AC TRANSIT DISTRICT Board of Directors Executive Summary Committees: Executive Committee External Affairs Committee
GM Memo No. 03-029 Meeting Date: January 23, 2003
Operations Committee Planning Committee
D □
Q □
Board of Directors
SUBJECT:
A. RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE NORTH ALAMEDA COUNTY AND WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PORTION OF THE SERVICE DEPLOYMENT PLAN. B. CONSIDER ACTION ON THE ABOVE PLAN.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
□ Information Only
Recommended Motion
Staff recommends that the Board approve service changes shown in Attachment 1 and incorporate them into the Environmental Document. This action would require the Board to continue this item until February 6, to allow the staff and consultants to prepare an Addendum to the adopted Negative Declaration.
Fiscal Impact:
Phase 1 of the Service Deployment Plan, if implemented in June 2003 as proposed, would save the District approximately $4 million annually. Phase 2 would cost approximately $6 million (for a net increase of $2 million over existing costs). The District will implement Phase 2 when funds become available, currently not expected for several years. Background/Discussion:
BOARD ACTION:
Approved as Recommended [ ] Approved with Modification(s) [ ]
Other
IX]
SEE ATTACHMENT "A" FOR BOARD ACTION, WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES.
The above order was passed and adopted on January 23,2003. Rose Martinez, District Secretary
By.
GM Memo No. 03-029
Subject: Receive Public Comments and Consider Approval of North Alameda County and West Contra Costa County Portion of Service Deployment Plan Date: January 23, 2003 Page 2 of 8
Purpose of Service Deployment Plan (SDP) The Service Deployment Plan implements Service Policies adopted by AC Transit's Board of Directors in December 2000; these policies are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of the District's Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP)—which is available on the District's Web site (www.actransit.org). The SDP was originally intended to implement these policies and add service in both Northern and Central Alameda Counties, commensurate with the expected
increase in sales tax revenue projected from the reauthorization of Measure B in Alameda County.-_However, the current economic downturn in sales tax receipts has resulted in significantly lower revenue than anticipated. -(South County, as a special transit district within AC Transit, was the subject of an earlier planning study that resulted in service restructuring in December 2000.) The District initially hired a consultant who developed a draft plan, dividing the proposed service changes into four phases. Status of the Plan to Date
In June 2002, the Board Study/Negative Declaration
adopted Resolution No. 2058 approving the final Initial for the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Service
Deployment Plan (SDP). That resolution also approved the Central Alameda County portion
of the SDP, and authorized staff to begin implementing service changes in that geographical area, subject to the availability of funding. The Central Alameda County changes had been the subject of an intensive planning study that began in 2000, and included extensive input from elected officials, city and county staff, and community members. In December 2002, the District implemented some of those service changes in San Leandro, Hayward and unincorporated parts of the County, but will defer the remaining changes in Central County until a later date, because they require funds that are currently not available. The remainder of the SDP affects Northern Alameda County and West Contra Costa County. Following the Board approval of the environmental document, staff further refined the service proposals for those areas, dividing the changes into two phases. The two phases reflect the current financial situation of the District. Phase 1 would result in initial savings of about $4 million annually for the District, and Phase 2 would add about $6 million in annual costs, for a net increase of $2 million over current costs. The Board subsequently approved a staff proposal for consideration of public input, and directed the staff to conduct extensive outreach. A summary of the original staff proposal is shown in Attachment 2. The current staff recommended plan, summarized in Attachment 1, includes many revisions based on public comments and is discussed below.
Financial Condition of AC Transit
GM Memo No. 03-029
Subject: Receive Public Comments and Consider Approval of North Alameda County and West Contra Costa County Portion of Service Deployment Plan Date: January 23, 2003 Page 3 of 8
AC Transit, like other transit agencies in the region, is suffering a severe financial crisis.
Fares generate 20-25% of operating expenses; the remainder is covered by subsidies. Over 60% of the revenues are related to sales taxes, and these have been greatly impacted by the current economic slowdown. In addition to the revenue shortfall, expenses rose considerably
in many areas, such as benefits and insurance. In response, all the major Bay Area transit agencies have increased fares or cut service; some have done both.
In the current fiscal year, which began July 1, 2002, AC Transit will balance its budget by transferring about $11.1 million from reserves. This action, approved by the Board, was required in order to avoid service cuts, even after the District undertook many belt-tightening measures. These included increasing fares, leaving vacant positions unfilled throughout the agency, reducing its general fund contribution to capital projects, and, most recently, implementing a work force reduction in transportation supervisor positions. Staff believes that it is prudent to use this level of reserves on a one-time basis, to avoid service cuts, but that no reserves can be used to offset projected deficits for next year without jeopardizing the financial stability of the agency.
The Board recently reviewed projections for the FY 03-04-budget year, which shows a deficit next year of $5 to $12 million. This deficit could increase after further analysis of District expenses and revenues. The deficit assumes continuing the cost-saving actions already implemented this year. It also assumes taking full advantage of a one-time measure to defer purchasing replacement buses for one year, generating nearly $23 million that can be used to offset operating costs next year. This one-time flexible use of capital funding has been approved by the regional Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as an emergency measure available next year to help transit agencies cover their costs and give them time to more carefully plan for longer-term service cuts.
The financial projection also reflects the recently approved parcel tax measure (Measure AA), which will contribute $7.5 million annually beginning in FY 03-04. Additionally, the condition of the state budget could further impact AC Transit negatively. The deficit in FY 0405 is currently projected to total up to $30 million, reflecting the loss of the one-time transfer of capital funds ($23 million). In light of the financial situation, the District is proposing to implement Phase 1 of the SDP in
June 2003, saving approximately $4 million annually. Phase 2 of the Plan, which would cost $6 million, would be deferred until sufficient revenues are available. Even with the potential savings of $4 million next year, it appears that the District will likely have to consider even more severe service cuts in the near future, with implementation possible as early as fall 2003. The larger package of proposed service cuts will include local and Transbay service throughout the AC Transit District. Public Outreach on SDP
GM Memo No. 03-029 Subject: Receive Public Comments and Consider Approval of North Alameda County and West Contra Costa County Portion of Service Deployment Plan Date: January 23, 2003 Page 4 of 8 In October, after the Board authorized staff to begin outreach on the initial staff-proposed changes, staff printed 70,000 brochures in English describing the proposal and inviting the public to attend three community meetings in December. Brochures were distributed on board buses and mailed to over 5,000 elected officials, city staff, neighborhood centers, community organizations, members of transit advocacy groups, and Individuals who had commented on the SDP at previous Board meetings. The community meetings were also promoted via the District's Web site, on-board car cards, and in community calendar announcements and display ads in local newspapers. Translated versions of the brochure, 5,000 in Spanish and 5,000 in Chinese, were distributed to appropriate locations and made available to bus operators for use on selected lines. Approximately 90 people spoke at the first meeting, held at the North Berkeley Senior Center on December 4. Approximately 100 people spoke at the second meeting, held at the Districts' General Offices in downtown Oakland on December 10; and 8 people attended the final meeting in San Pablo on December 12. Additionally, staff attended meetings with city staff, elected officials, and city transportation commissions/committees from most affected cities. As of the date of this report, the District has received approximately 300 e-mails, letters, and petitions related to the proposed changes. Attachment 3 summarizes comments from the three community meetings, e-mails, and other correspondence received to date. Staff has prepared a full binder with copies of all correspondence received from the public, and a detailed summary of all the comments made at each of the three District-sponsored meetings. This binder is available for Board members to review by contacting the District Secretary's office. Additionally, an updated summary of the public comments will be available at the Board meeting, reflecting all comments received by noon January 22. Based on public comments and additional internal analyses, staff made changes to the plan and produced a new brochure outlining the revised proposal, and distributed 60,000 brochures in English, 5,000 in Spanish, and 5,000 in Chinese. These brochures were
distributed in similar fashion to the initial brochure, and also mailed or emailed to all persons and organizational representatives who attended the community meetings or who contacted the District directly with comments on the initial plan. Unfortunately, the Chinese and Spanish brochures were not available until Friday, January 17, because of the time needed for translation, so those communities will not have very much notice of the public hearing. Staff Recommendation The staff recommendation for Phases 1 and 2 of the SDP is described in detail in Attachment 1. While several minor modifications were made to the initial proposal, the recommendation
differs significantly from the initial staff recommendation presented to the Board last fall in the major areas described below. The overall savings from Phase 1 of the plan total approximately $4.0 million in both versions.
GM Memo No. 03-029
Subject: Receive Public Comments and Consider Approval of North Alameda County and West Contra Costa County Portion of Service Deployment Plan Date: January 23, 2003 Page 5 of 8
1. Lines 7 and 43, which were initially shown for reductions in service, are now proposed to remain exactly as the service exists today. These were among the most controversial changes proposed in the initial plan, because that proposal would have severed the existing routes and decreased their frequency. Staff now recommends retaining the lines because: a) implementation of the Class Pass has increased ridership in the Berkeley area, calling into question the 1998 ridership data on which the original recommendation was based; b) from an operations standpoint, terminating the 43 Line @
Center and Shattuck requires more layover space at that corner than is currently available; and c) the initial proposal was predicated on other changes, such as creating a new Line 20, that resulted in other costs. In the later public meetings, and at a recent meeting with Berkeley public officials, the new proposal was viewed as a major improvement in the plan, and will result in better support for the District, particularly in the Berkeley area.
2.
Line 19, a proposed new line, has been shortened, and terminates at the North Berkeley BART station, rather than in El Cerrito. This change results from the above proposal to retain the existing Line 43, and responds to concerns that the original line was too long, increasing the potential for reliability problems. 3. A shortened Line 59 is proposed, rather than eliminating that line altogether, and covering portions with other lines. With the above proposed changes in Lines 7 and 20, this service had to be re-evaluated, and staff recommends retaining the most productive portion of the line and eliminating the rest. 4. Although no changes were originally proposed for Line 52, the recommendation now calls for mid-day service to be eliminated, with peak-period service remaining.
The District entered into a settlement agreement with the residents of Cedar Street in the early 1990's that limits our ability to operate 40' diesel vehicles on that street. During the public process, some residents of Cedar St. raised this issue, and staff updated our ridership data for the segment of Cedar served only by Line 52, and determined that the segment had very low ridership during most of the day, comparable to other service that was proposed for elimination. Retaining the peak-hour service would allow the District to increase service at a later date, if warranted, without requiring a public hearing. 5. Line 51 is proposed to change so that all trips terminate at the same points in
Berkeley and Alameda. The new recommendation proposes terminating all trips at 3rd
St. and University in Berkeley and Broadway and Bianding St. in Alameda (service to the Marina in Berkeley would be incorporated into Line 9, and service on the loop in Alameda would be covered by Lines 49 and 63). In addition to saving hours, this proposal is expected to increase reliability on the line, which was the subject of several public comments.
6.
Lines 40L and 82L were proposed for changes in Phase 1 that are now deferred to Phase 2, and would be implemented with proposed rapid bus service on those corridors.
GM Memo No. 03-029
Subject: Receive Public Comments and Consider Approval of North Alameda County and West Contra Costa County Portion of Service Deployment Plan Date: January 23, 2003
Page 6 of 8 Attachment 4 details costs and savings related to all of the proposed changes, and will be provided to the Board members and available on the Web Site on Wednesday, January 22nd. The Status of the Environmental Document and the Board's Decision Options
Under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a public agency cannot take action on a discretionary project until it has considered the environmental consequences of the proposed action. The District met its initial obligation under CEQA when it approved the final Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Service Deployment Plan (SDP), by the adoption of Resolution No. 2058 on June 20, 2002. However, since the SDP was scheduled to be implemented in phases, CEQA requires that the Board consider the content of the Negative Declaration for each phase as it is considered, and, if approved, to file a notice of determination for that phase. Copies of the Negative Declaration for the SDP will be provided to the new directors. The directors who were on the Board in June 2002 are requested to refer to their copies. Upon close of the public testimony the Board has the following options available to it: 1. After considering the content of the SDP Negative Declaration for these phases, the Board could adopt the SDP for North Alameda County and West Contra Costa County, as it was initially proposed, without the inclusion of any modifications which would require the preparation of an addendum to the SDP Negative Declaration (as explained in option 2, below). Staying within the boundaries of the project for these areas, as set forth in the approved Negative Declaration, the Board can modify the service as it deems appropriate. If this course of action were undertaken then a Notice of Determination would be filed based on that action. 2. Continue the decision on the SDP to February 6, 2003 to consider modifications recommended by staff in this memo as a result of the public outreach meetings held prior
to the public hearings. These modifications were not originally included in the scope of the SDP Negative Declaration. If the Board concurred with the inclusion of these modifications then an addendum to the Negative Declaration would be prepared as permitted by section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. The changes in the addendum must not be so significant that they would require the preparation of an EIR or a Negative Declaration. ESA, the District's environmental consultant, has reviewed the proposed changes set forth in this memo and determined that they can be handled as a addendum to the SDP Negative Declaration. The addendum does not need to be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the adopted Negative Declaration for the Board's consideration prior to acting on the SDP.
GM Memo No. 03-029
Subject: Receive Public Comments and Consider Approval of North Alameda County and West Contra Costa County Portion of Service Deployment Plan Date: January 23, 2003 Page 7 of 8
3.
Depending on the information provided at the public hearings, the Board may direct staff to consider further modifications, either in addition to the changes referred to in item 2, above or as stand alone changes, i.e. without consideration for the changes identified in item 2. Such action also would require a continuation of the consideration of the SDP to the meeting of February 6, 2003, provided they qualify as addenda under section 15164. ESA would have to evaluate the proposed changes cumulatively or separately, depending on the nature of the Board's direction to determine the significance of the changes.
4. There may be additional information which the Board requires before acting which is unconnected to the environmental document or the Board is not willing to take action upon close of the public hearing. In either case the decision would have to be continued to the Board meeting on February 6, 2003.
ESA will be present at the public hearings and during the Board discussion in order to ensure a clear understanding exist regarding the comments received from the public and the direction taken by the Board of Directors, if an addendum is the desired course of action. If Board's decision is continued to February 6, 2003, the appropriate resolution will be included in the Board packet for that meeting. Prior Relevant Board Actions/Policies: GM Memo 02-256a: Update on Service Deployment Plan and Direct staff to Proceed with Plan GM Memo 02-134c: Adopting Resolution 2058 Approving the Negative Declaration, Authorizing the Filing of a Notice of Determination and Adopting the Central Alameda County Portion of the Service Deployment Plan (June 2002) GM Memo 01-350: Adoption in Concept of AC Transit Service Deployment Plan, for the Purpose of Defining the Project for Environmental Analysis
Attachments: Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Current Staff-Recommended Service Changes Included in the North Alameda County and West Contra Costa County Portion of the Service Deployment Plan (January 2003) Initial Staff-Recommended Service Changes Included in the North
Alameda County and West Contra Costa County Portion of the Service Attachments: Attachment 4:
Deployment Plan (November 2002) Summary of Public Comments Regarding Service Deployment Plan Costs/Savings of Proposed Service Changes
GM Memo No. 03-029 Subject: Receive Public Comments and Consider Approval of North Alameda County and West Contra Costa County Portion of Service Deployment Plan Date: January 23, 2003 Page 8 of 8 Approved by:
Rick Fernandez, General Manager
Prepared by:
Kathleen Kelly, Deputy General Manager, Service Development Robin Little, Special Projects Manager Kenneth C. Scheidig, General Counsel Christina Verdin, Associate Transportation Planner Victoria Wake, Marketing and Community Relations Manager
Date Prepared:
January 15, 2003
ATTACHMENT 1
CURRENT STAFF-RECOMMENDED SERVICE CHANGES INCLUDED IN THE NORTH ALMEDA COUNTY AND WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SERVICE DEPLOYMENT PLAN (JANUARY 2003)
ATTACHMENT 1
Current Staff-Recommended Service Changes (January 2003)
PHASE 1 PROPOSED SERVICE CHANGES Weekend
Weekday
Description Hows
Hours Frequency
Operation 6/BA
ol Operation
Frequoncy
Dttcorfllniien; some portions wculd bt liaoipomad mm levteed Line 9 and new Line 19. or covered by editing Una 57.
H/A
H/A
WA
WA
Discontinued; Mine portions would bi covered by Una 65,
N/A
N/A
N/A
H/A
6aro-6pm
2D
6am-8pm
20
6aro-&30jmi
20-30
7am-7pro
30
BanWpm
20-30
6am-7pn
30
Would combine most ol current line wilh Dwlglrl Way portion ol Una 65 and Ashby Ave. portion of lira 6, with row terminals at Oamiwmt and Aunty eves., and the Berkeley Marina; service noted bt eitentfsd by ens hour and Irequsney would be reduced Irom 15 mrm in 211 mtoS4 service on Sacramento Stto Nmtti Berkeley BART would ba dlsctmaiued. 11
Peak-naur frequency would decrease trom 15 mlns. to 20 mlns.
12
New terminal ti downtown Oakland at 11th and Jctlircon sis.; peak-hour u«,u 15 mlns. to 20 mlns.; Atemada portion would be Incorporated tnto new Una 19.
13
Routs would be extendad along 14th St to Wood St., 12lh SI, end Mandela Pkwy., Incorporating a discontinued portion xil Una 62; trequancy would decrease from 15 mlns. to 20 mlns.
5sm-7pm
20
WA
N/A
14
Would operate In (JawrtovmOaiaaiKlon14mSlln3UMdo111rhBTid12lriBlB.bstiWBenAilelln3Sl.Bnd1ttAv8.
5am—7pm
15-30
5srn—7pm
30
15
Would operate current routs southbound to 20lh St and Broadway, then via 20tti St., lakeslds Dr., and Jackson Si in Wh/121h ste- replacing a purttan ol Una 59.
17
Would 09 rerouted to ibjy on Koflh Ave. to Broaov/ay wflh ponton along Presley Way, Debit Rd., and
N/A
44
Would Incorporate the portion ot Une 53 that now serves Kmart wast ol Frultvalo BART; Bsivlce would be pxtcndsd by three houra between hultvale BART anil Kman only.
5am9:30pm
4914m
Would be rerouted to operate Irom Frultvals BART via Uio Fniltvale Bridge and Femslde Dr. to High SL to
5:30am-
15/30
would bo reduced from
7em-0pm
530am9:30pm
6am-6pm
70
N/A
H/A
H/A
N/A
WA
15-30
7am9:30pm
30
N/A
WA
30-60
Patton SL dlsconttnuad.
DlscorrUnuBd; some portions would ba Incorparaled Into new Una 19.
Incorporate a dteoontftmsd portion of Uns 51.
7pjri
0-20 24 Hours 6-20 N 24 Hours
SI
Ave. m ol 1/19/03), Hah St.and fen-Ms Blvd. m Alameda would Da dtaccntlnuBd (son Lbms 49/49M and 63). 52
8am-10am
Midday service would be discontinued.
30
WA
H/A
4pm-6pm
Now terminals at Fniltvols BART, and Lyman end Tiffin tds.; service along Uncoln Ave. to Oiatjot Space end Science Center would bs dtanUnuBd; Une 53A would be Incorporatei into Una 53. SB
Routs would bs shortensd to operate between Morrtdalr and IBlhSL BART via 'Pill Hill'; all portion carved only
5am-.
midnight 24 Hours
10-17
24 Hours
BanWpm
40
6am-7pm
40
Bnm-flpm
30
NA
HA
{portal between 19th SL BART, and 11th/12Ui sis. and Jackson SL would be tacerporatedlir!oUi)e15);eIlutps would fas designated Una 59; Irequmcy would decrease Irom 30 mins. to 40 mlns. 62
Would bo rerouted to stay on 7th/Bth Bts. west ol Broadway, terminating al West Oakland BART; dtaontinued portion along Wood SL and 12th SL would be Incorporated Into an extension ol Une 13; discontinued portion along Ptralta SL, 71h SL, Union SL, 10lh SL, and I1th/12lh sis. would be Incorporated Into now Une 19. Would operate via High SL and Endnai Avs. to Broadway, rether than Oils Dr. to Broadway, to Incorporate a discontlnusd portion ol Una 51^
N/A
N/A
WA
WA
Route would be shortened to operate bom Berkeley BART b Lawrence HaH ol Science via EuriM Ave. ami Grizzly Peak Blvd.; return trips would operate via Senior Ave., Campus Dr., and Shasta Dr., Incorporating 8 portion of discontinued Una B; Dwtght Way portion would bs tncorporaiad Into Una 9; treouency would decrease Irom 20-30 mlns. to 30 mlns. weekdays and Irom 30 mins. to BO mlns. weekends.
5:30am-
30
730am-
60
Route would be shortened to operate from Berkeley BART to Spruce SL and Grizzly Peak Blvd.; return trips would operate via BbIoH Ave. and Vassar Ave.; service would bo extended by one hour; discontinued portion between B CerrltD Plaza BART and Ntrth Berkeley BART would be Incorporated Into new Une 21; service north ol El Cetrlto Plaza BART muld be dlsconUnued; direct service between North Berkeley BART and downtown Berkeley
5:30am8pm
30
720am6:30pm
60
72
Would operate via Robert MUtr Dr. Instead ol Btarnnham Dl to HtntDp Hall; Birmingham Dr. portion would ba tnuupuinlml brio Une 76; Goulhtm terminal would be 2nd SL and Broadway, with eentn to Oakland Amuak replaced by revised Una 58; treqmmcy would decreased hum 20 mtns, to 30 mlns. dwtnn paak hours.
24 Hours
30
24 Hours
30
73
Renamed 72M (sbb balow under 'Hew Lines').
See72M
See72M
See72M
See72M
721
Renamed 72R and upgraded (bbb below under *I1bw Unas'); frequency Increased trom 20 mlns. a 12 mlns.
See72R
Seo72R
See 7211
Sse72R
Route would bs extended to »erw Klltop Ma3 via Birmingham Dr.; Leroy Hslghte portion would ba discontinued.
6am-0pm
30
7sm-7pm
60
Would operate via 11 oi/12Ui sis. hi downtown Oakland, instead ot 14th SL, with a new northern terminal
24 Hours
12-15/ 12-15
24 Hours
20-20
Would enerate via Market SL and nth/12tn sts. with portrsms along iBlh SL end Broadway discontinued; raw southern terminal at Lske Merrill BART.
5:30am-
20
5J03R-
20
M/A
N/A
Dlsconttnmd.
65
B7
8pm
would bs discontinued.
B2/B2L
325
ot 1101 and Jstrerson sts.; West Oakland portion would bs served by Unss 13.19. and 62.
OlsconGnued. AlamEda/OaMand terry terminal would conumrs to be served by Line 50.
1-1
H/A
ATTACHMENT 1
Current Staff-Recommended Service Changes (January 2003)
PHASE 2 PROPOSED SERVICE CHANGES Weekend
Weekday
Description
I
Hours
Hours at
Frequency
ol
Operation
Operation
Frequency
40
Would operate to new northern terminal at 11th and Jeflersan sts. via Foothill Blvd.; frequency would Increase from from 7-8 mtns. to 6 mlns.
24 Hours
24 Hows
10
43
Would operate between new northern terminal at Center SL and Shattuck Ave. and iibw southsrn terminal at Fninvale BART via Shattuck Ave., Telegraph Ave., Webster SL, Santa Clara Ave., Broadway, Tllden Way, and the Frultvals Bridge; would replace Una 51 In Alameda; weekday frequency would Increase from 10 mlns. to 8 mlns. Two options would be considered for serving the discontinued portion north ot downtown Berkeley. Option A: Replace Une 72M with new Una 73 operating between Point Richmond and downtown Berkeley via MacDonald Ave., San Pablo Ave., Solano Ave., and Shattuck Ave.; Central Ave. and Pierce
24 Hours
24 Hours
15
5/
Would operate to new southern terminal al Jack London Square; frequency would decrease by 2 mlns.
24 Hours
8-12
24 Hours
15
72
Frequency would Increase from 12 mlns. to 10 mlns. during peak hours.
24 Hours
10-15
24 Hours
30
72HI
Frequency would increase from 12 mlns. to 10 mlns. during peak hours.
24 Hours
10-15
24 Hours
30
72?
Saturday service would be added.
6am-7pm
12
6am-7pm
12
Would operate from Center SL and Shattuck Ave. In Bsrkelsy via Telegraph Ave., Broadway, 11 UVt 2lh
24 Hours
10-15
24 Hours
15
New Rapid Bus service renamed 82R; would operate trom Center SL and Shattuck Ave. In Berkeley via 6am-fipm Telegraph Ave., Broadway, 11th/I2th sis., and International Blvd./L I4lh SL to Bay Fair BART; would replace TelBgrspli Ave. portion of Line 40/40U peak-hour frequency would Increase from 12 mlns. to 10 mlns.
10-15
8am-6pm
15
SL would be served by an extension of Una 68. Option B: Operate a new line between El Cerrtto BART and downtown Berkeley vie Central Aye.. Pierce SL, Buchanan SL, Solano Ave., and Shattuck Ave.
sts., and International BtvdJE 14th SL to Bay Fair BART; would replace Telegraph Ave. portion of Une 40/401; peak-hour frequency would Increase from 12 mlns. to 10 mlns.
B2L
1-2
ATTACHMENT 2
INITIAL STAFF-RECOMMENDED SERVICE CHANGES INCLUDED IN THE NORTH ALAMEDA COUNTY AND WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PORTION OF THE SERVICE DEPLOYMENT PLAN (NOVEMBER 2002)
ATTACHMENT 2
Initial Staff-Recommended Service Changes
PHASE 1
(November 2002)
2-1
ATTACHMENT 2
Initial Staff-Recommended Service Changes (November 2002)
PHASE 2 PROPOSED SERVICE CHANGES Wcokcnd
Weckdoy
Description Hours ol OpotaUon
Would operate to new northern terminal at lift and Jefferson sis. via Foothill Blvd.; frequency vrould
Hours Fiaqutncy
ol
frequency
Operation
24 Hours
24 Hours
10
24 Hours
24 Hours
15
lncrBB88 from 7—B rolns. to 6 rnlnsy 43
Would operate to new southern terminal et Frultvalo BART vta Shatluck Avb.. Telegraph Ave.. Webster St.. Santa Clara Ave.. Broadway. TDden Way. and the Frultvalo Bridge; would replace Una St In Atameda; weekday Irequoncy would Increase from 10 mlns. to 8 mine.
;
24 Hours
B-12
24 Hems
15
Frequency would Increase from 12 mine, to 10 mlna. during poak hours.
24 Hours
10-15
24 Hours
30
Frequency would Increase (mm 12 mlns. Id 10 mlna. during peak tours.
24 Howe
10-15
24 Hours
30
6am-7pm
12
6am-7pm
12
5f
Would operate from 3rd SL and University Ava. to Jack London Square via University Avb., College Avb.,
72
raw
and Broadway; frequency would dacreaso by 2 mlns.
7ZR
BO.
Would operate (ram Center SL and Shattuck Ava. In Berkeley via Telegraph Ava., Broadway, 11th/12lh eta., and International BWdVE 14lh SL to Bayfeir BART; would replace Telegraph Ave. puritan of Una 40/401; peak-tour frequency would Increase from 12 mlns. to 10 mlna.
24 Hours
10-15.
24 Hours
15
New Rapid Bus service renamed B2fl; would operate from Center SL and Shatluck Ave. In Berkeley via Telegraph Ave., Broadway, 11UV12lh els., and International BlvdVE. 14l)i SL to Bayfelr BART;
6am-Epm
10-15
6am-6pm
15
12 mlns. to 10 mlns.
AC TRANSIT
SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Summary of Public Commento bv Line
Board of Dineton Meeting Item Nf|' P'lhlic Heanlna/SDP
Attachment 3 to CM Memo No. 03-029(Revised)
Tabulations include: Public Meetings In Oakland, Berkeley, and Sen Pablo; emails, letters, faxes, phone cans, and petitions
AC TRANSIT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Summary of Public Comments bv Line
ROUTE
ROUTE
description op changes
Publla
PuMe
PUBUC COMMENTS:
ComMftt! SUPPORT
ComwiE
alternate souitiox8/ suggestions
AOEHCV/ OROANBATi
COMMENTS
BART via AimgUn Avs Md MonfcrayAv*
r«m*«]«l DolNaisBART FraqiMm kmvIco (Ming cocnnutas:!
Mob of dhoonUnmd portion would knoofpontod (mount 20
TacmlratB at RocMdgs BAflT: ShwiyM. Kelly. CilyCteXOyd Run tho 20 eveiy tim frtnulw
so tXMUfefrhg ta nttdo Mtlofi Ff«qwncy woUd docroan from 1S/2O R*iutB« to 40 mmutos aB dfty
Run atlMtt 2000 minute
Addbustlopalcomnol
Marin/Atamnb: 1
Bwfcdoy. oppont chango to nut* o» MM WVWS tO nOUlO T
DMofwi BsdhiSi Downtown Bofkoloy Anoclsikifi, don not won clwngoa that affod mivIob to youtti that attend Borttoloy High School
Run Irofli Tchjysh doy ichoof
toVkio*Sliattudc7
Ran horn EC HBh B Shattudc 2 Run front North O
BART B El C«at» BMTT: 2
Tabulations Include: Public Moettigs In Oakland, Beritelay, and San Pablo; emails, lottors, taxes, phone calls, and petitions
AC TRANSIT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Summary of Public Commenta bv Una
Tabulotions bidudo: PubDc Moofings In Oakland. Berkeley, and San Pablo; emails, letters, faxes, phone cads, and petitions
AC TRANSIT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Summary ol Public Comments by Una
Tobulations includs: Public Meetings In OaMand, Baifceley, and San Pablo; emails, lettere, faxes, phono calls, and petitions
AC TRANSIT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Summarv of Public Comments by tine
Tabulations Inchide: Public Meetings In Oakland, Berkeley, and Son Pablo; emails, letters, taxes, phone calls, and petitions
AC TRANSIT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Summary of Public Comments bv Una
Tabulations Include: PubOe Meetings In Oakland, Berkeley, and San Pablo; emails, totters, faxes, phone calls, and petitions
AC TRANSIT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Summary ot Public Commanta by Una
Tabulations Inctudo: PubBc Meatings In Oakland, Boikaley, and San Poblo: emails, letters, taxes, phons colls, and pfttWons
AC TRANSIT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Summary of Public Comment! bv Line
NEW
ROUTE
ROUTE
DESCRIPTION OF CHANCES
PufcOe
Public
ComnwnU SUPPORT
Cotwiunt
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
ALTERNATE SOUmONS/ SU0QESTI0N8
Hm 90 aM tmquancy and
Umpmum) >«u inw Una 1»L
AOENCY/OflaAHIZATIOHAL C0MVENT8
■tMnatt short rant: 1
E* A. Sang. Phi), EacuSv* Onaor.
Run butts lass dunng non-
EAioaten, Holy NsniM Col*o*>
rnnainn:]
tppOMtt tt># dHconflnurtoft el mw^o to
Gonka to Bwkoty High: 1
UtM «nd Holy Nuim CotagM.
Ch* l_ PM»«. AoWnton Counular.
cm Mrvtea aAw s pjn: t
cm Rodaugi ponton, nam
Half Names Cctegs. opposa ta dssonCnusSon of swlov to Mwitt wid Sharon Ctsty. OJ>, Holy Namn CoMg^ oppcen (Sttwfflnuho tank*
rhataVn «»RBd»noilHalghBat«a
totting 791
ttooou to D#rttwoy
•Igrammt Kmp wvU t> Mm* 3
Run tStu neon iwvIck 1
Susan EggeB. Asstanl to 8w Vte» PTMnont *Qf Student AftAks( Holy Nunu GoOiqv, oppoMt Vw
(tsoMlnuagen of 84, as • pmtdas Ba v to aaa and «pcii»nc« Bw ana
Run bus ones tnd how; 2
UMimlerbuM«:1
vovno VMtn
Jtnrtt Boftnowshl CGC, AmWwu Dean of Aadamie AlWrt. Holy Nmn Col0Q0, oppoMs ttio chanajtt to tht 64
tftti fwtiovv •otvtos fram Holy Nsmos NMd drsct but front MoRtdw Cottfl.
Tabulations Include: PubDe Mooting* bi Oakland. Berkeley, and San Pablo; emails, tottera, faxes, phone cans, and petitions
AC TRANSIT
SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Summary of Public Comments bv Una
HEW ROUTE
ROUTE
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES
PuMK
Putfle
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Comment?
CMTVMItti
SUPPORT
OPPOSE
ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS/ SUOQCSTIOIt8
AOeNCV/OMANIZ*TK»UL COUUENTS
Routs wot*) b* tnomned tp open*
(nan Barkalay BART to lemma
Hsl ol SdMWO via EucU •») QituV PnkBt DwlgntWsypMJon would b*
Incoipoftttod Into Un6 P
jy
IS
Extend to Lawrenw Han
during tl hourt: 1
67 QoinQ tnjtn Spmct throuoh (honOwfpjht to
(rani
20/30 ininutM to 30 mlnutm *i*9
Run «imiai bum du*g o» pnki
Ron «t MM 20 mm Inqumy Frec|twicy would dvcreflso nun 30
minutM to 60 nwutot ou™^
UnnwebDtsbutoi, op. dufing Afternoon: 1
BsniDloy Tiinsportofloo Convni34lonar,
impranoof
• wan
BART«DTBKtol«r-1 Stagger Kh«lu!«e5«7 on
oppotn tM 1» rtdtn on Una es •>■ nawi to (Ha all ■round town to gel hi Berkaloy
EudkV Spnico
PMmonVCtaftmon. brtng itudcnlstoWDbint t
r«fn*tali al ShsBuck mi Kmndge:1 It connvctv itm to North
S«v»BayCT(1500
«nptoyooi):1 RalMiaM'Mnlorloop*, ottftfolng nrvlco boiwMn
(MzDy Pmk and EucU: 3
Tabulations Include: Public Mesflngs In Oakland, Berkeley, and San Pablo; emails, lettsrs, (axes, phone calls, and petitions
AC TRANSIT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Summary of Public Comments bv Llna
Tabulations Include: Public Meetings in Oakland, Berkeley, and San Pablo; emails, tenors, faxes, phone calls, end petlDons
AC TRANSIT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Summary ol Public Comments bv Line
New Lines
Tabulations Induda: Public Meetings In Oakland, Berkeley, and San Pablo; emails, letters, faxes, phono calls, and petitions
AC TRANSIT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Summary of Public Comments bv Lino
Tabulations Include: Public Meetings In Oakland, Beikeley, and San Pablo; emails, tetters, faxes, phono cells, and potHlons
AC TRANSIT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Summary of Public Commanta bv Lino
Tabulations Include. Pubic Meetings bi Oaktand. Berkeley, and Son Pablo; emails, letten, faxes, phone cans, ond petitions
AC TRANSIT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Summary ot Public Comments bv Linn
Phase 2
Tabulations Incbjde: Public Meetings in Oakland, Berkeley, and San Pablo; emails, tottois. faxes, phone cads, and petitions
AC TRANSIT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Summary of Public Comments bv Lino
PLEASE NOTE: RouUna lor all 0*4 Sank* w« racmln imhangad. altiwuth aoma mnaawHbaninainad
Tabulations Induda: Public Moollngs in Oakland, Berkeley, and San Pablo; amass, letteis, (axes, phone calls, and petitions
AC TRANSIT
SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Comment Patella
MHapnMWIMlS
MnuaCfclCflWMUdt*
cmmi* Margin •>
IBBIRMblllMK
IMMMHBIKIM1I
Moaona>>iimuBcn«i
AC TRANSIT
SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Comment Details
I i
MHOMIHM.1HH
n
b TMgnot «•» •« MM W|r
u» IT ni naw uw 10
wdbs a evtoa «ui m
i MS Maim IK.
AC TRANSIT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Comment Dotall»
cmcnmcm or octal* I
mm oabt»u«»m h» a
to*MI«O«M
■ U«nHMU»tt
HMUMMII
1!
u
AC TRANSIT
SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Comment Detalla
ottaxe
atf»
New Urns
-
-
— nTi
p
ugMnMIMMIMt inimiMwiwnm
•m a ruMgt awr. im ti •cng o*ga An t bmmx im
IM n Hong HUM May,
MMM.nW.t0M>
mat an»»a ■ tat Pat An t Buaarwamntiat
d 8at f«D SI •
na MM« lagnaM SUIT aO MlMMAT
AC TRANSIT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Comnwnt Details
AC TRANSIT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Comment Details TYMOPCUMMDfT
II Phase 2
AC TRANSIT 8EHVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Comment Detail* TVPC OP COWIINI
opm» m ■ odd mnu; wnuv
AC TRANSIT
SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Summary of Petitions
Description
177i(s«s a petition to advocate that we are not
i with the AC transit dlsconttnunlng
I As 64 bus line that runs from Berkeley to
109
ICottego.
To ow elected officials, federal, state, and llocal: we the undersigned, protest the cuts In AC Transits bus service. We torbenlly petition you to find funds tor AC Transit to keep our buses running: From Downtown
23
Oakland, Broadway, Summit Hospital (PIB Hill). Piedmont Avenue, Broadway Terrace, to Montdalr Shopping Center, Merrit and
\Holy Names colleges
To our elected officials, todoral, state, and llocal: we the undersigned, protest the cuts In
\AC Transit's bus service. We fervently
110
you to Und funds for AC Transit to keep our buses running: §59, tS9A, 164
We, the undersigned home ownwers of our
\narroe one-block-long residential side street between Miles Avenue and Chabot Road, 3t(17o(20househ hereby petition AC Transit to eliminate that of the *17 Bus route which travels on Presley Way.(see petHon lor various reasons)
78 Petition: to continue the 76 sendee to
LeroyHeights
83(49rfdetoU>roy Heights)
We the riders ol AC Transit Bus Unot64 Implore you to maintain existing levels ol or better. Please dont discontinue this lino
313
I We, the people of the East Bay. petition and \ isttoti^y ptotBst tho discouttftijonco of bus
\f$4. This bus Is full...
We the undentgned object to the proposed cut In service on firm 73. Une 73 is the onh/ bust that serves the west end of the Iron Triangle, thoBayAna Rescue Mission...
236
42
60
Annual savings/cost calculated at marginal cost of $60 per hour Daily hours take into account weekend service
Service Deployment Public Hearing (GM Memo No. 03-029): a.
Receive public comment on the North Alameda County and West Contra Costa County portion of the Service
b.
Consider action on the Service Deployment Plan.
Deployment Plan.
President Piras announced the continuation of the 3:00 p.m. Public Hearing on the Service Deployment Plan and welcomed everyone and introduced Board members and staff. President Piras noted for the record that Director Kaplan was attending a meeting in Contra Costa County concerning Measure C and would be joining the hearing upon conclusion of that meeting. President Piras introduced General Counsel Ken Scheidig who outlined the ground rules for the public hearing and advised of the public notice process. Following his comments Chinese and Spanish interpreters asked if there were
persons in the audience that required an interpreter. No persons came forward. President Piras called on Robin Little, to present the staff report. The Public Hearing opened and the following persons offered comments: BUS LINES/SPEAKERS
GROUPS/INDIVIDUALS
BUS LINE 51 and Others
Hon. Tom Bates Hon. Miriam Hawley Eric Schatmeier
Mayor, City of Berkeley City of Berkeley Council Member
Michelle DeRobertis
City of Alameda
Barbara Coapman
Susan Lee Richard Neveln Cameron Imani Blair Noevsc Jeff Dickenson BUS Line 64 Dennis Dauziger
Kathleen Parsons Judy Greenhouse Terrell Kessler David Vartanoff
ATTACHMENT "A"
(Director Kaplan present - 6:55 p.m.)
Gerri Fisher Kathie Fagan Lillie Ngui BUS LINE 53 Jennifer Schleinger
Sandra Waesson Dwayne Oslund Ms. Farve Mollie Field Eric R. Havel Nora H. Foster
Central Palsy Center
Chabot Space & Science Center
Chabot Space & Science Center Improve Transit/Parking
BUS LINE 8 Yuwei Li Andrea Dodge Joseph Campos Karen Rose
North Berkeley/Hillside Neighborhood Fairlawn - Berkeley Hills
BUS LINE 59 Teresa Green Walt Hurd Alfred Block
VARIOUS OAKLAND
Henderson Brian Goff Charlie Cameron Billy Smith
Howard Delano Mills Abraham Bradley OVERALL PLAN
Lavra Balderree Nick Fresquez Joyce Roy
Alliance for AC Transit Alliance for AC Transit
VARIOUS BERKELEY Fran Haselsteiner Jon Bosak
ATTACHMENT "A"
See Attachments B&C, summary of public comments, which, are attached
hereto and made a part of these minutes.
President Piras called for additional testimony. No one came forward. The Public Hearing was closed. Discussion by Board Members followed wherein the following motion was offered.
MOTION: WALLACE/PEEPLES to continue consideration of the North Alameda County and West Contra Costa county phases of the Service Deployment Plan to February 6, 2003. Direct staff to include in the Service Deployment Plan the modifications contained in the staff report and to prepare appropriate revisions to the Negative Declaration for the SDP for consideration at the February 6, 2003 Board meeting.
In addition to the changes identified in the staff report, staff is to look at the following
changes:
Lines 59/59A Line 53
-
Line 64
-
Line 8
-
Consider running on Acacia and adjust headways. Implement staff recommendation on demand response service to Chabot Space Center and review alternatives.
Consider making a line between Montclair and Rockridge and review other alternatives.
Necessary due to steep streets and not amendable to walking ; review ridership.
Line 19
-
Review logic for further parts of run in Oakland; appears to duplicate Line 51 to Alameda.
Determine when changes should take effect and continue to review options for flex service to some areas.
Ayes:
Vice President Wallace, Directors Peeples, Harper, Jaquez, Bischofberger,
Noes: Absent: Abstain:
Kaplan, President Piras - 7 None - 0 None - 0 None - 0
ATTACHMENT "A"
Alliance
for AC
Transit/Bus Riders Union P.O.
Box 20232,
Oakland,
CA 94620
PatrishaPiras President AC Transit Board of Directors AC Transit 1600 Franklin St Oakland, CA 94612
Dear President Piras, and Members of the Board, As you know the Alliance for AC Transit/Bus Rider's Union is a citizens organization of transit riders and advocates. Our mission it is to help make AC transit the most effective transit provider it can be, both by fighting for more resources for AC, and by working with you on improving the service you provide to the public, us, your ridership. In that context we have been following the discussion of the new AC Transit service deployment
plan. We have noted how the plan has evolved and changed since the time it was first announced, generally for the better, but we still have major concerns. While we know that AC Transit faces significant financial pressures in this period (in spite of the passage of Measure B and AA), and must cut service hours overall to some extent-nonetheless we believe the following principals should guide any new service plan: 1. Restructuring of existing service, such as reconfiguring whole lines, and creating new lines out of parts of old ones, should only be done if the new line has a compelling reason to be configured as it is proposed. A positive example of this seems to be the new #19, which does seem to serve emerging trip generators along the Bay Front, and connects them to each other. A negative example might be re-routing the #15 bus north of Lake Merritt instead of continuing to at least
14th and Broadway, the destination of many passengers. In general changes like
the above should be minimized to avoid confusion and a loss of rider ship, which will happen if the changes are too drastic and/or inconvenience too many of the existing rider ship.
2. If service must be cut to save operating funds and to redeploy resources where they can be more effectively used, then reductions should come on the poorest performing lines, including eliminating some lines altogether. If that leaves some streets with very low demand with no service at all, then that is better than cutting frequencies on service where there are standees, such as the #11, or to cut service hours on successful lines, or to reconfigure other lines just "to fill in the gap". Handout
Related
to GM Memo No.03-029
Board of Directors Meeting 1/23/03
_
Item NfT Public Hearlng/SDP
3. It is OK to redeploy service hours to the San Pablo corridor to make BRT service a reality, but ridersbip numbers should be watched closely to see if a 12 minute headway is really effective at significantly increasing ridership. Successful BRT systems have headways much more frequent than that-but those are in much more densely populated corridors. It could be that in the rush to create a BRT type system on San Pablo that the BRT headways are too frequent to be an efficient use of resources, particularly since local frequencies on San Pablo seem to be reduced considerably to offset the increased service hours on the BRT. 4.
Decisions on where to deploy service in tough times should be based on known patterns of transit usage, not on more political and abstract standards of geographic equity. If or when funding is more available, then trying to improve service to traditionally low transit usage areas should be tried, but this is not that time.
5. In general any change should be based on hard data, of where your ridership is highest and lowest, and where passengers origins and destinations are. You should start with the assumption that the current route structure works-unless you have solid information that a particular route, or portion of a route is greatly underutilized. From the perspective of the passengers, change for change sake is not good, unless it can be clearly justified. 6. It is vitally important that you make a major effort to inform the public about the actual changes that will be implemented, through a series of targeted fliers, in the appropriate languages of riders on the effected lines and parts of the district One document, listing all the changes is not helpful to most people-but a specific flier, outlining changes to a particular inter-linked group of lines can be effective at getting people prepared to adjust to the changes.
Hopefully the public process you are now engaged in will continue to shape the service deployment plan for the better. Our fervent hope is that what emerges is a net positive for the district and that riders will not be turned off by too many changes too fast, and will in feet benefit from the end result We believe incorporating the principals outlined above will help you establish the positive results I'm sure we all desire. We will continue to follow the process closely. Sincerely, Christopher Pederson, President, Alliance for AC Transit / Bus Riders Union.
CC: AC Transit Board of Directors Kathleen Kelly Jim Gleich
Related to CM Memo No.03-029
Public Hearings on
Proposed Service Changes in North Alameda & West Contra Costa Counties
Service Deployment Plan 3:00pm and 6:00pm, January 23,2003 • 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, California
Ground Rules for January 23 Public Hearings •
Comments will be heard that address concerns specifically related to the draft Service Deployment Plan for North Alameda and West Contra Costa Counties.
■
Each individual will have 2 minutes to speak. Your time will begin when your number is called to approach the podium. Numbers will be called in groups, so you are encouraged to line up as your number is called in order to be ready to address the Board when the speaker before you finishes. A light in the upper right hand portion of the lectern will indicate your time - first green, then amber (prepare to stop) and then red (please stop). Please bring your number with you to the podium.
■
Each organization will be allowed 3 minutes for their representative to speak. See above regarding the timing
of your presentation.
■You will have one opportunity to speak today. If you speak at the 3:00pm hearing you will not be allowed to
^k again at the 6:00pm hearing in order to allow everyone a chance to address the Board. ■
The public will be asked to speak in order according to bus line number as announced by the District Secretary. Comments not related to a specific bus line will be heard at the last part of each hearing.
■
All speakers have a right to be heard without interruption. Your courtesy to other speakers is expected and appreciated.
Key Information on AC Transit's Current Financial Situation ■
Like other transit systems and public agencies in the state, AC Transit is suffering a severe financial crisis.
■
AC Transit relies on sales tax to provide over 60% of our operating budget, revenues that have decreased significantly due to the current economic downturn.
■
AC Transit is currently receiving the equivalent of sales tax revenues from the year 1996, while faced with operational costs of 2003.
•
Measure AA, the parcel tax increase passed by voters in November 2002, will contribute approximately $7.5 million annually and was intended to help protect bus service but hwasnH a guarantee that there wouldn't be any reductions in service. However, we will not receive any money from Measure AA until January 2004. This is a help, but clearly cannot resolve the current deficit
C Transit is feeing a projected deficit of close to $30 million for the next fiscal year.
Thank you for participating. The AC Transit staffand Board ofDirectors value your input
Title 6 Overview In general, neighborhoods with high concentrations of low-income or minority populations are not unduly impacted by service changes, and/or have other services available to them within V* mile. Two areas have been identified where there may be issues. However staff believes that proposed changes in the area would act as mitigation:
•
West Oakland—elimination of Route 88 on 17th and 18th Streets; elimination of Route 14 on Adeline Street and to 16th and Wood Streets.
Mitigation: Other adjacent routes are within V* mile of most of the affected census blocks, including: 13,14,19,72,72M, 72R, 88.
•
San Pablo—elimination of Leroy Heights section of Rte 76. Mitigation: Retaining school trippers to Leroy Heights is included in Phase 1 cost
Methodology: Eliminated segments were mapped and compared to census block groups with the following characteristics:
Minority: • census blocks with greater than 56% non-white Low-Income: • census blocks with fewer than 10% below poverty • census blocks with between 10%-19% below poverty • census blocks with between 20-39% below poverty
•
census blocks with greater than 40% below poverty.
Relevant info: Per Title 6, minority census areas are those where the minority population percentage exceeds the service area total average minority population. For AC Transit service area, the minority population is 56%
Related to GM Memo Hti. 03-029
Board of Directors Meeting Date: l'23/03
Item Mn-*">"<= Hearlng/SPP
