Related Links

Agenda Item # 6

BOARD MEMORANDUM

The VTA Board is expected to consider the COA proposal at its August 30, 2007 meeting.  This will allow for a first phase of service changes by the target date of January 2008.  A brief summary of the proposal will be presented to the Board at the April 2007 meeting. In May and June, VTA staff will be seeking stakeholder input.  Stakeholders in the COA process include VTA’s advisory committees, organized labor and the general public.  Finally, public meetings will be held throughout the county beginning in May 2007.  The detailed presentation of the COA proposal at the March and April Transportation Planning and Operations Committee is an effort to provide Board members the opportunity to digest the proposal and provide meaningful input prior to public outreach activities.

COA Background

The Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) began with detailed data collection and analysis of market conditions both for the transit and overall travel market in Santa Clara County.   The first product of that analysis was a new direction in VTA Board policy represented by the Transit Sustainability Policy (TSP), which established core principles as a guide to the policy and the COA effort.  The TSP also set out definitions of VTA’s transit “products” and matches thresholds and criteria for these product offerings such as ridership, operational characteristics and facilities. 

The Market Segmentation Analysis, an examination of the overall travel market presented to the VTA Board at its February 2007 Workshop, revealed that there are two large segments of the population based on attitudes and demographics.   The larger of these segments will be difficult to attract to transit given sensitivities to time and a need for overall travel flexibility.  However, the other side of the market is more amenable to transit as a travel choice provided services are designed to respond to their needs and attitudes.  Using demographic data, it is possible to map the concentration of these market segments as an input into transit service design. 

VTA’s existing customers were asked to provide information towards the COA during an extensive On-Board Passenger Survey effort conducted in late 2005 and early 2006.   Key findings of this research revealed that a majority (56 percent) of VTA riders had an annual household income below $25,000.  Also, 63 percent of VTA riders rode the system because they “had no other way” or were, in other words, transit dependent.  The passenger survey also solicited customer feedback on VTA’s existing services and asked for suggestions for improvement.  The two highest-rated suggestions by VTA riders for improvements to the system were to “offer more frequent service” and “provide real time information”.

Combining existing customer’s travel patterns with the overall travel market data and other factors such as land use, parking costs and congestion built the foundation for a method of rating the “transit competitiveness” for origins and destinations throughout the county.  Areas that were highly competitive for transit origins exist throughout the county, especially in the central and eastern parts of San Jose.  However, very few transit competitive destinations exist, with only Downtown San Jose serving as a concentrated area for transit trip destinations.  The lack of a congregation of transit competitive destinations presents a significant challenge to providing cost-effective transit services.

An in-depth examination of VTA’s existing transit operations and performance was also performed in the data analysis phase of the COA.  It revealed that a select few lines within VTA’s 70-plus local and express routes were carrying the vast majority of riders.  While these lines tend to perform well, the vast majority of VTA services are underutilized, contributing to the overall farebox recovery rate of just under 14 percent.  Board policy states that a target farebox recovery rate of between 20 and 25 percent be reached by Fiscal Year 2007.  The evaluation of existing transit performance, together with the analysis of both the transit and non-transit markets, indicated that there are a select group of corridors that can make up a core transit network.

COA Proposal

The COA proposal was developed under the premise that it is a budget neutral exercise.  In other words, overall system service levels will remain the same. The goal is to increase ridership and improve farebox recovery through more efficient use of the equivalent resources.  Through efficiency measures such as eliminating or consolidating unproductive route segments, the proposal generates resource savings.  These savings are then reinvested into the areas of the system that are most productive and offer opportunities for ridership growth.

The COA proposal reduces the number of vehicles required system wide while roughly maintaining the same number of service hours.   Overall, the COA proposal requires 295 vehicles in the AM peak period, 308 vehicles in the PM peak and 246 vehicles in the midday. Compared to today’s system, the vehicle requirement in the peak period will be less while it will grow in the midday. 

The remainder of this memorandum describes areas of detail for the COA proposal.  The presentation is organized into the following areas:

• The core service area,
• Express bus/limited stop services,
• Future Bus Rapid Transit services,
• Community Bus program, and
• Candidates for reduction and consolidation.

Core Service Area

Based on existing service performance and the results of the COA market analysis, a “core transit network” of the VTA service area was developed. The “core transit network” has high transit ridership potential based on a concentration of transit competitive origins and destinations and the prevalence of market segments that are amenable to transit. Service frequency is a critical component to building a core network of transit services in the county.  Research into transit customer behavior suggests that 13 minutes is the cut-off point for “spontaneous” transit use where a customer will walk to a stop and wait for a bus without referencing a schedule.  Because the county is characterized by relatively few primary east-west and north-south corridors, the creation of a core network can be accomplished by focusing investment in these areas.  Building ridership in this core area is central to the COA Core Principles, which state that the COA shall “define a core transit network of services that serve a variety of trip purposes”.

Altogether, 17 lines are proposed to offer service frequencies of 15 minutes or less.   This is an increase over the existing network where 12 lines have frequencies below 15 minutes in the peak period.  The 22, 23 and 25 all will have frequencies of 12 minutes or less.  Some lines – such as the 26 and 60 – feature “shortline” segments that enhance service on the most productive portion of the line, allowing for both concentrated local and longer distance service.  In addition to enhanced peak service, the proposal increases midday frequencies in an effort to better meet the needs of VTA’s core transit market.  Thirteen lines have been identified as midday lines deserving 15-minute or better midday service.  This contrasts with today’s network where only eight lines feature midday frequencies less than 30 minutes. 

The investment in midday service is a direct response to the market analysis, which identified the travel needs of both the Transit Tripper and Mellow Mover segments as being focused on all-day flexibility and convenience.  Both segments are part of a “core” market for transit services because they are less time sensitive and more flexible than other travelers. They are also characterized by low-income households and tend to be concentrated in the central and east side of the county, where most of the core network lines are relocated. By offering greater midday service, VTA can strengthen its position and capture more of this core market of likely transit users traveling in the most transit competitive corridors.

Express Bus Services

Attracting the other end of the travel market – the Young & Restless and Mover & Shaker segments – is a greater challenge given their attitudes towards transit, dispersed origin and destination pattern and desires for amenity-rich, high-speed service.   These segments comprise close to 68 percent of the overall travel market, however and represent the opportunity for significant growth. While much of the proposed core network cannot compete effectively for these travelers, there are specific corridors where transit is competitive.  

The Fremont BART-to-San Jose market is one example.  The concentration of trips in the east bay-to-south bay commuter market – parallel to both I-880 and I-680 – makes this corridor one of the most congested in the Bay Area.  The COA proposal addresses the existing gap in transit service by deploying Express Buses to meet every Fremont train and offering direct service –to Milpitas, Lockheed or Downtown San Jose – in an effort to attract choice travelers.  This service to Downtown San Jose was identified by the RIDE Task Force and San Jose State University officials as an untapped market improved transit service.  A similar rationale is behind a proposed 168 Express serving the South County-to-Downtown San Jose market.   The 168 Express will originate at the Gilroy Transit Center, make one stop at the Morgan Hill Transit Center and then use connected freeway HOV lanes (101, 85, and 87) for an express trip to Downtown San Jose.  The Gilroy Community-based Transportation Plan identified Express Bus service from South County to Downtown as a future transit improvement.

Future Bus Rapid Transit Services

Offering a choice of frequent, fast transit to the Movers & Shaker market in South County is an additional service, layered on top of the existing high density service on the northern portion of Monterey Highway, between the Santa Teresa Light Rail station and Downtown San Jose.  This segment is a future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line as identified in the Valley Transportation 2030 Plan and the 2006 Measure A Expenditure Plan.  The COA proposal acknowledges that this and other future BRT routes will require capital improvements such as bus signal priority treatments, enhanced stations and even dedicated lanes to achieve true BRT status.  However, services on these routes have all been upgraded in anticipation of future conversion.  A summary of the BRT route enhancements is presented below:

• Santa Clara/Alum Rock (Rapid 522, future 523) – A new routing of the 23 Stevens Creek extending it eastward on Santa Clara Street and Alum Rock Avenue anticipates a future BRT service in the highest transit ridership corridor of the VTA system. The revised routing opens a new market by connecting major travel markets in the east and west.  Because the 23 line is being upgraded to 12-minute all day headways, it also provides greater overall service frequency in the Santa Clara/Alum Rock corridor.  Provided the VTA Board selects BRT in the corridor, future BRT service will feature both the 523 and 522 operating at 6-minute all day frequencies with rail-like stations and a dedicated median busway on Alum Rock Avenue.
• El Camino (522) – The 522 line is unchanged in the COA proposal.  This Rapid Bus line and the local bus line 22 carry 21 percent of the overall bus system ridership.  Headways remain at 15 minutes all day.  Future upgrades will include station facilities and other measures to improve overall line speed.
• Stevens Creek (future 523) – The 23 line will be extended eastward on the Santa Clara/Alum Rock corridor and headways will drop from 15- to 12-minutes.  This anticipates the future service frequency of the 523 along with a through routing all the way to Alum Rock Transit Center.  The future BRT project will also feature capital improvements at key station sites such as Valley Fair/Santana Row, Vallco and a new De Anza Transit Center.
• Sunnyvale-Cupertino (future 555) – A short line will be overlaid to the most productive segment of Line 55, providing a 15-minute headway all-day along the route.  The route has also been streamlined to encourage longer trips and improve efficiencies.  A future 555 BRT will also require bus signal priority treatments along with exploration of alternative routings such as Mathilda and the 54 line.
• Monterey Highway (future 568) – Currently the Monterey Highway corridor has two local bus lines, 66 and 68, providing effective headways of 7.5 minutes during the peaks and 15 minutes during midday. These two lines will be streamlined under the COA proposal.  While the existing travel speed is already at BRT levels, the likely focus of future 568 development will be station facilities and the pedestrian environment in the corridor.

Community Bus Program

The success of VTA’s pilot Community Bus line in Los Gatos and upcoming implementation in South County are both indicators of future efforts to rationalize the system by better matching VTA’s service offerings to the communities.  As defined in the Board-adopted Service Design Guidelines,

“Community bus service is typically deployed to better meet the needs of individual communities and neighborhoods, improve general circulation within a fixed local area and access to higher-capacity transit systems or transit centers. Community bus service is typically deployed in lower-density residential developments, central business districts, and in providing connections between residential areas and schools, shopping malls, employment centers, and recreational areas.”

For the COA proposal, 16 lines are proposed as Community Bus lines.  Most are conversions of existing local bus service while others are new lines.  The new lines include the 11, a Community Bus serving the Japantown area north of Downtown San Jose, linking low volume trip generators such as a senior center with the Guadalupe Light Rail line.  Conversions include the 88 in Palo Alto, where the routing will be reconfigured to emphasize the productive segment serving the Veterans Administration Hospital.

The vision for Community Bus entails active community participation in the design and branding of the service.   The COA proposal therefore has identified likely Community Bus candidates with routes that should be viewed as “placeholders” for the purpose of matching resources to communities. The ultimate service profile for each of these lines will be developed by VTA staff working together with each community to develop a vision for local transit service. 

CANDIDATE DELETION AND CONSOLIDATION LINES

The COA effort is intended to provide rationality to the system by examining existing routings and frequencies to determine whether they are delivering the most effective use of public investment.   In addition, the COA is intended to invest resources in target markets where transit can compete by identifying efficiencies and cost savings in the unproductive parts of the system.  The Core Principles state that VTA should “operate service when and where there is sufficient mass of demand to meet ridership and revenue expectations” and “balance service productivity and service coverage”.  The Service Design Guidelines provide a benchmark to measure service effectiveness and productivity in categories ranging from Community Bus to Bus Rapid Transit. 

The COA proposal suggests deletion of 11 local bus lines.  In addition, the proposal deletes or consolidates five Express or Limited lines.  The deletion candidate lines have an average farebox recovery rate of 9 percent and average passengers per revenue hour of 15.  This contrasts with the overall bus system, where the average farebox recovery rate is 16 percent and the passengers per revenue hour is 25.  In the core network, the average farebox recovery rate climbs to 17 percent and the passengers per revenue hour is 28. It is no coincidence that all of these routes are located outside of the core service area, where few transit competitive destinations exist and market segments tend to be harder to reach with conventional local bus services.

Of the deletion candidate routes, many are being replaced by or consolidated into other, more productive routes.   For example, the 58 line is being consolidated with the neighboring 57 to offer trunk service between Bowers/Scott and Saratoga/Campbell.  The 85 line generates slightly below average ridership but it also operates in close proximity to several other lines, specifically the 25 in central San Jose and the 82 in downtown. Other lines, such as the 36, 39 and 67 all have parallel or duplicative service in their most productive segments.  

It is possible to counteract these measures by offering customer amenities such as real time information systems, allowing customers to better plan trips using the real time information available through PDAs, cell phones and the internet.  VTA’s future real time information program should target these areas for initial development, given the market profile characterized by a high level of technological literacy.

The COA proposal is intended to be a starting point for discussion of transit service and VTA Board policy.   As such, it has incorporated the Core Principles adopted by the Board in October 2006 and responded to the market analysis efforts conducted at the outset of the study period.  The proposal maintains the objectives of maintaining existing resources in an effort to build ridership and improve farebox recovery. 

COA Presentation
Slide 1Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Comprehensive Operations Analysis COA Proposed Service Operating Plan June 2007

Slide 2 COA Outreach Schedule

April 2007             VTA Board – Draft Proposal

May-June 2007     COA Stakeholders, VTA Advisory and Standing Committees, Stakeholder Groups, Public Meetings (May 21-June 6)

August 2007             VTA Board Action (Aug. 30)

January 2008             Phase/ Service Implementation

Slide 3 VTA Board Policy

1. Improved Ridership, Productivity, and Effectiveness

Operate service when and where there is sufficient mass of demand to meet ridership and revenue expectations

2. Higher Farebox Recovery, Less Reliance on Subsidies

Increase transit mode share by focusing resources to target markets where transit can compete effectively.

3. Greater Responsiveness to Customers

Define a core transit network of services that serve a variety of trip purposes, and a market-based network of services that serve specific customer needs.

4. Effective Use of Transit Investment and Resources

Establish performance goals and standards for productivity and effectiveness, and evaluate and adjust service and standards regularly for optimum effectiveness.

COA premise: cost neutral.  The COA proposal will invest the same resource level in a more efficient system.

Slide 4 Core Network Area

Map: Transit Competitive Factor and Core Network Area

Slide 5             Proposal Organization

The COA is organized into 5 Focus Areas for the purposes of presentation

1. Core Network

2. Non Core Services

3. Express/ Limited Stop Services

4. Community Bus Program

5. Deletion & Consolidation Candidates

Slide 6               Map:  Core Network Routes- COA Proposal

The existing Route 10 peak headway is 15 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 15 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 10 midday headway is 15 minutes compared with a 15 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 10 is 5   with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  4, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 10 is 5 with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of 4, representing a  reduction. Notes: Airport Shuttle. Discontinue service to employee lot.

The existing Route 22 peak headway is 12 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 12 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 22 midday headway is 12 minutes compared with a 12 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 22 is 26 with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of 24, representing a   reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 22 is 24 with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of 23, representing a  reduction. Notes: Discontinue Palo Alto-Menlo Park segment - saves vehicles

The existing Route 522 peak headway is 15 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 15 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 522 midday headway is 15 minutes compared with a 15 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 522 is 16 with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of 16, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 522 is 15 with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of 15, representing no change. Notes: No change - future enhancements with BRT program

The existing Route 23 peak headway is 15 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 12 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 23 midday headway is 15 minutes compared with a 12 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 23 is 12 with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of 16, representing an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 23 is 12 with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of 15, representing an enhancement. Notes: Through route to Alum Rock Avenue, 12-minute headways

The existing Route 25 peak headway is 10 to 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 10 to 30 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 25 midday headway is 15 to 30 minutes compared with a 10 to 30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 25 is 19 with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of 18, representing a reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 25 is 12 with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of 17, representing an enhancement. Notes: Improve midday frequencies

The existing Route 26 peak headway is 20 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 15 to 30 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 26 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a 15 to 30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 26 is 13 with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of 10, representing a reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 26 is 7 with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of 10, representing an enhancement. Notes: Short line on eastern segment, improved frequencies.

The existing Route 55 peak headway is 20 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 15 to 30 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 55 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a 30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 55 is 9 with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of 9, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 55 is 5 with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of 4, representing a reduction. Notes: Routing efficiencies, interlining with 54 for enhanced service

The existing Route 57 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 15 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 57 midday headway is 40 minutes compared with a 30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 57 is 6 with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of   8, representing an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 57 is 4  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  4, representing no change. Notes: Shortline enhancement b/t Bowers & West Valley CC

The existing Route 60 peak headway is 20 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 15 to 30 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 60 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   15 to 30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 60 is 6  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  8, representing an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 60 is 5  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  8, representing an enhancement. Notes: Shortline pattern b/t Santa Clara TC & Winchester LRT

The existing Route 64 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 15 to 30 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 64 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   15 to 30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 64 is 9  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  9, representing an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 64 is 8  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  8, representing an enhancement. Notes: Re-route eastern segment to McKee

The existing Route 66 peak headway is 15 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 15 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 66 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   15 to 30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 66 is 15  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  14, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 66 is 7  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  11, representing an enhancement. Notes: Southern segment routing efficiencies. Future BRT service.

The existing Route 68 peak headway is 15 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 15/30 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 68 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 68 is 15  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  13, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 68 is 9  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  8, representing a  reduction. Notes: Discontinue Gavilan CC segment. Supplement w/ 168 Express

The existing Route 70 peak headway is 15 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 15 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 70 midday headway is 15 minutes compared with a   15 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 70 is 14  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  14, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 70 is 13  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  13, representing no change. Notes: Minor deviation correction

The existing Route 71 peak headway is 13 to 20 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 15 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 71 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 71 is 8  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  8, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 71 is 5  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  4, representing a  reduction. Notes: No route change - consistent AM frequencies

The existing Route 72 peak headway is 15 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 15 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 72 midday headway is 15 to 20 minutes compared with a   15 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 72 is 10  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  7, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 72 is 7  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  7, representing no change. Notes: Interline with 73 in Downtown. All-day 15-minute frequencies

The existing Route 73 peak headway is 15 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 15 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 73 midday headway is 15 to 20 minutes compared with a   15 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 73 is 5  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  7, representing an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 73 is 5  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  7, representing an enhancement. Notes: Interline with 72 in Downtown. All-day 15-minute frequencies

The existing Route 77 peak headway is 15 to 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 15 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 77 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   15 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 77 is 7 with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  8, representing an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 77 is 3  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  8, representing an enhancement. Notes: Discontinue routing north of Great Mall.

Slide 7              Map:  Non Core Network Routes- COA Proposal

The existing Route 27 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 27 midday headway is 45 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 27 is 7  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  4, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 27 is 4  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  4, representing no change. Notes: Santa Teresa - Good Sam Hospital. Discontinue remainder.

The existing Route 31 peak headway is 15 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 15 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 31 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 31 is 8  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  4, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 31 is 4  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  2, representing a  reduction. Notes: Eastridge - Evergreen. Replace Capitol segment w/ 43 CB.

The existing Route 33 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 33 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 33 is 2  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  1, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 33 is 2  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  1, representing a  reduction. Notes: Great Mall - McCarthy Ranch.

The existing Route 35 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 35 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 35 is 5   with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  4, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 35 is 5  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  4, representing a  reduction. Notes: Palo Alto - Mntn View TCs. Discontinue service to Stanford Center

The existing Route 46 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 46 midday headway is 60 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 46 is 2  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  3, representing an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 46 is 1  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  2, representing an enhancement. Notes: Milpitas City Loop. No change. Interline with 47.

The existing Route 47 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 47 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 47 is 2  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  2, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 47 is 2  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  2, representing no change. Notes: Milpitas City Loop. Streamline northern segment.

The existing Route 51 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 51 midday headway is 60 minutes compared with a   60 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 51 is 3  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  2, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 51 is 2  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  1, representing a   reduction. Notes: Vallco - Moffett. Mntn View HS key generator.

The existing Route 52 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 52 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 52 is 2  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  3, representing an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 52 is 2  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  3, representing an enhancement. Notes: Downtown Mntn View - Foothill CC. Replaces 23 Foothill service.

The existing Route 53 peak headway is 60 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 60 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 53 midday headway is 60 minutes compared with a   60 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 53 is 3  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  1, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 53 is 1  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  1, representing no change. Notes: Westgate - Sunnyvale TC. Streamline route to serve De Anza.

The existing Route 54 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 54 midday headway is 45 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 54 is 5  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  3, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 54 is 3  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  3, representing no change. Notes: West Valley CC - Sunnyvale/Fair Oaks. Mathilda routing.

The existing Route 61 peak headway is no minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 61 midday headway is no minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 61 is 0  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  5, representing an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 61 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  5, representing an enhancement. Notes: Good Sam Hospital - Sierra Road. Restructured Line 36.

The existing Route 62 peak headway is 20 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing a reduction. The existing Route 62 midday headway is 20 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing a reduction. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 62 is 7  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  5, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 62 is 7  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  5, representing a  reduction. Notes: Common trunk with Line 61 b/t Taylor & Bascom

The existing Route 63 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 63 midday headway is 45 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 63 is 4  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  4, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 63 is 3  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  4, representing an enhancement. Notes: SJSU - Almaden LRT. Discontinue segments sought of Coleman.

The existing Route 65 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 60 minute headway, representing a reduction. The existing Route 65 midday headway is 45 minutes compared with a   60 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing a reduction. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 65 is 3   with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  1, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 65 is 2  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  1, representing a  reduction. Notes: Fruitdale LRT - Camden/Branham. Discontinue 63 segment.

The existing Route 81 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 81 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 81 is 9  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  4, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 81 is 9  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  4, representing a  reduction. Notes: West side only. Operates between Downtown and Vallco.

The existing Route 82 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 82 midday headway is 40 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 82 is 4  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  4, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 82 is 4  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  4, representing no change. Notes: Westgate - 21st/Mission. Discontinue route north of Downtown.

Slide 8              Map: Express & Limited Routes- COA Proposal

The existing Route 101 peak headway is 4 Trips compared with a proposed COA peak headway of no trips, representing reduction. The existing Route 101 midday headway is none compared with no midday headway within the proposed COA, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 101 is 2   with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 101 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. Notes: Vallco-Palo Alto. 11 passengers. Discontinue.

The existing Route 102 peak headway is 3 Trips compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 3 trips, representing no change. The existing Route 102 midday headway is none compared with no midday headway within the proposed COA, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 102 is 2   with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  3, representing an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 102 is 0 with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. Notes: South San Jose - Palo Alto. No change.

The existing Route 103 peak headway is 4 Trips compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 3 trips, representing no change. The existing Route 103 midday headway is none compared with no   midday headway within the proposed COA, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 103 is 0 with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of 3, representing an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 103 is 0 with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. Notes: Eliminate deviation to Fruitdale LRT, add stop at Vallco.

The existing Route 104 peak headway is 3 Trips compared with a proposed COA peak headway of no trips, representing no change. The existing Route 104 midday headway is none compared with no   midday headway within the proposed COA, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 104 is 3  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 104 is 0 with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. Notes: East San Jose - Palo Alto. 11 passengers. Discontinue.

The existing Route 120 peak headway is 3 Trips compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 120 midday headway is none compared with no   midday headway within the proposed COA, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 120 is 1  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  3, representing an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 120 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. Notes: BART - Lockheed. Combine with 140 for increased service.

The existing Route 121 peak headway is 4 Trips compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 4 trips, representing no change. The existing Route 121 midday headway is none compared with no   midday headway within the proposed COA, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 121 is 4 with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  3, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 121 is 0 with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. Notes: Gilroy - Lockheed. Re-align to 101 & Lawrence.

The existing Route 122 peak headway is 1 Trip compared with a proposed COA peak headway of no trips, representing a reduction. The existing Route 122 midday headway is none compared with no   midday headway within the proposed COA, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 122 is 1 with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of 0, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 122 is 0 with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of 0, representing no change. Notes: South San Jose - Lockheed. Discontinue. Now served by 121.

The existing Route 140 peak headway is 5 Trips compared with a proposed COA peak headway of no trips, representing a reduction. The existing Route 140 midday headway is none compared with no   midday headway within the proposed COA, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 140 is 4 with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 140 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. Notes: BART - Sunnyvale Caltrain. Consolidated with new 120.

The existing Route 141 peak headway is no trips compared with a proposed COA peak headway of no trips, representing a reduction. The existing Route 141 midday headway is none   compared with no  midday headway within the proposed COA, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 141 is 0  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 141 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. Notes: BART - Great America. Seasonal only. Discontinue.

The existing Route 168 peak headway is no trips compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 168 midday headway is none   compared with no  midday headway within the proposed COA, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 168 is 0  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  5, representing an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 168 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. Notes: South County - Downtown. New Express using HOV network.

The existing Route 180 peak headway is 20 to 15 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 15 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 180 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   15 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 180 is 8  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  5, representing reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 180 is 5  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  8, representing an enhancement. Notes: BART - Great Mall - Downtown. Enhanced frequency.

The existing Route 181 peak headway is no trips compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 15 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 181 midday headway is none   compared with no  midday headway within the proposed COA, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 181 is 0  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  8, representing  an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 181 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. Notes: BART - Downtown. Peak Express to Downtown/SJSU.

The existing Route 182 peak headway is 2 Trips compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 2 trips, representing no change. The existing Route 182 midday headway is none   compared with no  midday headway within the proposed COA, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 182 is 0  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 182 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. Notes: Palo Alto - IBM. Reverse express. No change.

The existing Route 304 peak headway is 5 Trips compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 304 midday headway is none   compared with no  midday headway within the proposed COA, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 304 is 3  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  3, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 304 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. Notes: South SJ - Mountain View. Consolidate with 305.

The existing Route 305 peak headway is 3 Trips compared with a proposed COA peak headway of no trips, representing a reduction. The existing Route 305 midday headway is none   compared with no  midday headway within the proposed COA, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 305 is 3  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 305 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. Notes: South SJ - Mountain View. Discontinue. See 304.

The existing Route 321 peak headway is 3 Trips compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 1 trip, representing a reduction. The existing Route 321 midday headway is none   compared with no  midday headway within the proposed COA, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 321 is 1  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  1, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 321 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. Notes: Great Mall - Lockheed. Reduce trips to match demand.

The existing Route 328 peak headway is 1 Trip compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 1 trip, representing no change. The existing Route 328 midday headway is none   compared with no  midday headway within the proposed COA, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 328 is 1  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  1, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 328 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. Notes: Almaden Expressway - Lockheed. No change.

The existing Route 330 peak headway is 3 Trips compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 1 trip, representing a reduction. The existing Route 330 midday headway is none   compared with no  midday headway within the proposed COA, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 330 is 1  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  1, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 330 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. Notes: Almaden Expressway - Tasman. Reduce trips to match demand.

Slide 9              Map:  Community Bus Routes- COA Proposal

The existing Route 11 peak headway is none compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 11 midday headway is no minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 11 is 0  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  2, representing an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 11 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  2, representing an enhancement. Notes: New CB. Connects J-town senior housing or LRT, Retail.

The existing Route 13 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 13 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 13 is 2  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  2, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 13 is 1  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  2, representing an enhancement. Notes: Conversion. Replace segments of 63. Modify alignment.

The existing Route 14 peak headway is none compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 60 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 14 midday headway is no minutes compared with a   60 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 14 is 0  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  1, representing an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 14 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  1, representing an enhancement. Notes: Conversion. Gilroy - Wal-Mart. Split of 17 Line.

The existing Route 15 peak headway is 39 to 55 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 60 minute headway, representing a reduction. The existing Route 15 midday headway is 56 minutes compared with a   60 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing a reduction. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 15 is 0  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  1, representing an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 15 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  1, representing an enhancement. Notes: Conversion. Serving residential areas east of 101.

The existing Route 16 peak headway is 55 to 60 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 60 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 16 midday headway is 60 minutes compared with a   60 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 16 is 2  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  1, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 16 is 1  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  1, representing no change. Notes: Conversion. Serves mobile home parks & high schools.

The existing Route 17 peak headway is 65 to 60 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 60 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 17 midday headway is 60 minutes compared with a   60 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 17 is 1  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  1, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 17 is 1  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  1, representing no change. Notes: Conversion. Serves a shortened version of current 17 Line.

The existing Route 18 peak headway is 30 to 35 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 18 midday headway is 45 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 18 is 0  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  1, representing an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 18 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  1, representing an enhancement. Notes: Conversion. Replaces 68 service b/t Gilroy TC & Gavilan CC.

The existing Route 19 peak headway is 30 to 35 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 19 midday headway is 45 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 19 is 2  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  1, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 19 is 1  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  1, representing no change. Notes: Conversion. Connects residential areas to Gilroy TC.

The existing Route 32 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 32 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   60 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing a reduction. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 32 is 6  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  4, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 32 is 3  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  2, representing a  reduction. Notes: Conversion. San Antonio TC - Santa Clara TC. Re-align.

The existing Route 34 peak headway is 60 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of no minute headway, representing a reduction. The existing Route 34 midday headway is 60 minutes compared with a   60 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 34 is 1  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 34 is 1  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  1, representing no change. Notes: Conversion. Midday, weekday service to DT Mountain View.

The existing Route 40 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 40 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 40 is 2  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  2, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 40 is 2  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  2, representing no change. Notes: Conversion. No changes

The existing Route 42 peak headway is none compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 60 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 42 midday headway is no minutes compared with a   60 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 42 is 0  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  1, representing an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 42 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  1, representing an enhancement. Notes: New CB. Replaces existing 72 service south of Monterey.

The existing Route 43 peak headway is none compared with a proposed COA peak headway of no minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 43 midday headway is no minutes compared with a   no minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 43 is 0  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 43 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. Notes: New CB. Serves Capitol Expwy in evenings and Sundays.

The existing Route 45 peak headway is none compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 45 midday headway is no minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing an enhancement. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 45 is 0  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  2, representing an enhancement. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 45 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  2, representing an enhancement. Notes: New CB. Replaces segment of 64 b/t Penitencia & Alum Rock TCs

The existing Route 48 peak headway is 25 to 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 48 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 48 is 2  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  2, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 48 is 2  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  2, representing no change. Notes: Existing CB. Becomes primary service on Winchester.

The existing Route 49 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route 49 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   30 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 49 is 2  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  2, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 49 is 2  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  2, representing no change. Notes: Existing CB. Becomes primary service on Los Gatos Blvd.

The existing Route 88 peak headway is 60 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 30 minute headway, representing an enhancement. The existing Route 88 midday headway is 60 minutes compared with a   60 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 88 is 4  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  2, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 88 is 2  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  1, representing a  reduction. Notes: Conversion. Cal Ave Caltrain to VA Hospital. Re-align.

The existing Route River Oaks peak headway is 15 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 15 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route River Oaks midday headway is no minutes compared with a   no minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route River Oaks is 1  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  1, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route River Oaks is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. Notes: Conversion. Shuttle Route b/t River Oaks LRT & residential bldgs.

The existing Route DASH peak headway is 10 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 10 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route DASH midday headway is 10 minutes compared with a   10 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route DASH is 3  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  3, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route DASH is 3  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  3, representing no change. Notes: Conversion. Downtown San Jose circulator.

The existing Route Great America peak headway is 15 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of 15 minute headway, representing no change. The existing Route Great America midday headway is 15 minutes compared with a   15 minute proposed COA midday headway, representing no change. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route Great America is 1  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  1, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route Great America  is 1  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of   1, representing no change. Notes: Conversion. Service to Great America theme park.

Slide 10             Map:  Deleted and Consolidated Routes- COA Proposal

The existing Route 36 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of no headway, representing a reduction. The existing Route 36 midday headway is 45 minutes compared with a   no minute proposed COA midday headway, representing a reduction. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 36 is 4  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 36 is 2  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. Notes: Consolidate. Join segments of route to 62 & 61.

The existing Route 37 peak headway is 45 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of no headway, representing a reduction. The existing Route 37 midday headway is 60 minutes compared with a   no minute proposed COA midday headway, representing a reduction. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 37 is 2  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 37 is 1  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. Notes: Discontinue. Less than 11 boardings/revenue hour. 

The existing Route 38 peak headway is 45 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of no headway, representing a reduction. The existing Route 38 midday headway is no minutes compared with a   no minute proposed COA midday headway, representing a reduction. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 38 is 3  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 38 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. Notes: Discontinue. Segments already served by 48 & 60.

The existing Route 39 peak headway is 20 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of no headway, representing a reduction. The existing Route 39 midday headway is 40 minutes compared with a   no minute proposed COA midday headway, representing a reduction. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 39 is 2  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 39 is 1  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. Notes: Consolidate. Major generators walking distance to 71.

The existing Route 44 peak headway is 35 to 25 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of no headway, representing a reduction. The existing Route 44 midday headway is no minutes compared with a   no minute proposed COA midday headway, representing a reduction. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 44 is 0  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  0, representing no change. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 44 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. Notes: Discontinue. Less than 6 boardings/revenue hour. 

The existing Route 58 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of no headway, representing a reduction. The existing Route 58 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   no minute proposed COA midday headway, representing a reduction. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 58 is 6  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 58 is 4  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. Notes: Consolidate. Trunk served by 57. Alviso by River Oaks Shuttle.

The existing Route 59 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of no headway, representing a reduction. The existing Route 59 midday headway is 45 minutes compared with a   no minute proposed COA midday headway, representing a reduction. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 59 is 3  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 59 is 1  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. Notes: Discontinue. Less than 11 boardings/revenue hour. 

The existing Route 67 peak headway is 60 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of no headway, representing a reduction. The existing Route 67 midday headway is no minutes compared with a   no minute proposed COA midday headway, representing a reduction. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 67 is 1  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 67 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. Notes: Consolidate. Productive segment served by 66.

The existing Route 76 peak headway is 70 to 65 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of no headway, representing a reduction. The existing Route 76 midday headway is no minutes compared with a   no minute proposed COA midday headway, representing a reduction. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 76 is 1  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 76 is 0  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. Notes: Discontinue. 15 boardings/revenue hour.

The existing Route 85 peak headway is 30 minutes compared with a proposed COA peak headway of no headway, representing a reduction. The existing Route 85 midday headway is 30 minutes compared with a   no minute proposed COA midday headway, representing a reduction. The existing peak vehicle requirement for Route 85 is 4  with the COA proposed peak vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. The existing midday vehicle requirement for Route 85 is 4  with the COA proposed midday vehicle requirement of  0, representing a  reduction. Notes: Consolidate. Served by 23, 25 and 82.

Click here to return to the Board Agenda Index