes Green bike lanes Bike boxes at left turns Bicycle specific detection Accessible Pedestrian Signals Protected left turns

1d: Please describe the overall context of the project area: North leg of S. Mary Avenue has 4 lanes with 2 bicycle lanes and 35 mph speed limit; South leg of S. Mary Avenue is a school driveway which has 3 lanes with 1 bicycle lane; north leg ofKennewick Drive has two lanes with 25 mph speed limit, south leg is a school parking lot entrance; Homestead Road has 5 lanes (including left turns) and a posted speed limit of 35 mph.


55

10.a




: Other Vehicular interaction with bicycles Pedestrian and bicycle visibility concerns Vehicular circulation and excessive delays


: Other Homestead High School


56

10.a



No




: Other



57

10.a




: Other


5b: N/A Yes



10.a



The City met with the School District, Homestead High School Officials, and City of Cupertino. The City has received a positive feedback from all stakeholders regarding proposed improvementsand requested additional improvements to be made to accommodate bicycle traffic. The City has not conducted public meetings yet.

: How have you responded to comments received? The City has included comments made by the stakeholders on the improvements list.


: Other Buffered bike lanes High visibility crosswalks Accessible pedestrian signals Bicycle detection

59

10.a






: Was a road diet or car parking removal considered? No



: If right-of-way challenges are the reason for the hindrance, please explain the analysis that led to this conclusion. Improvements will be made within the City ROW. All other improvements within the School ROW will be made by the school.


60

10.a




: Other

10a: What agency will be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the facility? City of Sunnyvale

10b: How will ongoing maintenance be budgeted? Annually





© 2017 MTC

61

10.a






(/checklists/1178/edit) (/checklists/1178)Project:Pedestrian and Bicyclists Infrastructure Improvements (/projects/1000)

Checklist:Pedestrian and Bicyclists Infrastructure Improvements

Name:Pedestrian and Bicyclists Infrastructure Improvements Description:This project will improve safety for students walking and biking to school in Sunnyvale by enhancing and/or modifying signing and striping and installing ADA compliant curb ramps at thirty-four (34) locations,and installing Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons System (RRFB) at five (5) locations. Status:Approved Project:Pedestrian and Bicyclists Infrastructure Improvements (/projects/1000) Location:Sunnyvale Contact Name:Shahid Abbas Contact Email:[email protected] Contact Phone:4087307330 Contact Address:456 W. Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94086


(/)



62

10.a












: Other



63

10.a




: Other Crosswalks, ADA Compliant Curb Ramps, Crosswalk warning devices

1d: Please describe the overall context of the project area: There are 34 unsignalized, stop controlled intersections which are located in residential neighborhoods and within 0 to 1800 feet from school. Most of the streets have a speed limits between 25and 30 miles per hour, with few exceptions which have 35 miles per hour.


64

10.a




: Other Lack of ADA curb ramps, Poor Pedestrian and Bicycle Visibility


: Other


65

10.a



No




: Other Comprehensive School Traffic Study



66

10.a




: Other


5b: N/A No



10.a



The project received a general acceptance from the public meeting held on November 15, 2012.

: How have you responded to comments received? Public comments were reviewed and incorporated in to the improvements.


: Other Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons

68

10.a









: If right-of-way challenges are the reason for the hindrance, please explain the analysis that led to this conclusion. Potential ROW challenges may exist during the design of new curb ramps.


69

10.a




: Other Traffic control plans and signage

10a: What agency will be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the facility? City of Sunnyvale

10b: How will ongoing maintenance be budgeted? Annually





© 2017 MTC

70

10.a




Updated BPAC Work Plan

January 2018 - June 2018

Doc ID Origin Short Title

BP

AC

1/10

BP

AC

2/7

BO

D3/1

6301 Dept - Board Se BPAC Election Process for 2018 Committee Leadership: Conduct Elections A6362 Dept - TransportMTC Complete Streets Checklist I5633 Dept - TransportCountywide Bicycle Plan: Public Review Draft D6137 Division - Planni Google North Bayshore Transportation Access Study - Draft Report I I6379 Dept - TransportSan Jose Bus Boarding Island Designs I

December 21, 2017

Young_T

Text Box

13

BPAC Workplan

Doc ID Origin Short Title

BPAC 1/10

BOD 2/1

BPAC 2/7

BOD 3/1

BPAC 3/7

BOD 4/5

BPAC 4/11

BOD 5/3

BPAC 5/9

BOD 6/7

BPAC 6/13

BOD 6/22

NOTES

6346 Highways/Shanthi Chadrati I‐280 Corridor Study I

6301 Board Office/FlynnBPAC Election Process for 2018 Committee Leadership: Conduct Elections

A

6362 Transportation Planning/Ledbetter MTC Complete Streets Checklist I

6137 Transportation Planning/Chris AugensteinGoogle North Bayshore Transportation Access Study ‐ Draft Report

I* I*

5633 Transportation Planning/Ledbetter Countywide Bicycle Plan: Public Review Draft D*

6379 Transportation Planning/Ledbetter San Jose Bus Boarding Island Designs I

* tentative dateI = information item A= Action Item SR = Staff Report V=Verbal Report

Date may change.

Date likley to change.

1 1/17/2018

Young_T

Text Box

Agenda Item #13

BPAC Workplan

Number Items For Future Consideration/ In Queue Requestor:

1Santa Clara County Bicycle Technical Guidelines ‐ Needed Updates

Committee

2Expressway Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines (County)

Cameron

3 Local BPAC Bicycle‐Pedestrian Success Stories #2 Committee Leadership

4 BART Ph II Update Member Brinsfield

5 North San Jose Development Plan Member Stallman

6Discussion regarding improving communication between BPAC and Board of Directors

Member Goldstein

7How VTA Considers Equity (geographic, social, economic, modal) in its Planning

Former Vice Chair Peters

8 State Route 237 High Occupancy Toll Lanes Member Stallman

9 Collision avoidance technologies Committee

10 VTA highway projects look ahead Ledbetter

11 Bus stop signage design ‐ double sided signs Vice Chair Fearer

2017 Leadership Goals123

To be revisited with 2018 Chair/Vice Chair.

ActionStatus as of 01/10/2018

Vision Zero/safety focus (including Crossroads roll‐out)Equity focus.

Improving effectiveness of BPACs

Added to queue on 1/12/17.

Added to queue 5/8/2017. Emailed staff on 9/13 to get internal discussion started.

Added to queue on 11/9/17. Staff liaison in dicussion with highways group.Coordinate with highways program on bringing item

as regular update.

Added to queue on 11/9/17. Staff liaison in dicussion with transit planning.

Added to queue on 11/9/17.

Added to queue on 11/9/17. May be addressed during proposed future presentation on Santa Clara County Transportation Technology Strategic Plan.

Coordinate with staff on opportunities for bringing

TTSP to BPAC.

Staff is reviewing BTG for needed updates. Delayed due to Bike Plan.

In queue.

Future staff report item. 8/10/16 update: BART still on track. Scheduled to open late 2017. May organize BPAC/committee tour prior to opening, if interest.

Update on environmental meetings provided in staff report on 1/2017 BPAC.; Provided in Staff report on 9/2017

Requests update on how dev plan is making connections to GRT, other improvements. In queue. 1/11/17 Request from Member Stallman to check in

on development happening in area.

Staff to check in with VTA Development Review Team and San Jose City

staff to determine opportunities for presentation.

Continue to provide updates as part of Staff

Reports.

2 1/17/2018

BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE …vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site... ·...

Documents

Transcript of BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE …vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site... ·...