Short-Range Transit Plan
Fiscal Years 2014/15 through 2023/24
DECEMBER 8 2015
Short-Range Transit Plan FISCAL YEARS 2014/15 THROUGH 2023/24 Adopted by the Alameda – Contra Costa Transit District Board of Directors Federal transportation statutes require that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), in partnership with state and local agencies, develop and periodically update a long range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and also a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which implements the RTP by programming federal funds to transportation projects contained in the RTP. In order to effectively execute these planning and programming responsibilities, MTC requires that each transit operator in its region which receives federal funding through the TIP prepare, adopt, and submit to MTC a Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP).
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE SRTP
1
1.1 REASONS FOR PREPARING THE SRTP................................................................................................ 1 1.2 RELATIONSHIP OF THE SRTP TO OTHER PLANS, PROJECTS, AND ACTIONS................................. 1 1.3 SRTP STRUCTURE................................................................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF AC TRANSIT
2
2.1 TIMELINE OF AC TRANSIT AND RELATED HISTORY........................................................................... 2 2.2 GOVERNANCE ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 AC TRANSIT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE .................................................................................... 4 2.4 AC TRANSIT SERVICE .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.5 FARE STRUCTURE.............................................................................................................................. 16 2.6 REVENUE FLEET................................................................................................................................. 18 2.7 FACILITIES AND STATIONS................................................................................................................. 18 CHAPTER 3: GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STANDARDS
19
3.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 19 3.1 INCREASING RIDERSHIP.................................................................................................................... 19 3.2 AC TRANSIT MISSION STATEMENT................................................................................................... 19 3.3 GOALS SET FORTH IN THE BUDGET................................................................................................. 19 3.4 OBJECTIVES FOR BUDGET GOALS................................................................................................... 20 3.5 GOALS OF OTHER TRANSIT AGENCIES............................................................................................ 22 3.6 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (KPI)............................................................................................ 22 3.7 BOARD POLICY 550 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES................................................................................. 23 3.8 PARATRANSIT OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................... 24 3.9 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE......................................................................................... 24
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Table of Contents | i
CHAPTER 4: SYSTEM AND SERVICE EVALUATION
25
4.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 25 4.1 EVALUATION OF SERVICE.................................................................................................................. 25 4.2 COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLANS............................................................................. 42 4.3 PARATRANSIT SERVICE PROVIDED................................................................................................... 42 4.4 TITLE VI REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.......................................................................... 44 CHAPTER 5: SRTP OPERATIONS PLAN AND BUDGET
45
5.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 45 5.1 OVERVIEW OF SERVICE AND ANTICIPATED CHANGES.................................................................... 45 5.2 OPERATIONS PLANNING................................................................................................................... 46 CHAPTER 6: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
68
6.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 68 6.1 FLEET (INCLUDES REVENUE, NON-REVENUE, AND PARATRANSIT VEHICLES).............................. 70 6.2 FACILITIES (INCLUDES MAINTENANCE AND FUELING FACILITIES, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, AND OTHER OPERATIONAL FACILITIES)..................................................................................................74 6.3 TECHNOLOGY (INCLUDES ALL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS)............................................................................................................... 76 6.4 CORRIDORS (INCLUDES BRT, LINE 51, TERMINAL UPGRADES AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SERVICE ON ROUTES) ..................................................................................................................... 78 6.5 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION INITIATIVES .................................................................................. 78 6.6 OVERVIEW OF FUNDING SOURCES.................................................................................................. 80 CHAPTER 7: RESOLUTION 3434 PROJECTS—BUS RAPID TRANSIT AND MAJOR CORRIDORS
88
7.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 88 7.1 EAST BAY BUS RAPID TRANSIT......................................................................................................... 88 7.2 MAJOR CORRIDORS PROJECT.......................................................................................................... 89 CHAPTER 8: VISION 2040—AN AC TRANSIT THAT IS GREAT, GREEN, AND GOLDEN
90
8.1 AC TRANSIT’S VISION FOR 2040........................................................................................................ 90
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | ii
LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2.1 CITIES AND UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES IN AC TRANSIT DISTRICT........................ 6 FIGURE 2.2: JOBS AND RESIDENTIAL POPULATION DENSITY (NORTH)................................................. 9 FIGURE 2.3: JOBS AND RESIDENTIAL POPULATION DENSITY (SOUTH)............................................... 10 FIGURE 4.1: WALKSHED AROUND FREQUENT SERVICE (NORTH)......................................................... 33 FIGURE 4.2: WALKSHED AROUND FREQUENT SERVICE (SOUTH)......................................................... 34 FIGURE 4.3: FREQUENCY OF SERVICE IN PEAK PERIOD BY ROUTE (NORTH)..................................... 36 FIGURE 4.4: FREQUENCY OF SERVICE IN PEAK PERIOD BY ROUTE (SOUTH)..................................... 37 FIGURE 4.5: COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN AREAS.................................................... 43 FIGURE 5.1: SURVEY RESPONDENTS BUS NETWORK PREFERENCES................................................. 52 FIGURE 5.2: SURVEY RESPONDENTS BUS SERVICE EXPANSION PREFERENCES.............................. 52 FIGURE 5.3: SURVEY RESPONDENTS BUS STOP SPACING PREFERENCES........................................ 53 FIGURE 5.4: SURVEY RESPONDENTS BUS SERVICE ROUTE PREFERENCES...................................... 53 FIGURE 5.5: FRAMEWORK FOR LINKING PLANNING ACTIVITIES.......................................................... 60 FIGURE 5.6: TIMELINE FOR PLANNING ACTIVITIES................................................................................ 61 FIGURE 5.7: TEN-YEAR FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS WITH NEW MEASURE BB...................................... 65 FIGURE 6.1: CIP PROJECT NEED AND FUNDING COMPARISON............................................................ 69 FIGURE 6.2: CIP PROGRAM CATEGORIES AND FUNDING..................................................................... 70 FIGURE 6.3: COMMITTED FUNDING PROJECTIONS............................................................................... 80 FIGURE 6.4: DISCRETIONARY FUNDING PROJECTIONS........................................................................ 85 FIGURE 8.1: PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS....................................................................................... 91
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | iii
LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.1: TIMELINE OF AC TRANSIT AND RELATED HISTORY............................................................... 2 TABLE 2.2: PLANNING AREAS OF THE AC TRANSIT DISTRICT................................................................ 5 TABLE 2.3: CITIES AND COUNTIES OF THE AC TRANSIT DISTRICT......................................................... 7 TABLE 2.4: SUMMARY CHARACTERISTICS OF AC TRANSIT ROUTE......................................................11 TABLE 2.5: AC TRANSIT FARES (EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2014)......................................................................17 TABLE 3.1: KPI WITH NUMERIC TARGETS............................................................................................... 23 TABLE 3.2: PARATRANSIT KPI WITH NUMERIC TARGETS...................................................................... 24 TABLE 4.1: RIDERSHIP AND RIDERSHIP STANDARDS BY TYPE OF SERVICE (BY PASSENGERS PER REVENUE HOUR).............................................................................................................................. 27 TABLE 4.2A: ROUTES RANKED BY PRODUCTIVITY WITHIN SERVICE TYPES, 2013: TRUNK, MAJOR CORRIDOR AND RAPID ROUTES................................................................................................ 27 TABLE 4.2B: ROUTES RANKED BY PRODUCTIVITY WITHIN SERVICE TYPES, 2013: URBAN CROSSTOWN ROUTES............................................................................................................................. 28 TABLE 4.2C: ROUTES RANKED BY PRODUCTIVITY WITHIN SERVICE TYPES, 2013: SUBURBAN CROSSTOWN....................................................................................................................... 29 TABLE 4.2D: ROUTES RANKED BY PRODUCTIVITY WITHIN SERVICE TYPES, 2013: TRANSBAY ROUTES................................................................................................................................. 31 TABLE 4.3A: ON TIME PERFORMANCE: TRUNKS/MAJOR CORRIDORS, RAPIDS................................. 38 TABLE 4.3B: ON TIME PERFORMANCE: URBAN CROSSTOWNS........................................................... 38 TABLE 4.3C ON TIME PERFORMANCE: SUBURBAN CROSSTOWNS AND VERY LOW DENSITY ROUTES.................................................................................................................................... 39 TABLE 4.4 EFFICIENCY METRIC COMPARISON.......................................................................................41 TABLE 4.5 BAY AREA METRIC COMPARISON..........................................................................................41 TABLE 5.1: TRANSIT PRIORITIES...............................................................................................................51 TABLE 5.2: SUMMARY OF OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS........................................................................... 54 TABLE 5.3: TEN-YEAR FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS.................................................................................. 63 TABLE 6.1: CIP PROJECT NEED AND CAPITAL FINANCIAL OUTLOOK................................................... 69
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | iv
TABLE 6.2: REVENUE FLEET OVERVIEW................................................................................................. 71 TABLE 6.3: NON-REVENUE FLEET OVERVIEW........................................................................................ 71 TABLE 6.4: VEHICLE REPLACEMENT COST............................................................................................ 73 TABLE 6.5: VEHICLE EXPANSION COST.................................................................................................. 73 TABLE 6.6: FACILITIES OVERVIEW............................................................................................................74 TABLE 6.7: FACILITIES REHABILITATION/EXPANSION COST.................................................................. 77 TABLE 6.8: TRANSIT CENTERS/PARK AND RIDES COST........................................................................ 77 TABLE 6.9: TECHNOLOGY COST.............................................................................................................. 77 TABLE 6.10: CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENT COST...................................................................................... 79 TABLE 6.11: GHG REDUCTION INITIATIVES COST................................................................................... 79 TABLE 6.12: COMMITTED FUNDING PROJECTIONS............................................................................... 82 TABLE 6.13: OTHER LARGE OPERATOR CIP ASSUMPTIONS................................................................. 84 TABLE 6.14: DISCRETIONARY FUNDING PROJECTIONS........................................................................ 86
APPENDICES APPENDIX A: AC TRANSIT TITLE VI PROGRAM (SEPTEMBER 2014)...................................................... 95
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | v
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AC Transit or “District” Alameda CTC ADA AFSCME AQIP ATU BAAQMD BART BATA BRT CARB CBTP CIP CMA CMF DBROC FTA IBEW KPI MTC MUNI/SFMTA OAC OBAG PDA PTMISEA RM2 RTIP RTP SEP SRTP STA TDA TEP TFCA TJPA TOD TPI TSP VRF VTA ZEBA
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Alameda County Transportation Commission Americans with Disabilities Act American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Air Quality Improvement Program Amalgamated Transit Union Bay Area Air Quality Management District Bay Area Rapid Transit Bay Area Toll Authority Bus Rapid Transit California Air Resources Board Community Based Transportation Plan Capital Improvement Program Congestion Management Agency Central Maintenance Facility Dumbarton Bus Regional Operations Consortium Federal Transit Administration International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Key Performance Indicators Metropolitan Transportation Commission San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Oakland Airport Connector One Bay Area Grant Priority Development Area Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account Regional Measure 2 (voter-approved bridge toll increase) Regional Transportation Improvement Program Regional Transportation Plan Service Expansion Plan Short Range transit plan State Transit Assistance Fund Transportation Development Act Transportation Expenditure Plan Transportation Fund for Clean Air Transbay Joint Powers Authority Transit-Oriented Development Transit Performance Initiative Transit Sustainability Program Vehicle Registration Fee Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Zero Emissions Bay Area
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | vi
Chapter 1: Introduction to the SRTP 1.1 REASONS FOR PREPARING THE SRTP The Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) is a mandatory fiscal, planning and regulatory document for AC Transit. It must incorporate the detailed list of elements included in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Resolution 3532. These in turn derive from requirements of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Beyond the requirements, the SRTP is an opportunity for AC Transit (also known as the District) to gather important data in a single document and develop strategic plans for the next 10 years.
1.2 RELATIONSHIP OF THE SRTP TO OTHER PLANS, PROJECTS, AND ACTIONS The SRTP provides a summary of and direction to other planning documents. It incorporates AC Transit’s goals and standards, operating and capital budgets, and service plan. At the same time, it is designed to give direction to future service planning activities and capital projects. The SRTP reflects the 2015 operating and capital budget adopted by the Board of Directors. The SRTP also reflects implementation plans for the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project. Resolution 3434 projects like the BRT are specifically listed as a topic in Resolution 3532. The SRTP has been closely coordinated with the development of service plans pursuant to the Service Expansion Plan (SEP) which were presented to the board in November 2015. It also has been developed in conjunction with the Major Corridors Study of capital upgrades to AC Transit’s main corridors, although completion of the SRTP will precede the completion of the Major Corridors Study, scheduled for June 2016.
1.3 SRTP STRUCTURE This SRTP is primarily structured to follow MTC’s Resolution 3532 to assure that all required topics are covered. Chapter 2 is the Overview of AC Transit, which is typically called “Existing Conditions” in other documents. Chapter 3 sets out the agency’s Goals, Objectives, and Standards, which are then applied in Chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 4 provides the service and system evaluation. Building on that, Chapter 5 consists primarily of the 10-year operations plan and operations budget. Continuing the budget focus, Chapter 6 sets out the capital budget. Chapter 7 discusses projects which are in MTC’s transit expansion resolution (Resolution 3434), primarily focusing on the BRT project. Chapter 8 is an optional chapter, added at the direction of the Board, outlining AC Transit’s long term vision and future.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 1
Chapter 2: Overview of AC Transit This chapter outlines major features of AC Transit’s system. The chapter generally follows the structure of MTC Resolution 3532. The chapter opens with a timeline of AC Transit’s history, discusses the District’s governance structure, describes the geography of the AC Transit district, and outlines the bus service AC Transit provides. It then goes on to discuss demand responsive service (paratransit), the service’s numerous connections to other rail and bus transit agencies, fare structure, the revenue fleet, and District facilities.
2.1 TIMELINE OF AC TRANSIT AND RELATED HISTORY TABLE 2.1: TIMELINE OF AC TRANSIT AND RELATED HISTORY
Year
Event: 19th and 20th Centuries
1886
Cable car service begins in Oakland (ended 1899)
1891
Electric streetcar service begins in the East Bay
1903
Key System, AC Transit’s predecessor, created by combining several street railway lines
1940s
Key System ridership spikes during World War II gas rationing, accelerated production of military goods.
1948
Key System rail service discontinued
1949-1958
Interstate 880 freeway (then known as State Route 17) opens in segments between Oakland and San Jose, spurring residential and commercial/industrial growth along the route
1953
Key System has 76 day strike
1956
AC Transit created in response to fiscal collapse of Key System, caused largely by suburbanization
1958
Key System ends Transbay bus service
1960
1960 Census shows first ever population declines in Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, and Albany while the population of Hayward grew fivefold, from roughly 14,000 to 72,000.
1972
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) opens initial segment
1974
Fremont and Newark join the AC Transit district as District Two
1977
Westcat is created, removing Hercules, Pinole, and Crockett from the AC Transit district
1980
County Connection is created, removing central Contra Costa County from the AC Transit district
1987
AC Transit administration moves within Downtown Oakland from Latham Square Building to 1600 Franklin Street
1987
Division 6 bus yard opens in Hayward, replacing smaller facility in Newark
1990
1990 Census shows 10 percent population growth in Oakland
1991
Comprehensive Service Plan, service restructuring and expansion, and implemented
1992
All buses are equipped with wheelchair lifts for disabled access
1998
Major Investment Study for primary north-south corridors, such as Telegraph Avenue and International Boulevard, initiated
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 2
Chapter 2: Overview of AC Transit CONTINUANCE OF TABLE 2.1: TIMELINE OF AC TRANSIT AND RELATED HISTORY
Year
Event: 21st Century
2000
Alameda County voters approve Measure B sales tax increase, including AC Transit funding
2001
Ridership peaks at 71.5 million trips annually
2003
AC Transit initiates its first Rapid Bus Line, line 72R, on San Pablo Avenue
2006
Contra Costa County voters approve Measure J, extending Measure C transportation sales tax
2007
International/Telegraph Rapid, line 1R, opens along intended future route of Bus Rapid Transit
2008
Measure KK, intended to block Bus Rapid Transit in Berkeley, is defeated by voters
2008-2010 Steepest recession since the Great Depression forces 15 percent cut in service 2010-2011
Transbay Terminal in San Francisco demolished; Transbay buses shift to temporary terminal
2012
AC Transit Board approves Bus Rapid Transit from Downtown Oakland to San Leandro
2013
BART strikes cause increase in Transbay passengers, even after strikes end
2014
Alameda County voters approve Measure BB, providing further transportation sales tax funds for AC Transit and other agencies
2.2 GOVERNANCE AC Transit is a public special district authorized under state legislation in 1955 and established by a vote of the people in 1956. In 1974, the Southern Alameda County cities of Fremont and Newark (but not adjacent Union City) joined the AC Transit district. AC Transit is governed by a seven-member, non-partisan, elected Board of Directors. Five board members are elected from wards, which, at the time of the 2010 Census, had approximately 285,000 residents each. Two of the board members are elected at-large from the district as a whole. Elections take place as part of the November General Election on even-numbered years. AC Transit is one of only three transit agencies in the country (BART is another) with a directly elected Board. The current Board members are: • H.E. Christian Peeples, President, representing the district At-Large, term expires December 2016 • Elsa Ortiz Vice-President, Ward 3, representing the cities of Alameda and portions of Oakland and San Leandro, term expires December 2018 • Joe Wallace, Ward 1, representing the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County in the AC Transit district, Albany, and portions of Berkeley, term expires December 2016 • Greg Harper, Ward 2, representing the cities of Emeryville, Piedmont, and portions of Berkeley and Oakland, term expires December 2016 • Mark Williams, Ward 4, representing portions of the cities of San Leandro and Hayward, and the unincorporated areas of Alameda County within the AC Transit district, term expires December 2018 • Jeff Davis, Ward 5, representing Fremont, Newark, and portions of Hayward term expires December 2018 • Joel Young, representing the district At-Large, term expires December 2018
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 3
Chapter 2: Overview of AC Transit
2.3 AC TRANSIT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 2.3.1 MANAGEMENT AND STAFF The executive managers of AC Transit are as follows: • General Manager: Michael Hursh • Chief Operating Officer: James Pachan • Chief Financial Officer: Claudia Allen • Chief Administrative Officer: vacant • Chief Planning, Engineering and Construction Officer: vacant • Chief Information Services Officer: Tom O’Neill
2.3.2 UNIONS AT AC TRANSIT AC Transit has a budgeted total of 1,947 employees. Most employees at AC Transit are represented by one of three unions. Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) local 192 is the largest and oldest union, representing bus operators, mechanics, maintenance workers, and related occupations. The ATU labor contract is set to expire on June 30, 2016. American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 3916 represents professional, administrative, clerical, and technical staff. The AFSCME labor contract is set to expire on March 31, 2017. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1245 represents electricians. The IBEW labor contract is set to expire on December 31, 2016. Executive management, confidential, and contract employees are not represented by a union. The collective bargaining agreements with these unions form an important part of the operating structure of AC Transit.
2.3.3 CONTRACTED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES The only route where AC Transit provides contract service for a separate sponsor is the Broadway Shuttle in Downtown Oakland. The “B” is sponsored by the City of Oakland, with financial support from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and other sources. Stanford University pays a portion of the cost of line U which operates between the Fremont BART station and Stanford University in Santa Clara County. Line U is operated as AC Transit service. The Oakland Unified School District also helps fund service to their schools, though it does not define specific routes for AC Transit to service. AC Transit contracts with MV Transportation to operate the Dumbarton Express (DB and DB1) routes which provide connections from the Union City BART Station via the Dumbarton Bridge to locations in San Mateo and Santa Clara County. The Dumbarton Bus Regional Operations Consortium (DBROC), which includes six transit agencies, made the decision to use a contracted operator. This decision can be reviewed when the contract expires in 2017. Paratransit service is provided by companies which contract with East Bay Paratransit, a consortium of AC Transit and BART which provides Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) mandated paratransit service in the East Bay.
2.4 AC TRANSIT SERVICE AC Transit’s only fixed route mode is bus.
2.4.1 AC TRANSIT SERVICE AREA AC Transit provides service principally within its legislatively defined district. The district stretches along the eastern side of San Francisco Bay from Richmond on the north to Fremont on the south, a distance of some 50
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 4
Chapter 2: Overview of AC Transit
miles. The district includes a portion of western Contra Costa County and all of western Alameda County, west of the East Bay Hills. See Figure 2.1 for the AC Transit service area. AC Transit is divided into four planning areas, Western Contra Costa County, Northern Alameda County, Central Alameda County, and Southern Alameda County. There are large internal transit markets within each planning area. The communities within the same planning areas are generally more similar to each other than to the communities in other planning areas. The date of greatest population growth is listed because it plays a major role in determining the urban form and street layout of the area. In general, the more recently an area was developed, with the possible exception of very recent infill development and transit-oriented development (TOD), the lower densities of commercial and residential land uses. Higher densities typically generate higher transit use. The planning areas are summarized in Table 2.2. This section provides an overview of existing AC Transit service; for line-by-line information see Chapter 4. TABLE 2.2: PLANNING AREAS OF THE AC TRANSIT DISTRICT
Planning Area
Principal Cities/ communities
Western Contra Costa County
Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, North Richmond, El Sobrante
Northern Alameda County
2010 Population
Decade of Population Comparable city Greatest density (average (by density) Population Growth per square mile)
185,110
1940s (Richmond lost 28,000 residents in 1950s)
4,365
Portland
Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, Emeryville, Piedmont, Alameda
616,402
1940s
7,544
Seattle
Central Alameda County
San Leandro, Hayward, Ashland, Cherryland, Castro Valley
359,632
1950s
4,292
San Diego
Southern Alameda County
Fremont, Newark
257,710
1960s
2,822
Phoenix
AC Transit serves 13 cities and portions of unincorporated Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, which are listed in Table 2.3 from north to south. See Figure 2.1 for the AC Transit service area. Many cities in the AC Transit district are planning, or have recently planned, changes in land use, generally allowing greater commercial or residential activity. Areas affected include: the City of San Pablo, South Richmond, San Pablo Avenue in El Cerrito, the City of Albany, the Adeline corridor in Berkeley, West Oakland, the Lake Merritt BART station area, International Boulevard in Oakland, the City of San Leandro, the city of Hayward generally and Downtown Hayward specifically, and the City Center and Warm Springs areas of Fremont.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 5
Chapter 2: Overview of AC Transit FIGURE 2.1: CITIES AND UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES IN AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PINOLE HERCULES SAN PABLO
EL SOBRANTE
CONCORD PLEASANT HILL
MARTINEZ RICHMOND EL CERRITO
WALNUT CREEK LAFAYETTE
CLAYTON
ALBANY BERKELEY ORINDA BELVEDERE TIBURON
ALAMO DIABLO
EMERYVILLE
MORAGA DANVILLE
OAKLAND SAN RAMON
ALAMEDA SAN FRANCISCO
CASTRO VALLEY DUBLIN SAN LEANDRO
DALY CITY
BRISBANE
SAN LORENZO
BAY AND OCEAN
PLEASANTON
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HAYWARD
SAN BRUNO
MILLBRAE Cities and Unincorporated Communities in AC Transit District
UNION CITY
Cities
BURLINGAME
Interstates Highways Arterial Roads
HALF MOON BAY
0
1.5
3
FREMONT
SAN MATEO
6 Miles
BELMONT
¯
SAN CARLOS
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
NEWARK
REDWOOD CITY
MENLO PARK
PALO ALTO
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 6
Chapter 2: Overview of AC Transit
TABLE 2.3: CITIES AND COUNTIES OF THE AC TRANSIT DISTRICT
City
Major Destinations
Transit Hubs
AC Transit Facilities
Comments
Richmond
Hilltop Mall, Kaiser Hospital, South Richmond employment area
Richmond BART, Richmond Pkwy. Transit Center, Hilltop Park & Ride
Division 3 (bus yard) is planned for re-opening;
Lawrence Berkeley Labs building “second campus” in South Richmond
San Pablo
Contra Costa College
Contra Costa College Transit Center
None
Most densely populated city in western Contra Costa
El Cerrito
El Cerrito Plaza Shopping Center
El Cerrito Del Norte None BART, El Cerrito Plaza BART
One of the slowest growth cities in the district
Unincorporated Contra Costa County: North Richmond, El Sobrante, Rollingwood, E. Richmond Hts., Kensington
Downtown El Sobrante
Trunk bus route on San Pablo Avenue
Unincorporated areas, except North Richmond, do not have grid pattern streets, complicating service
Albany
University Village housing complex
Solano & San Pablo None Aves.
Retail planned for San Pablo Ave. along frontage of Univ. Village
Berkeley
University of California
Downtown Berkeley BART
None
Most densely populated city in the district
Emeryville
Bay Street Shopping 40th St. & San Center Pablo Ave.
Division 2 bus yard
Fastest growing city in district; employment ctr.
Oakland
Downtown Oakland; Pill Hill; Kaiser Hospital; Coliseum & Arena; Oakland Airport
Uptown: 14th & Broadway, Eastmont Transit Ctr.; Fruitvale, Coliseum, and MacArthur BART
General Office (GO), Division 4 bus yard, Central Maintenance Facility (CMF)
Downtown Oakland had major residential growth spurt in 2002-07 period
Piedmont
None
None
None
95 percent of housing is single family detached
Alameda
College of Alameda Park & Santa Clara Streets
None
Planning large scale reuse of former Navy base and Northern Waterfront
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
None
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 7
Chapter 2: Overview of AC Transit CONTINUANCE OF TABLE 2.3: CITIES AND COUNTIES OF THE AC TRANSIT DISTRICT
City
Major Destinations
Transit Hubs
AC Transit Facilities
Comments
San Leandro
Bayfair Center (shopping center)
Bayfair BART and San Leandro
None
Large industrial area, low density employment center
Hayward
Cal State East Bay, Southland Mall
Hayward BART and South Hayward BART
Division 6 bus yard
Transit-oriented development planned for So. Hayward BART, Mission Blvd
Newark
Newpark Mall
None
AC leases out a property here
Lowest density city in district
Fremont
Ohlone College, Pacific Commons, Washington Hospital
Fremont BART
None
Planning major development around new Warm Springs BART
Unincorporated Alameda Co. Ashland, Cherryland, San Lorenzo, Fairview, Castro Valley
Alameda County government (“Fairmont”) complex
Major corridor bus Leased park and routes on Hesperian rides near Castro & Mission Blvd. Valley BART.
County’s draft Ashland/Cherry land plan notes possibility of extending BRT to that area
In addition to the cities shown above, AC Transit also provides service to Union City. Union City is geographically surrounded by the AC Transit district, but is not formally a member of it. AC Transit operates service outside the district to Milpitas, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Foster City, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Pinole. The estimated 2014 population of the AC Transit district is approximately 1,475,000, the second most populous transit service area in the Bay Area (after Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority [VTA], Santa Clara County). The total estimated 2014 combined population of Alameda County and Contra Costa County is 2,660,000. Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 show the jobs and residential population density within the district. In the AC Transit district, the agency operates a network of routes designed to be comprehensive. 70 percent of residents and 62 percent of jobs in the district are located within a ¼ mile walk access of a bus stop. The areas outside these walksheds are generally low density hills or industrial areas. Routes in most of the district are intended to be ¼-½ mile apart (Board Policy 550), though they may be up to a mile apart in very low density areas. DOWNTOWN OAKLAND AS AC TRANSIT’S CORE TRANSIT HUB Downtown Oakland plays a special role for AC Transit, as it has since the origin of the Key System in the late 19th Century. The Downtown Oakland core for AC Transit is bounded by Grand Avenue to the north, Interstate 880 to the south, Lake Merritt to the east, and Interstate 980 to the west. Downtown has the largest single concentration of employment in the AC Transit district. During the early 2000’s, numerous housing units were built in Downtown Oakland. Between 2000 and 2010, Downtown Oakland’s population grew while the rest of the city lost a small number of residents. Plan Bay Area projects major residential and commercial growth Downtown in the coming decades. Nine of AC Transit’s 15 top level routes (trunk, rapid, and major corridor) serve Downtown Oakland. The area is also served by local, Transbay, and all-nighter routes, for a total of 25 AC Transit routes. 14 routes operate Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 8
Chapter 2: Overview of AC Transit FIGURE 2.2: JOBS AND RESIDENTIAL POPULATION DENSITY (NORTH) Job and Residential Population Density (North)
Density shown by Census block group
Giant Rd
Atlas Rd
Hilltop Dr
ay W
Ln
n pia Ap
23rd St
Rumrill Blvd
Ch urc h
Sa n
Pa blo
§ ¦ ¨
Da m
80
Rd
Barrett Ave
Ga r
rar d
Blv d
Macdo nald Ave Cutting Blvd
San
on rls Ca
ve oA
Av ton ing Arl
l Pab
vd Bl
§ ¦ ¨ 580
Ave tral Cen
Solano Av
Buchanan St
k Pea zzly Gri Bl
San Pa
Sacramento St
80
Shattuck Av
§ ¦ ¨ blo Av
y Dwight W
em Clar
Av ont
§ ¦ ¨ 580
Te Broadw ay
Powell St
College Av
Telegraph
Market St
St Hollis
Av
Ashby Av
d ke R Sna
Moraga Av
¬ «
Av
40th St
Gran d
Source: American Community Survey
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
th 35
Av
Av
E 7th St
fic
Av
Int ern a
r
St Hi gh
¸
Oti sD
2t hS t
St
Miles
Pac i
Central Av
Pa rk
2
Webster St
Main St
t hS 5t
0 0.5 1
E1
Maca rthur Bl
23 rd
E1
v hA 14t
Av
St
Av
l
12th
ln co Lin
Bl
B ne
St
k Par
vale
11t h
yli Sk
8th S t
13
Fruit
St
Bro ad w ay
St 7th S t
Adeli ne
14 th
tio na lB
Foothill Bl
l
Av rd 73
S:\Research\GIS\GIS Projects\SRTP\Map 1 - Job and Residential Density (North).mxd
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 9
Chapter 2: Overview of AC Transit
Job and Residential Population Density (South)
FIGURE 2.3: JOBS AND RESIDENTIAL POPULATION DENSITY (SOUTH)
Av
Density shown by Census block group 23 rd
th 35
2th
St
Int ern a
¬ «
Sky line Bl
13
tio na lB
Ke lle rA v
Foothill Bl
l
Av nd 82
Hi gh
St
E1
Av
n Sa
Golf Link s Rd
a Le ro nd
Av
M ac ar
es Ed
ber ger
Rd
St
h 98t
th ur Bl
Heg en
Av
4t h
St
Dr tle olit Do
Redwood Rd
E1
St Davis
§ ¦ ¨ 580
§ ¦¬ ¨ « ¬ « 880
238
238
t AS
WJ
pe Hes
ac k son
St
W A St
rian Bl
§ ¦ ¨ 880
w
rad oB l Niles Bl
ss Mi
Bo yc e
Miles
¸
all Pw Auto M
Rd
S Gri
Cu sh in g
Pw
r Bl mme
sB ing Sp r
2
Rd
rm Wa
0 0.5 1
Bl Washington
d Rd
Bla co w
Rd
Av
yA v Mo wr
on Av
Ce ntr al
84
Th orn t
¬ «
on tB l
o Osgo
84
Fre m
Bl
a Bl Peralt
co ll
k Rd ree
¬ «
ion
pC Dee
Pa seo Pa dre Pw
Dr is
Union City Bl
Alv a
lP
Stevenson Bl
¬ «
ria st du In
92
l
Source: American Community Survey
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
S:\Research\GIS\GIS Projects\SRTP\Map 2 - Job and Residential Density (South).mxd
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 10
Chapter 2: Overview of AC Transit
along Broadway between 11th Street and 20th Street. Every transit corridor between Rockridge and Fruitvale has direct service to Downtown Oakland, and a number of Downtown routes go further north or south. It is not only the single most important destination area, but also the most important transfer area. There are both bus-to-bus transfers and transfers at the three BART stations. Given the area’s importance, it is crucial that bus operations are effective on Downtown streets. While busy core areas will not have top speed service, reliable operation with reasonable travel times in Downtown Oakland will benefit hundreds of AC Transit bus trips daily. This would both benefit passengers and reduce bus operating cost. Oakland could follow the lead of San Francisco, which has prioritized transit on Market Street downtown, San Jose, which has prioritized transit on the 1st Street/2nd Street couplet, or cities elsewhere that have done so.
2.4.2 SERVICE TYPES AC Transit’s principal service types are rapid routes, trunk routes, major corridor routes, local routes, school routes and Transbay routes. Table 2.4 provides a summary of the service characteristics of AC Transit service. TABLE 2.4: SUMMARY CHARACTERISTICS OF AC TRANSIT ROUTES
Trunk and Major Corridor Routes
Rapid Routes
Local Routes
School Serving Routes
Express (Transbay) Routes
13
2
45
51
29
Number of Routes Key Destinations
Multiple destinations on main corridors
Multiple destinations on top corridors
Connect to BART stations, trunk routes
Middle and high Downtown schools San Francisco, Stanford Univ.
Days of Operation
Daily
Daily
Most routes daily, some weekdays only
School days only (180 per year)
Most weekdays only, 3 routes daily
Hours of Operation
5:00 a.m.6:00 a.m- 8:00 midnight, some p.m. routes also have midnight-5:00 a.m. “allnighter” service
6:00 am- 8:00 p.m., some routes later
School arrival and departure hours only
Most are commute hour, commute direction only
Typical Frequency
Trunks: Every 10-20 minutes; Majors 15-30 minutes
12 minutes weekdays, 15 minutes weekends
15-60 mins. during peaks; 30-60 min. offpeak
Most routes have 1-2 round trips daily
10-30 minutes
Target Stop Spacing
Every 8001,300 feet (.15.25 miles)
1/2 mile
800-1,300 feet
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Less frequently than local stops
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 11
Chapter 2: Overview of AC Transit CONTINUANCE OF TABLE 2.4: SUMMARY CHARACTERISTICS OF AC TRANSIT ROUTES
Trunk and Major Corridor Routes
Rapid Routes
Local Routes
School Serving Routes
Express (Transbay) Routes
Examples of Type of Route
Trunks: 51B (CollegeUniversity) & 57 (40th St.Macarthur); Major Corridors: 88 (SacramentoMarket), 97 (Hesperian); 99 (Mission Blvd.)
1R (Bayfair BART to Berkeley BART via International & Telegraph), 72R (Oakland Amtrak-Contra Costa College via San Pablo Avenue)
45 (Sobrante Pk.-Eastmont); 52 (Albany Village) 54 (35th Ave.-Redwood Rd.); 74 (23rd St. Richmond/ San Pablo); 86 (WintonTennyson)
18 (Montclair to University Village, Albany); 663 (Atlantic Av and 3rd St. to Broadway and Blanding Ave); 667 (Korematsu Middle School to North Richmond)
7 day routes are F (Berkeley); NL (Macarthur Blvd.); O (Alameda). Other routes include LA (Richmond Pkwy.); P (Piedmont)
Notes
These routes carry over ½ of AC Transit’s daily passengers
International Blvd. portion of 1R will be replaced by BRT
Network design goal is that local routes form a four quadrant grid of service (northsouth service and east-west service)
Provided for West County, Oakland, Hayward, Fremont school districts, some private schools
Transbay ridership has increased due to increased jobs in San Francisco
SERVICE TYPES UNDER POLICY 550 Service effectiveness is evaluated by service type. Service types are defined in part operationally, such as for trunk, rapid, and Transbay (express) routes. Local service is further defined by the land use characteristics of their corridors. These service types include urban crosstowns, suburban crosstowns, and very low density routes. • Trunk Routes: The main routes that operate, primarily in a north-south direction, along major streets in high ridership areas, the “backbone” or “spine” routes of the AC Transit system • Rapid Routes: Routes that operate along trunk corridors with elongated stop spacing and transit signal priority for greater speed • Urban Crosstown Routes: The secondary routes in the higher density (generally over 10,000 people per square mile) that connect to the trunk routes and form a four direction system • Suburban Crosstown Routes: Connectors and feeders similar to urban Crosstown routes in lower density (5,000-10,000 people per square mile) portions of the district • Very Low Density Routes: Routes that operate in areas with population densities below 5,000 people per square mile. • Transbay Routes: Routes that cross one or more of the San Francisco Bay bridges, operating between the East Bay and San Francisco or other West Bay destinations. When the BRT line begins to operate, generally with in-roadway stations on a dedicated right-of-way, it will represent an additional service type.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 12
Chapter 2: Overview of AC Transit
Community Flex Routes, which provide service to an area rather than a delineated route, are another service type which is not currently used, although proposed for a pilot project. RAPID BUS LINES AC Transit operates two Rapid Bus lines; lines 1R (International-Telegraph) and 72R (San Pablo). This service type is sometimes described as “BRT Lite.” The Rapids have various measures to improve travel times, including less frequent stops (generally ½-²∕ 3 mile apart), transit signal priority, and stops on the far side of intersections. They are intended to offer faster travel times than the local buses on the same corridor. TRUNK AND MAJOR CORRIDOR ROUTES AC Transit operates eight trunk routes, five major corridor routes and 45 additional local routes. Trunk routes typically operate along major streets and provide the most frequent service, have the longest operating hours and support the highest ridership. Examples include line 40 from downtown Oakland to Bay Fair BART along Foothill Boulevard; line 51A from Fruitvale to Rockridge principally via Santa Clara Street in Alameda and Broadway in Oakland; and line 57 from Emeryville to Foothill Square in Southeast Oakland along MacArthur Boulevard. The trunk routes are the busiest routes, the “spines” of the AC Transit system. Trunk routes generally operate from approximately 5:00 a.m. to midnight on weekdays and 6:00 a.m. to midnight on weekends. Some trunk routes have “owl” or “all-nighter” service operating on modified routes between midnight and 5:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday schedules are generally the same, though a few differentiated schedules have been introduced. Major corridors are also key routes for the network, but generally operate somewhat less frequently and often along shorter routes than trunk routes. The district also operates seven “all-nighter” routes that run between midnight and 5 a.m. LOCAL AND SCHOOL SERVICE Most AC Transit routes provide local service, operating on arterial and collector streets within the AC Transit district in the East Bay. The agency operates 45 local lines, which are classified, based on surrounding land uses, as urban crosstown routes, suburban crosstown routes, very low-density routes, and one feeder route (line 339). Urban crosstown lines tend to have higher ridership, operate more frequently, and have longer hours of operation. On school days, AC Transit operates 51 routes serving public and private middle schools and high schools. These routes are open to the public. Where possible, the agency is seeking to consolidate school service with nearby underlying local routes. Local service is structured, where possible, as a grid of routes on major streets to maximize access. Northern and Southern Alameda County, and portions of West Contra Costa County have grid-based service networks. The northern section of West County and Central Alameda County have roadways which are not generally on a grid pattern. Many of the AC Transit system’s busiest lines radiate out from Downtown Oakland, often following routes similar to historic Key System streetcar and bus lines. EXPRESS (TRANSBAY) SERVICE AC Transit operates express service via freeways and bridges from the East Bay to San Francisco and the midPeninsula. These routes are known as “Transbay” routes. There are 29 Transbay routes, and all but four (lines DB, DB1, M and U) serve Downtown San Francisco. Transbay routes are designated with letters, rather than numbers, to help distinguish the service. Most Transbay routes (19) operate in the weekday peak direction only. Only a handful of routes provide reverse commute service. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 13
Chapter 2: Overview of AC Transit
Three routes to San Francisco including line F from Berkeley, line NL from Eastmont Transit Center, and line O from Alameda, operate all day, seven days a week. These routes operate in both directions all day, providing service for reverse commuters from San Francisco to Downtown Oakland and Downtown Berkeley. In 2013, Transbay routes carried an average of 18,536 people per weekday, or 9.6 percent of AC Transit’s total ridership. Some Transbay routes, particularly the all-day routes, have substantial ridership within the East Bay. CONTRACT SERVICE Services listed below are provided in partnership with others, who provide funding contributions and/or policy oversight. • Broadway Shuttle: The Broadway shuttle in Downtown Oakland is sponsored by the City of Oakland, funded primarily by the BAAQMD, and operated by AC Transit. • Dumbarton Express: Dumbarton Express service from Union City BART to Palo Alto, Stanford University, and the Stanford Industrial Park, is managed by AC Transit, and operated by MV Transit under contract. The service has an advisory board with members from multiple transit agencies known as the DBROC. • Line U (Union City-Stanford): Line U is partially funded by Stanford University to help meet the University’s requirement to limit peak hour auto trips to campus. ATYPICAL SERVICE A few routes have atypical service patterns: Lines 314, 356, and 391 operate two to three days per week as community service routes. Line 376 operates as a late evening (but not all-night) circulator in West Contra Costa County. Line Z operates as a reverse commute route (eastbound AM) from San Francisco to Berkeley and Albany. ACCOMMODATION OF BICYCLES All AC Transit buses have front bike racks that can hold one or two bicycles. AC Transit was the first Bay Area transit agency to provide this accommodation. MCI buses used for Transbay service can hold additional bicycles in the luggage storage area of the bus. Some California transit agencies have three position bike racks. Buses purchased by AC Transit in the future will accommodate three bicycles. Cities have also provided a number of bicycle parking facilities, racks and lockers at sites near major bus routes. DEMAND RESPONSIVE SERVICE AC Transit participates in the East Bay Paratransit consortium with BART. AC Transit pays 69 percent of East Bay Paratransit costs;and BART pays 31 percent. East Bay Paratransit provides service to people who have been determined to be unable to use standard fixed route transit, such as AC Transit or BART. Trips are provided using vans. East Bay Paratransit service is available by reservation for destinations within ¾ mile of a bus stop during the hours when the bus operates. Commute-only service, such as Transbay service to San Francisco, does not make an area paratransit eligible. Paratransit passengers can access the Bay Area as a whole, although sometimes connecting to another vehicle is required. East Bay Paratransit provided approximately 728,000 trips in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15. The District is also planning to test demand responsive “flex” service in lieu of fixed route serve on low density, low productivity routes such as in Fremont, Newark, or possibly hill areas. Unlike paratransit service, there would be no restrictions on who could use this service. The pilot service will be operated by ATU local 192 and bid through the normal sign-up process.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 14
Chapter 2: Overview of AC Transit
2.4.3 CONNECTIONS WITH OTHER TRANSIT AGENCIES Like all Bay Area transit agencies, AC Transit operates alongside other transit providers. MTC’s SRTP Resolution (Resolution 3532) therefore requires that SRTPs set forth each transit agency’s connections with other transit providers. The impact of the numerous “shuttle” operators is the most ambiguous among the other transit providers; do they represent competitive or complementary service? AC Transit will be further developing our understanding of, and policies towards shuttles in the upcoming months. CONNECTIONS TO RAIL TRANSIT BART: AC Transit’s most heavily used inter-agency transit connections are with BART, with AC Transit operating bus service to each of the 21 BART stations in the district. The bulk of transit trips in or through the AC Transit district are taken on AC Transit and/or BART. Within the AC Transit district, BART stations are located in Richmond, El Cerrito (2 stations), Berkeley (3), Oakland (8), San Leandro (2), Hayward (2), Fremont, and unincorporated Castro Valley. Union City BART is not within the AC Transit district, but is served by AC Transit routes. There are no BART stations in San Pablo, Albany, Emeryville, Piedmont, Alameda, or Newark. An additional BART station is under construction in Fremont at Warm Springs. Measure BB provides funds to construct a third BART station in Fremont at Irvington. AC Transit anticipates serving these stations when they open. AC Transit’s route network is integrated with BART. All AC Transit East Bay routes (exclusive of Transbay and school-oriented routes) serve at least one BART station, and many serve two or more. BART stations are among the busiest stops in the AC Transit system. In the 1980’s, AC Transit obtained funding to build transit centers (also known as “intermodals”). There are major bus hubs at the following BART stations: Richmond, El Cerrito Del Norte, Downtown Berkeley, 19th Street/Uptown Transit Center, 12th Street/Oakland City Center, Fruitvale, Coliseum, Bayfair, Hayward, and Fremont. AC Transit lines serving Coliseum BART also connect to the recently opened Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) at Coliseum BART. The OAC is a modern cable car which provides non-stop service between Coliseum BART and Oakland Airport. The OAC replaces the former AirBART shuttle. Amtrak: Two Amtrak stations (Richmond and Oakland Coliseum) are at or adjacent to BART stations and bus stops. AC Transit also serves five additional Amtrak stations: Berkeley, Emeryville, Downtown Oakland, Hayward, and Fremont (Centerville). AC Transit connects with Caltrain commuter rail at the Hillsdale and Palo Alto stations on the San Francisco peninsula, both lying outside the district, and with Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) at the Centerville Amtrak station in Fremont. AC Transit serves ferry terminals at Jack London Square (Oakland) and Harbor Bay (Alameda). BUS CONNECTIONS TO DESTINATIONS WITHIN THE AC TRANSIT DISTRICT AC Transit also connects with the other bus transit services, listed below, primarily at BART stations. Many of the services operate weekdays only; some, especially shuttles, operate peak periods only. Many of the shuttle services are free to passengers. Of the 21 BART stations in the AC Transit district, 13 have connections to other bus transit/shuttle services. El Cerrito Del Norte BART is a prime transfer location, providing connections to North Bay lines. AC Transit provides transfer connections to every Bay Area county except Sonoma. Shuttles which require an employee ID to ride (e.g. Lawrence Berkeley Lab shuttles) are not listed. • Richmond Circular Shuttles connection at El Cerrito Del Norte BART to various Richmond destinations • Bear Transit to University of California, Berkeley, main connection at Downtown Berkeley BART
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 15
Chapter 2: Overview of AC Transit
• West Berkeley Shuttle, connection at Ashby BART to Bayer Labs, other West Berkeley employers • Hospital shuttles at MacArthur BART to Kaiser Hospital (Oakland), Summit Hospital • Emery Go Round to Emeryville, main connections at MacArthur BART, 40th & San Pablo • Estuary Crossing Shuttle between Laney College and Atlantic Avenue/College of Alameda • LINKS Shuttle at San Leandro BART to West San Leandro (and soon Kaiser Hospital) • Cal State East Bay Shuttle, connecting at Hayward BART and Castro Valley BART BUS CONNECTIONS TO DESTINATIONS OUTSIDE THE AC TRANSIT DISTRICT • VINE (Valley Inter-neighborhood Express) to American Canyon and the city of Napa at El Cerrito Del Norte BART • FAST (Fairfield and Suisun Transit) to Fairfield and Suisun City at El Cerrito Del Norte BART • Soltrans (Solano Transit) to Vallejo and Benicia at El Cerrito Del Norte BART • Westcat (West Contra Costa Area Transit Authority) to Pinole and Hercules, major connections at El Cerrito Del Norte BART, Contra Costa College, and Richmond Parkway Transit Center • Golden Gate Transit to San Quentin and San Rafael, major connections at El Cerrito Del Norte BART and Richmond BART • MUNI (San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency) to San Francisco destinations, major connection at Transbay Terminal • SamTrans at various locations to San Mateo County locations, especially along El Camino Real • Union City Transit at Union City BART and Union Landing Transit Center to Union City destinations • VTA (Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority) at Fremont BART to Milpitas and San Jose
2.5 FARE STRUCTURE AC Transit has recently undergone a major change in fare structure. Before July 2014, AC Transit used a base local fare ($2.10) and a transfer charge ($0.25). AC Transit was one of the last transit agencies in the country to switch from a base fare and transfer system. Most transit agencies throughout the country have switched to a fare structure that provides free transfers or encourages use of an all-day pass. AC Transit’s recent change in fare structure simplifies fare payments and encourages use of Clipper cards rather than cash. Clipper usage has risen to 37 percent of fare payments, an all-time high for AC Transit. The $2.10 local fare was retained with the new structure, and a $2.00 fare was implemented for those who pay with a Clipper card. The bus to bus transfer has been eliminated and replaced by $5.00 Day Passes, good for unlimited rides from their issuance until 3 a.m. the next morning. Many other basic elements of the previous fare structure were retained: youth and senior/disabled fares are 50 percent of the adult cash fare; senior/disabled and youth passes are $20.00 per month, Transbay fares are $4.20 and $151.20 for a 31-day Transbay pass. The local adult pass price was reduced from $80.00 to $75.00, because it was considered to be overpriced relative to the local cash fare. Apart from the local/Transbay distinction, AC Transit has no fare zones, nor does it have peak period pricing.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 16
Chapter 2: Overview of AC Transit
AC Transit passengers can get a $0.25 discount when transferring to or from BART. Pilot programs to provide a deeper discount are being discussed by the two agencies. Table 2.5 below shows the current AC Transit fares. TABLE 2.5: AC TRANSIT FARES (EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2014) CASH FARES
Adult (Age 19–64)
Youth* (Age 5–18)
Senior (Age 65+) & Disabled
Local Single Ride
$2.10
$1.05
$1.05
Local Day Pass**
$5.00
$2.50
$2.50
Transbay Single Ride
$4.20
$2.10
$2.10
Adult (Age 19–64)
Youth* (Age 5–18)
Senior (Age 65+) & Disabled
Local Single Ride
$2.00
$1.00
$1.00
Local Day Pass**
$5.00
$2.50
$2.50
Transbay Single Ride***
$4.20
$2.10
$2.10
Local 31-Day Pass
$75.00
$20.00
$20.00
Transbay 31-Day Pass
$151.20
Not Available
Not Available
CLIPPER FARES AND PASSES
Notes: Local BART-to-Bus Transfer: $0.25 cash discount to and from BART with paper transfer issued at BART. Applied as $0.50 Clipper discount on bus trip away from BART only. * Children under 5 ride free. ** Issued upon request when paying with cash; automatically applied on the third trip when using Clipper Cash. Good for unlimited uses from time issued/activated until 3:00 a.m. *** Transbay-to-local transfers free and only available when using Clipper. Automatically applied on second bus when boarded within two hours. Also applies to local-to-transbay transfers
The District also offers the EasyPass, a deeply discounted systemwide pass, to groups such as colleges, workplaces, and residential complexes. Passes must be purchased for all members of the defined group. Prices are based on number of passes purchased and level of transit service available at the site. Pass prices range from $43 to $121 per year, or $3.58-$10.08 per month. Measure BB includes funding for a reduced cost student/youth transit pass pilot project, which the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) is leading the effort to develop. Paratransit fares charged by East Bay Paratransit are based on distance: • 0-12 miles: $4.00 • 12-20 miles: $6.00 • Over 20 miles : $7.00 Paratransit Fare to San Francisco: • $6.00-$10.00, depending on destination. • $2.00 surcharge if destination is outside BART service area
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 17
Chapter 2: Overview of AC Transit
2.6 REVENUE FLEET Thirty-foot buses are used on lower ridership routes, particularly in hill areas and in the southern portion of the district. Forty-foot buses are the district’s mainstay, used on local routes and to a limited extent on Transbay routes. Forty-five foot commuter buses are the primary vehicles used on Transbay routes. Sixty-foot articulated buses are used on major trunk lines, such as lines 1, 1R, and 40. The District is testing a double decker bus for possible future use of this vehicle type. For more detail, see the fleet/vessel inventory in Chapter 6.
2.7 FACILITIES AND STATIONS AC Transit has six operating and administrative facilities in regular use and seven transit centers that are utilized in regular service. Routine maintenance occurs at one of three divisions (D2, D4, D6). An additional operating facility (D3) is currently undergoing rehabilitation. The Central Maintenance Facility (CMF) is utilized for more significant maintenance work. AC Transit also maintains an administrative facility and a training facility. AC Transit’s seven transit centers are: Transbay Terminal, Ardenwood, Richmond Parkway, Eastmont, Contra Costa College, San Leandro BART Terminal, and Uptown Transit Center. AC Transit’s facilities are listed in Table 6.6 in Chapter 6. AC Transit does not currently maintain stations, although there will be stations as part of the East Bay BRT. Most bus stops in the AC Transit system are on-street. Off-street stops are located at 11 BART stations. The BART stations with off-street transit centers served by AC Transit are: Richmond, El Cerrito Del Norte, El Cerrito Plaza, North Berkeley, Fruitvale, Coliseum, San Leandro, Hayward, South Hayward, Fremont, and Castro Valley, and at VTA’s Great Mall (Milpitas) and Palo Alto Transit Centers. Off-street stops are also used at Richmond Parkway and Ardenwood Park-and-Rides, and at transit centers at Contra Costa College, Chabot College, Union Landing, Ohlone College Fremont, Ohlone College Newark, and Eastmont (the only transit center actually owned by AC Transit).
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 18
Chapter 3: Goals, Objectives, and Standards 3.0 INTRODUCTION This chapter of the SRTP describes AC Transit’s goals, objectives, and standards as they relate to the District’s major activities. This is a key part of the picture of AC Transit that the SRTP paints. These goals, objectives, and standards help the Board, AC Transit management and staff, and the public at-large evaluate AC Transit’s performance. They also set directions for the future activity of the agency. AC Transit’s system level goals, objectives, and standards derive not from one, but from three principal sources: the 2014 budget, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), and Board Policy 550 concerning Service Development. Policy 550 goals and objectives are discussed in this chapter and standards and performance against those standards are discussed further in Chapter 4. Additional goals from other documents are also identified at the end of this chapter. This chapter primarily deals with goals, objectives, and standards found in the District’s adopted budget and the KPIs. Service standards such as ridership, load factors, and hours of operation are generally discussed in Chapter 4: Service and System Evaluation. The Transit Sustainability Program (TSP) is discussed along with other financial management policies in Chapter 5 as part of the 10-year operating budget projection.
3.1 INCREASING RIDERSHIP Increasing ridership is an overarching goal for AC Transit, recognized in Board Policy 550 (service development). Increasing ridership is also a proposed goal of the SEP. Increasing ridership verifies the usefulness of bus service, makes it more efficient, and benefits the environment by reducing auto trips.
3.2 AC TRANSIT MISSION STATEMENT The broadest statement of AC Transit’s reason for being is our Mission Statement: Connecting our communities with safe, reliable, sustainable service…we’ll get you there.
3.3 GOALS SET FORTH IN THE BUDGET AC Transit’s top level goals are set through the annual budget process. The current budget sets out five goals, four of which are broadly outward facing and concerned with AC Transit’s relationship with its customers and the public. One of the goals is primarily inward facing, concerning internal District operations. The organization’s adopted goals are: 1. Service - Provide Quality and Reliable Service 2. Safety - Create a Safety Culture 3. Cost Effectiveness - Use Financial Resources Efficiently and Effectively 4. Information - Effective Communication, Messaging, and Marketing
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 19
Chapter 3: Goals, Objectives, and Standards
The inward facing goal is: 5. Workforce - Attract and Retain a High Quality Workforce
3.4 OBJECTIVES FOR BUDGET GOALS Each of the four outward facing budget goals listed below has a series of objectives further defining the goal. As a comparison, goals adopted by other transit agencies are discussed at the end of the chapter. GOAL 1. SERVICE—PROVIDE QUALITY AND RELIABLE SERVICE The objectives for this goal set operational service benchmarks such as scheduled runs actually being operated, buses running on-time, and bus cleanliness. Service development goals are documented in Board Policy 550, a subsequent section of this chapter. Performance against those goals is further examined in Chapter 4. However, the 2014 budget set specific objectives related to service that were intended to be achieved by June 30, 2015. These operational objectives are ongoing and are still applicable. The service objectives identified in the 2014 budget are as follows: • Eliminate canceled assignments and reduce out late assignments to 125 monthly systemwide • Improve Bus Cleanliness to 8.0 out of 10.0 rating • Improve Mean Miles between Road Calls to 5,200 miles • Improve On-Time Performance to 72 percent • Improve Operator Courtesy as Evidenced by Reduced Complaints (5 percent reduction in complaints) • Improve Scheduling Efficiencies to: »» Review service enhancements to the bus network »» Reduce Missed Trips to 300 total systemwide trips per month GOAL 2. SAFETY—CREATE A SAFETY CULTURE This goal has objectives that relate to safety from crime, safety on the road, and safety on the job. These objectives have various dates for achievement. Improve District Emergency Response efforts, as follows: • Implement new Alameda County Sheriff contract (completed) • Implement new Contra Costa Sheriff contract (completed) • Develop revised System Security Plan Improve system security by implementing security enhancements, as follows: • Reduce Crime Indicators for crimes on buses 5 percent • Monitor and modify special high profile ALCO team Reduce employee injuries and workers compensation costs, as follows:
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 20
Chapter 3: Goals, Objectives, and Standards
• Implement injury frequency standards benchmark • Install Automatic External Defibrillators (AEDs) by March 2015 • Reduce injury frequency rate by 5 percent from the established benchmark at each Division/Department • Reduce accident rate to 7.25 per 100,000 miles by end of June 30, 2015 • Reduce passenger accidents/incidents per 100,000 miles to 3.25 percent • Implement new safety programs: »» Initiate installation of cameras at transit centers »» Refine focus of the new Alameda County Sheriff Department special community based policing unit GOAL 3. COST EFFECTIVENESS—USE FINANCIAL RESOURCES EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY This goal has objectives that relate to financial outcome measures, or how much is spent in a given expenditure category. It also has objectives to make internal processes more cost effective and efficient. This goal’s objectives are primarily ongoing in nature. • Develop streamlined approach to District procurement process to ensure an average procurement cycle of 180 days or less for most procurements • Review provisions of the Affordable Healthcare Act to determine the impact to the District as measured by overall plan cost. Healthcare premiums increased by about 8 percent for the new fiscal year. Evaluate healthcare program options by December 2014 • Implement a new Employee Development program to provide new learning opportunities for existing staff to assist in performing their current duties and to prepare for future advancement in the District • Establish a standard set of project milestones and use them for all projects valued at over $250,000, to be completed by December 2014 • Reduce the Pay to Platform hours by an additional 1 percent to provide additional operating efficiencies • Maintain overtime expenditures at 5 percent below budgeted levels for the fiscal year • Maintain materials and supplies expenditures at 5 percent below budgeted levels for the fiscal year • Maintain services expenditures at 5 percent below budgeted levels for the fiscal year GOAL 4. INFORMATION—EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION, MESSAGING, AND MARKETING The objectives for this goal seek to improve both internal and external communications. The objectives listed here are primarily ongoing: • Continue to improve awareness of key District initiatives as measured by a 15 percent increase in recall and understanding of District projects and programs. Enhance AC Transit’s image among external audiences as measured by a 15 percent improvement as determined by a public perception survey. • Implement a new “Ask the GM” program to expand internal communication at the District • Implement a new monthly/bi-monthly newsletter to improve internal and external communications Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 21
Chapter 3: Goals, Objectives, and Standards
3.5 GOALS OF OTHER TRANSIT AGENCIES AC Transit’s top level goals are broadly similar to those set forth by other Bay Area transit agencies in their SRTPs. The set of top level goals used by an agency illustrates how it thinks about its goals and objectives. For example, BART’s draft SRTP includes “Customer Experience” as a main, top-level category. VTA sets forth top level goals in its statement of Values, Goals, and Strategies. They are somewhat more broadly stated than AC Transit’s top level goals, as follows: • Dependability in project delivery • Quality in service and projects • Sustainability, minimizing negative environmental impacts • Safety, employee and public • Integrity in business conduct • Diversity, valuing the unique needs of the community • Accountability for the agency’s actions and finances Other Bay Area transit agencies set forth goals in areas (noted below) where AC Transit does not. AC Transit supports improvement in these areas through various actions and programs, but they are not part of the set of the goals set forth in the budget. Passenger Information: AC Transit has no stated goal or objective to improve passenger information, although this is a major focus of the District’s marketing efforts. Goal 4 seeks improved public awareness of District initiatives and improved internal and external communications. However, it does not highlight passenger information specifically. Bus Travel Time: AC Transit has made major efforts to maintain and reduce bus travel time along key routes. However, improving travel time is not a stated goal or objective, as it is for some agencies.
3.6 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (KPI) The KPIs are intended as a set of measurements which allow ongoing tracking of the District’s operations activity and service quality. They were developed and presented to the Board in June 2012. The 11 KPIs have different relationships to budget goals and to District standards. All KPIs can be measured numerically, but some have no target standard. The KPIs with numeric targets are shown in Table 3.1. Most KPIs are also found in the budget objectives, but not necessarily with the same metrics.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 22
Chapter 3: Goals, Objectives, and Standards
TABLE 3.1: KPI WITH NUMERIC TARGETS
Key Performance Indicator
Target
Also a Budget objective?
On time performance
72%
Yes
Miles between road calls
5,200
Yes
Percent of scheduled service operated
99.5%
Yes, with a different metric
Accident rate
4 per 100,000 miles
Yes
Maintenance staffing availability
22% unavailability
Yes, with a different metric
Operator unavailability
22.5%
Yes, with a different metric
Bus operator logon rate
95%
No
Customer complaints
15 per 100,000 boardings
Yes
KPIs without a numeric standard: • Ridership, measured by average daily passenger boardings • Fare revenue (no stated unit of measurement) • Ratio of paid hours for bus operation to platform (in service plus layover) hours. Reducing this “pay to platform” ratio is also a budget objective.
3.7 BOARD POLICY 550 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The Policy was originally adopted by the Board of Directors in 1994, and amended in 2004 and 2008. Listed below are the “Guiding Principles” (top level service goals) from Board Policy 550. Policy 550 is the District’s service development and planning policy.
3.7.1 CONCERNING SERVICE IN THE EAST BAY 1. Stability: Service should be stable and cost effective 2. Simplicity: Service should be easily understood by passengers 3. Frequency: Service on high patronage lines should be frequent enough to be schedule-free 4. Productivity: Service should maximize ridership in order to support smart growth and alleviate climate change 5. Ubiquity: The AC Transit network should be a multi-destination system that is part of a seamless multi-agency transit system The principles concerning East Bay service will be addressed in the SEP, which will be submitted after the SRTP. More detailed proposals for providing and prioritizing service will be submitted at that time. The District has also initiated a review of Policy 550, which will be undertaken in 2016, after completion of the SRTP and the SEP.
3.7.2 CONCERNING TRANSBAY SERVICE 1. Commute Transbay service will be provided where other modes are reaching capacity; all day service will be justified by patronage 2. The primary Transbay service will be walk-up, many to one service to Downtown San Francisco, but other models may be appropriate in some cases
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 23
Chapter 3: Goals, Objectives, and Standards
3. Transbay services should be funded from fares and from regional funding sources
3.7.3 CONCERNING ALL NIGHTER SERVICE 1. All Nighter service is part of a regional network and should serve BART stations and trunk bus routes 2. All Nighter service should be funded from regional funding sources
3.8 PARATRANSIT OBJECTIVES The ADA paratransit program has its own set of KPIs, shown in Table 3.2 below. TABLE 3.2: PARATRANSIT KPI WITH NUMERIC TARGETS
Key Performance Indicator
Target
ADA passengers per trip (excluding attendants & companions)
1.55 or higher
On time performance
94% or higher
Trips more than 60 minutes late
0.2% or less
Roadcalls
<5 per 100,000 miles
3.9 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Another key goal for the District is meeting its Title VI federal civil rights information, analysis, and operational requirements, as set forth in the District’s recently adopted Title VI program and other Title VI regulations. AC Transit is committed to ensuring that no person is excluded from participation in, or denied the benefit of services on the basis of race, color, or national origin as protected by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VI”). Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states “No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Federal guidance highlights the District’s responsibility to ensure that Environmental Justice is incorporated into the District’s mission to provide safe, convenient, courteous, and reliable transit service for the greater East Bay. The District must also ensure that there is Title VI consideration whenever there is a change in fares or service that could impact minority or low-income communities. In particular, AC Transit must describe major service changes relating to hours or days of operation, headways or fares, etc., and provide an analysis of the effect that any such changes may have on minority and low-income communities. Because of the demographics of the AC Transit district, minority communities are defined as those having a non-white population of 71 percent or more.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 24
Chapter 4: System and Service Evaluation 4.0 INTRODUCTION Chapters 1 through 3 of the SRTP described AC Transit and its operating context. They discussed the AC Transit service area, operational structure, and goals. Chapters 5 through 8 project how AC Transit will be, including the operating plan and budget, capital budget, major capital projects encompassed in MTC Resolution 3434, and the vision for the long term future. This chapter provides a bridge between AC Transit’s past and future—by looking at how well AC Transit is performing in providing bus service to the East Bay. This chapter reviews a number of measures, such as route frequency, hours of operation, and on time performance, to evaluate AC Transit service. This chapter draws on the KPIs outlined in the previous chapter as the basis for its evaluation. The outwardfacing KPIs, which focus on passenger service measures and system-wide impacts, along with the service standards from Board Policy 550 are used in the evaluation. This chapter also includes a review of planning and evaluation processes that AC Transit participates in, such as the Title VI program development process. On-time performance, ridership, frequency, and span of service are reviewed on a line-by-line level. Revenue service percentage, cost per revenue hour, cost per unlinked trip, and cost per passenger are reviewed on a system-wide level. Distance to bus stops is evaluated in terms of population with access to a bus stop.
4.1 EVALUATION OF SERVICE These indicators measure three different areas; effectiveness, service availability and quality, and efficiency. Ridership is generally considered the single most important measure of a transit agency’s performance. Transit agencies exist to carry passengers; ridership statistics measure to what degree we are doing so. Since AC Transit’s purpose is to transport people, effectiveness is measured by the number of people who ride the buses. Service availability evaluates the ability of residents in the service area to access the bus system and the quality of that access. Is there a bus stop within reasonable walking distance? What hours does the bus run, what is it “span of service”? How frequently does the bus operate? Does the bus meet its schedule and what is its “on time performance?” Efficiency considers the resources AC Transit uses to provide service. The performance measures used by AC Transit are: Effectiveness • Ridership (passengers per revenue hour)
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 25
Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation
Service Availability and Quality • Distance to Bus Stops • Span of Service • Frequency • On Time Performance • Percentage of Revenue Service Operated Efficiency • Cost Per Revenue Hour • Cost per Passenger Mile
4.1.1 EFFECTIVENESS Systemwide ridership is tracked, but there is no formal target level. The metric used is passengers per revenue hour (revenue hours are hours that the bus is actually operating on its route and collecting passengers). Policy 550 sets standards for the minimum target level of ridership for each type of AC Transit service. These standards are designed to assure that bus service provided is adequately productive. Different types of service are expected to carry different number of riders based on their service characteristics and land use characteristics. Trunks, major corridor lines, and Rapids should carry the most. Urban crosstown routes operating in denser areas are expected to carry more passengers than suburban crosstown routes, which operate in lower density areas. The standard used to measure ridership is “passengers per revenue hour.” This is the average number of passengers who board a bus per hour that the bus is in operation, which is known as revenue service. AC Transit’s levels of bus ridership are among the highest in the region at 35.2 passengers per revenue hour. Only San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MUNI) consistently achieves higher ridership (66.5 passengers per revenue hour) (Source: MTC, Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operators, July 2015). The ridership targets by service type, and AC Transit’s performance against those targets, are shown in Table 4.1. Almost all service types meet or exceed their ridership target. Rapids had the highest ridership per hour, followed by trunks and major corridors, urban crosstowns, and suburban crosstowns. Only urban crosstowns fail to meet their designated standard, and on weekends only. The failure of urban crosstown service to meet its weekend ridership target may be in part due to the fact that many urban crosstowns operate on reduced frequencies on weekends. This is a result of financial constraints. In general, higher frequency service generates more passengers per revenue hour. Very low density routes have no set standards under Policy 550 because they function purely as coverage routes. In 2012, the District conducted an exercise with South County to eliminate routes that carry less than 10 passengers per hour. In addition, the SEP is investigating the potential to convert very low density routes to flex service. Similar low density service provided by other agencies such as County Connection, LAVTA, SolTrans, TriDelta and WestCat typically carries between 14 and 18 passengers per hour (Source: MTC, Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operators, July 2015).
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 26
Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation
TABLE 4.1: RIDERSHIP AND RIDERSHIP STANDARDS BY TYPE OF SERVICE (BY PASSENGERS PER REVENUE HOUR)
Service Type
Weekday Service Standard
Weekday Service Actual (2013)
Weekend Service Standard
Weekend Service Actual (2013)
Trunks & Major Corridors
40
46.5
35
38.6
Rapids
40
49.3
35
46.2
Urban Crosstowns
30
33.3
25
24.3 Saturday 22.1 Sunday
Suburban Crosstowns
20
21.6
15
19.6 Saturdays 15.7 Sundays
No standard set
NA
No standard set
NA
25 per trip
31 per trip
Most Transbay not operated
NA
Very Low Density Transbay
TRUNK, CORRIDOR AND RAPID ROUTE RIDERSHIP BY LINE Ridership can vary considerably even within a service type. The trunk and major corridor lines average 46.5 passengers per revenue hour on weekdays. However on any given line, performance varies with average ridership ranging from 25 and 75 passengers per revenue hour. Most of the lines which fail to meet the ridership standard are major corridor routes rather than trunk routes, and have less frequent service than trunk routes. Shaded routes in Table 4.2A are below this productivity standard. TABLE 4.2A: ROUTES RANKED BY PRODUCTIVITY WITHIN SERVICE TYPES, 2013: TRUNK, MAJOR CORRIDOR AND RAPID ROUTES
Weekday Revenue Hours Weekday Passengers Passengers per weekday per Revenue Hour
Route
Type
Route Description
51B
Trunk
College-University
10,532
140.4
75.0
1R
Rapid
International-Telegraph Rapid
10,964
198.9
55.1
51A
Trunk
Broadway-Alameda
10,587
192.5
55.0
40
Trunk
Foothill, Oakland
10,558
198.8
53.1
1
Trunk
International-Telegraph local
12,005
238.6
50.3
57
Trunk
40th-Macarthur
7,543
157.5
47.9
73
Major Corridor
73rd Ave.-Hegenberger
3,096
66.9
46.3
18
Trunk
Albany-Montclair
8,293
191.6
43.3
72R
Rapid
San Pablo Rapid
6,998
165.8
42.2
72M
Trunk
San Pablo- Macdonald
4,233
108.4
39.0
97
Major Corridor
Hesperian- Union City
4,550
122.1
37.1
72
Trunk
San Pablo
4,534
124.3
36.5
88
Major Corridor
Sacramento- Market
2,745
78.5
35.0
99
Major Corridor
Mission
2,786
102.1
27.3
210
Major Corridor
Fremont Blvd.
1,743
68.2
25.5
URBAN CROSSTOWN ROUTES Urban crosstown routes serve as connector routes to AC Transit trunk routes, BART, and other destinations in the urban communities of the East Bay, especially Oakland, Berkeley, and Richmond. Among urban crosstown Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 27
Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation
routes, 13 meet the weekday ridership standard, while 11 do not. Of the routes that do not meet the standard, five routes are within two boardings per hour of meeting the standard. The routes meeting the standard generally operate more frequently and in areas with more transit-supportive land uses. Of the routes meeting the standard, eight of 13 operate every 20 minutes or more frequently in the peak period. By contrast, of the routes failing the standard, only two have 20 minute service or better. The routes meeting the standard, 13 of 24 routes, generally operate in the higher density core cities of the district, especially Berkeley, Oakland, and Alameda. Only six of the 11 lower ridership routes operate in those cities, and of those that do, operate generally in the lower density areas. Shaded routes in Table 4.2B fall below the standard. TABLE 4.2B: ROUTES RANKED BY PRODUCTIVITY WITHIN SERVICE TYPES, 2013: URBAN CROSSTOWN ROUTES
Weekday Revenue Hours Passengers per weekday
Weekday Passengers /Revenue Hour
Route
Type
Route Description
52
Urban Crosstown
UC Berkeley-Albany Village
2,966
51.0
58.1
54
Urban Crosstown
35th Ave.-Redwood Rd.
2,561
44.2
58
39
Urban Crosstown
Fruitvale-Skyline
642
13.9
46.1
76
Urban Crosstown
Del Norte-Hilltop via N. Richmond
2,629
61.6
42.7
62
Urban Crosstown
West Oakland-Fruitvale
3,526
83.0
42.5
20
Urban Crosstown
Downtown-Alameda-Fruitvale
3,084
75.2
41.0
14
Urban Crosstown
Downtown-Fruitvale BART
3,470
94.1
36.9
46
Urban Crosstown
Coliseum BART-Oakland Zoo
491
13.4
36.8
22
Urban Crosstown
Winton-Tennyson loop
2,452
69.0
35.5
49
Urban Crosstown
Ashby-Dwight loop
2,273
66.4
34.2
26
Urban Crosstown
Emeryville-Lakeshore
2,636
79.7
33.1
12
Urban Crosstown
Oakland-Berkeley via Grand, MLK
2,490
76.4
32.6
21
Urban Crosstown
Oakland Airport-Dimond Dist.
1,975
60.9
32.4
45
Urban Crosstown
Sobrante Park-Eastmont
2,314
78.6
29.5
11
Urban Crosstown
Piedmont-Dimond via Oakland Ave.
1,654
56.5
29.3
70
Urban Crosstown
San Pablo Dam- Appian
1,261
43.1
29.3
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 28
Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation CONTINUANCE OF TABLE 4.2B: ROUTES RANKED BY PRODUCTIVITY WITHIN SERVICE TYPES, 2013: URBAN CROSSTOWN ROUTES
Weekday Revenue Hours Passengers per weekday
Weekday Passengers /Revenue Hour
Route
Type
Route Description
31
Urban Crosstown
Alameda-Emeryville
1,841
65.3
28.2
58L
Urban Crosstown
Downtown Oak-Macarthur
1,107
39.2
28.2
74
Urban Crosstown
Marina Bay- El Sobrante
1,189
46.4
25.6
32
Urban Crosstown
Hayward-Castro Vly.-Bayfair loop
768
33.3
23.0
25
Urban Crosstown
North Berkeley-El Cerrito loop
886
39.4
22.5
37
Urban Crosstown
Whitman-Santa Clara loop
501
28.9
17.3
47
Urban Crosstown
Fruitvale BART-Maxwell Park
134
7.9
17.1
48
Urban Crosstown
Bayfair-Castro Valley BART
440
28.7
15.3
SUBURBAN CROSSTOWN ROUTES Suburban crosstown routes serve as connectors to AC Transit major corridor routes, BART and other destinations in the suburban areas of the East Bay. These routes primarily operate in San Leandro, Hayward, and the Berkeley Hills. Crosstown routes in Fremont and Newark are designated as Very Low Density routes. Suburban crosstown routes are concentrated in Central Alameda County, with some additional routes in the Berkeley Hills. Among the dozen suburban crosstown routes, seven met the ridership standard, while five did not. Four of the routes not meeting the standard are within two boardings per hour of meeting the standard. The suburban routes fell within a relatively narrow range of ridership. The most productive route, line 65 in the Berkeley Hills, had roughly twice as many passengers per hour as the least productive, line 94 in Hayward. This is a much narrower range than is experienced on the urban crosstown routes. The suburban crosstowns clearly have lower ridership than the urban crosstown routes. Only one suburban crosstown route, line 65, would meet the urban crosstown productivity standard. Shaded routes in Table 4.2C fall below the standard. TABLE 4.2C: ROUTES RANKED BY PRODUCTIVITY WITHIN SERVICE TYPES, 2013: SUBURBAN CROSSTOWN ROUTES
Route
Type
Route Description
Weekday Passengers
Revenue Hours per weekday
Weekday Passengers per Revenue Hour
65
Suburban Crosstown
Euclid-Grizzly Peak
921
29.6
31.1
85
Suburban Crosstown
San Leandro- Union Landing
876
30.6
28.7
67
Suburban Crosstown
Spruce St., Berkeley
322
12.5
25.7
95
Suburban Crosstown
Hayward BART-Kelly Park
420
15.4
27.2
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 29
Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation CONTINUANCE OF TABLE 4.2C: ROUTES RANKED BY PRODUCTIVITY WITHIN SERVICE TYPES, 2013: SUBURBAN CROSSTOWN ROUTES
Route
Type
Route Description
Weekday Passengers
Revenue Hours per weekday
Weekday Passengers per Revenue Hour
93
Suburban Crosstown
Bayfair-San Lorenzo-Haywd.
751
30.7
24.5
7
Suburban Crosstown
The Arlington
743
30.9
24.1
60
Suburban Crosstown
Hayward BART- CSU East Bay
762
34.7
22.0
86
Suburban Crosstown
Winton-Tennyson
806
41.4
19.5
83
Suburban Crosstown
A St.-Tennyson, Hayward
588
31.4
18.7
89
Suburban Crosstown
San Leandro loop
1,241
67.0
18.5
75
Suburban Crosstown
Eastmont-Bayfair loop
545
29.7
18.3
94
Suburban Crosstown
East Av.-Hayward Blvd.
171
10.6
16.2
TRANSBAY ROUTES Under Policy 550, Transbay routes are evaluated by a different standard than East Bay routes. Most Transbay routes are relatively long in both distance and time. They also often require “deadhead” (not in service) trips between San Francisco and the East Bay. So that these common characteristics do not overwhelm the comparative analysis, Transbay routes are evaluated by the number of passengers they carry on each trip. Most Transbay routes, unlike most other AC Transit routes, operate only during weekday commute hours, often only in the main commute direction (i.e.. into San Francisco in the morning). Three Transbay routes, lines F from Berkeley and Emeryville, NL from the Grand/Macarthur corridor, and O from Alameda, operate all day, 7 days per week. Many passengers on these routes, especially the F and the NL ride within the East Bay rather than to San Francisco. This demonstrates that the local component of some Transbay routes is as important as the Transbay component. The Transbay ridership standard is 26 passengers per trip. While 19 Transbay routes meet this standard, seven do not. Data is not available on 2 routes, and 1 route has been discontinued. Of those routes not meeting the standard, two are within two boardings per hour of meeting the standard. In general, ridership on Transbay buses has been increasing in the wake of BART crowding and the BART strike. Some Transbay lines now have more passengers boardings per trip than seats, which results in standing passengers. Policy 550, recognizing the length of Transbay trips, calls for a seat for each Transbay passenger, but AC Transit does not currently have capacity to meet this requirement. As part of the Transbay Core Capacity Study, further analysis will be conducted to determine why Transbay routes vary in productivity. In addition, a comprehensive analysis will be conducted of the number of Transbay stops, the stop spacing and relative route distance on local streets with distance on freeways. The shaded rows in Table 4.2D below fall below the productivity standard.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 30
Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation
TABLE 4.2D: ROUTES RANKED BY PRODUCTIVITY WITHIN SERVICE TYPES, 2013: TRANSBAY ROUTES
Weekday Trips
Passengers per Trip
531
11
48.3
11
3,344
78
42.9
43
697
19
36.7
30
Newark-SF
477
13
36.7
35
Commute
Shattuck/ University-SF
293
8
36.6
19
J
Commute
Sacramento St.-Emeryville-SF
697
19
35.9
19
H
Commute
Arlington-SF
597
17
35.1
49
G
Commute
El Cerrito/ Albany-SF
345
10
34.5
39
NL
All Day
Macarthur Blvd., Oak.-SF
3,193
93
34.3
19
V
Commute
Oakland Hills-SF
761
23
33.1
21
NX4
Commute
Castro Valley-SF
360
11
32.7
50
NX
Commute
Eastmont-SF
293
9
32.6
29
NX1
Commute
Dimond-SF
228
7
32.6
0 (EB Only)
O
All Day
Santa Clara St. Alameda-SF
1,981
63
31.5
31
P
Commute
Piedmont-SF
751
21
34.3
11
OX
Commute
Harbor Bay/ E. Alameda-SF
642
21
30.6
33
W
Commute
Alameda-SF
527
19
27.7
37
NX3
Commute
Macarthur Blvd. south-SF
328
12
27.3
26
NX2
Commute
Laurel-SF
268
10
26.8
0 (EB Only)
CB
Commute
Montclair/N. Oakland-SF
189
8
23.6
28
Route
Type
Route Description
U
Commute
Fremont-Stanford
F
All day
Berkeley-SF
L
Commute
El Sobrante-SF
SB
Commute
FS
Weekday Passengers
Number of WB Stops
S
Commute
Hayward/ San Leandro-SF
258
11
23.5
44
LA
Commute
Richmond Pkwy.-SF
600
27
22.2
17
LC
Commute
Richmond Pkwy.-SF
63
3
21.0
0 (EB Only)
C
Commute
Piedmont Ave/ 40th St.-SF
272
13
20.9
29
E
Commute
Claremont Ave.-SF
267
14
19.1
12
B
Commute
Trestle Glen-SF
252
15
16.8
4
4.1.2 SERVICE AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY Service availability and quality are key elements in how passengers judge transit, and can strongly affect their decision whether or not to ride. Several elements influence the service availability and quality as understood by potential riders: 1. Span of Service (Also known as “hours of operation”): Which hours of the day is the bus running? This may vary between weekdays and weekends. 2. Frequency: How often does the bus come? This is likely to vary between weekdays and weekends. 3. On-Time Performance: Does the bus operate on time and meet its schedule? Staff is developing information on another key transit characteristic distance from the passenger’s origin and
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 31
Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation
destination to bus stops. This information will be included in future versions of the SRTP. AC Transit also monitors the revenue service percentage, which is the percentage of paid hours for bus drivers to actual revenue service hours. The current ratio matches the agency target of 1.2. Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 show area within one-quarter of a mile of the bus stops served by routes that arrive every 15 minutes or less for most hours of the day. Board Policy 550 establishes standards for hours of operation and frequency, while on-time performance is part of the District’s KPI system. SPAN OF SERVICE/HOURS OF OPERATION A bus route is only useful to a passenger if it is operates at the time when the passenger needs it. Therefore, Policy 550 sets standards for the hours routes should be operating: ROUTE TYPE
SPAN/HOURS OF OPERATION
• Trunks and Major Corridors: 19 to 24 hours per day, for example, 5 a.m. to at least midnight • Rapids:
14 to 16 hours per day, for example, 6 a.m. to at least 8 p.m.
• Urban Crosstowns:
14 to 16 hours per day, for example, 5 a.m. to at least 7 p.m.
• Suburban Crosstowns:
14 to 16 hours per day, for example, 7 a.m. to at least 9 p.m.
• Very Low Density Routes:
14 to 16 hours per day, for example, 6 a.m. to at least 8 p.m.
Rapid routes have a shorter span requirement under the assumption that they will generally be operating on the same street as trunk and major corridor service which will be available for longer hours. Since most Transbay lines only operate in the commute period, they are effectively exempt from standards for hours of operation. Most AC Transit lines meet or exceed their minimum requirement for span of service. Of 66 lines covered by the standard, only nine fail to meet it. AC Transit’s standard for trunk line span of service is similar to other agencies, such as San Francisco MUNI, Metro in Los Angeles and VTA. VTA has a published service standard of 18 or more hours per day for the Core System. LA Metro has a published service standard of 18 hours (specifically, 5 a.m. to 11 p.m.) for Metro Local service. However, some systems, such as MUNI and LA Metro, supplement with more extensive all night or “owl” service.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 32
Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation
Walkshed around Frequent Service (North)
FIGURE 4.1: WALKSHED AROUND FREQUENT SERVICE (NORTH)
Area within 1/4 mile of bus stops served by routes that arrive every 15 minutes or less for most hours of the day.
Giant Rd
Atlas Rd
Hilltop Dr
ay W
Ln
n pia Ap
23rd St
Rumrill Blvd
Ch urc h
Sa n
Pa blo
§ ¦ ¨
Da m
80
Rd
Barrett Ave
Ga r
rar d
Blv d
Macdo nald Ave Cutting Blvd
San
on rls Ca
ve oA
Av ton ing Arl
l Pab
vd Bl
§ ¦ ¨ 580
Ave tral Cen
Solano Av
Buchanan St
k Pea zzly Gri Bl
San Pa
Sacramento St
80
Shattuck Av
§ ¦ ¨ blo Av
y Dwight W
em Clar
Av ont
§ ¦ ¨ 580
Te Broadw ay
Powell St
College Av
Telegraph
Market St
St Hollis
Av
Ashby Av
d ke R Sna
Moraga Av
¬ «
Av
40th St
Gran d
Source: AC Transit
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
th 35
Av
Av
Av
Int ern a
r
St
¸
E 7th St
fic
Hi gh
Miles
Oti sD
2t hS t
St
2
Pac i
Central Av
Pa rk
0 0.5 1
Webster St
Main St
t hS 5t
Walkshed
E1
Maca rthur Bl
23 rd
E1
v hA 14t
Av
St
Av
l
12th
ln co Lin
Bl
B ne
St
k Par
vale
11t h
yli Sk
8th S t
13
Fruit
St
Bro ad w ay
St 7th S t
Adeli ne
14 th
tio na lB
Foothill Bl
l
Av rd 73
S:\Research\GIS\GIS Projects\SRTP\Map 3 - Quarter-mile Walkshed (North).mxd
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 33
Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation FIGURE 4.2: WALKSHED AROUND FREQUENT SERVICE (SOUTH)
Walkshed around Frequent Service (South)
Area within 1/4 mile of bus stops served by routes that arrive every 15 minutes or less for most hours of the day. n Av Dutto
Av
E1
4t h
St
v dA an Gr
St Davis
Ba nc ro ft
Av
Dr tle olit Do
§ ¦¬ ¨ « 880
Redwood Rd
Ed es
238
¦ ¨ ¬ «§ 580
238
ll B thi Foo l
t AS
Jack son
St
W A St
pe Hes rian Bl
92
tr us Ind
ial
Pw
W
Ca ny on Rd Nil es
rad oB l Niles Bl
ss Mi Bl
k Rd ree
ion Rd co ll Washington
Ma Auto
Rd
mer B
Rd
l
B ings Sp r
¸
Pw
Durh am
ll Pw
S Grim
Cu sh in g
Bl
rm Wa
0 0.5 1
Bl Ste ve ns on Bl
Bo yc e
Miles 2
680
d Rd
84
Walkshed
§ ¦ ¨
yA v
Rd
Mo wr
Th orn t
84
Bla co w
Pa seo Pa dre Pw on tB l
o Osgo
¬ «
¬ «
on Av
Fre m
me r
pC Dee
a Bl Peralt
Gr im
Alv a
De co to Rd
Union City Bl
les Rd Alvarado Ni
Dr is
¬ «
l
Source: AC Transit Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
S:\Research\GIS\GIS Projects\SRTP\Map 4 - Quarter-mile Walkshed (South).mxd
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 34
Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation
FREQUENCY Frequent service is fundamental to attracting and retaining passengers. Most passengers are unwilling to accept long waits for the bus. The transit industry in recent years has placed renewed focus on providing frequent service. Policy 550 sets these target frequencies for various service types during peak hours: ROUTE TYPE
TARGET MINIMUM FREQUENCY
• Trunks and Major Corridors
Every 15-20 minutes
• Rapids Every 10-14 minutes • Urban Crosstown
Every 15-20 minutes
• Suburban Crosstown
Every 21-30 minutes
• Very Low Density Routes
Every 31-60 minutes
• Transbay Every 21-30 minutes Almost 60 percent (36 routes) of East Bay routes meet or exceed the frequency standard, while 26 routes do not. Trunks and major corridor routes generally meet the frequency standard. A number of urban and suburban crosstown routes, especially in West Contra Costa County and Central Alameda County, fail the standard. The TSP has determined that improving frequency, especially on routes than run less than once every half hour, is important for service quality. In addition to the frequency standards, Policy 550 sets goals for greater frequency for most service types. The goals are: ROUTE TYPE FREQUENCY GOAL
• Trunks and Major Corridors
Every 10-14 minutes
• Urban Crosstown
Every 15-20 minutes
• Suburban Crosstown
Every 15-20 minutes
• Very Low Density Routes
Every 21-30 minutes
• Transbay
Every 15 minutes or greater during peak hours
The frequency of service by route can be seen in Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4. Line-by-line route frequency is included on the widely available AC Transit system map. ON-TIME PERFORMANCE On-time operation of buses is critical for passengers. Passengers need to be able to rely on a bus to deliver them on time to work, school, medical appointments, and other activities. AC Transit sets a standard that at least 72 percent of the trips on a line should arrive on time. On-time is defined as between one minute early and five minutes late. System-wide, 68.3 percent of weekday trips were on-time, as of November 2015. Lines which operate in lower density suburban areas were most likely to meet the on-time performance standard. As a service type, trunk/major corridor and Rapid lines are the most likely to be late: none met the 72 percent
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 35
Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation
Frequency of Service by Route (North)
Density shown by Census block FIGURE 4.3: FREQUENCY OF group SERVICE IN PEAK PERIOD BY ROUTE (NORTH)
Giant Rd
Atlas Rd
Hilltop Dr
ay W
Ln
n pia Ap
23rd St
Rumrill Blvd
Ch urc h
Sa n
Pa blo
§ ¦ ¨
Da m
80
Rd
Barrett Ave
Ga r
rar d
Blv d
Macdo nald Ave
Cutting Blvd
San
on rls Ca
ve oA
Av ton ing Arl
l Pab
vd Bl
§ ¦ ¨ 580
Ave tral Cen
Solano Av
Buchanan St
k Pea zzly Gri Bl
San Pa
Sacramento St
80
Shattuck Av
§ ¦ ¨ blo Av
y Dwight W
v nt A emo Clar
§ ¦ ¨ 580
Te Broad w ay
Powell St
College Av
Telegraph
Market St
St Hollis
Av
Ashby Av
ke Sna
Moraga Av
Gran d
Source: AC Transit Schedules
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Av
Av
St Hi gh
Pa rk
Av
Int ern a
r
St
Oti sD
E 7th St
fic
th 35
Fruit
Pac i
Central Av
2t hS t
Av
Webster St
Main St
¸
E1
Maca rthur Bl
23 rd
v hA 14t
vale
St
Av
l
12th
ln co Lin
Bl
B ne
St
k Par
yli Sk
2
11t h
t hS 5t
0 0.5 1
Miles
8th S t
E1
Frequency of Service 10-15 minutes 20 minutes 30 minutes 60 minutes
St
13
Bro ad w ay
St 7th S t
Adeli ne
14 th
Rd
¬ «
Av
40th St
tio na lB
Foothill Bl
l
Av rd 73
S:\Research\GIS\GIS Projects\COA Outreach 2014\PowerPoint Maps\Route Frequency\ Map 5 - Weekday Frequency of Service by Route (North).mxd
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 36
Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation
Weekday Frequency of Service by Route (South)
Frequency of service during OF peak commute FIGURE 4.4: FREQUENCY SERVICE INperiods PEAK PERIOD BY ROUTE (SOUTH) n Av Dutto
4t h
St
Ba nc ro ft
Av
§ ¦¬ ¨ « 880
Redwood Rd
E1
v dA an Gr
St Davis
238
¦ ¨ ¬ «§ 580
238
ll B thi Foo l
t AS
Jack son
St
W A St
pe Hes rian Bl
92
ial
Pw
W
§ ¦ ¨
Nil es
rad oB l Niles Bl
ss Mi Bl
k Rd ree
ion
co ll
Rd
680
Ste ve ns on Bl
Bl
yA v Mo wr
Th orn t
Bo yc e
Bl Washington
Durh am
Pw Mall Auto
Rd
m S Grim
Cu sh in g
Pw
Rd
er Bl
rm Wa B ings Sp r
¸
§ ¦ ¨ d Rd
0 0.5 1
Rd
84
Frequency of Service 10-15 minutes 20 minutes 30 minutes 60 minutes Miles 2
¬ «
Bla co w
Pa seo Pa dre Pw on tB l
o Osgo
¬ «
84
on Av
Fre m
me r
pC Dee
a Bl Peralt
Gr im
Alv a
Ca ny on Rd
880
De co to Rd
Union City Bl
tr us Ind
Dr is
¬ «
l
Source: AC Transit Schedules
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
S:\Research\GIS\GIS Projects\COA Outreach 2014\PowerPoint Maps\Route Frequency\ Map 6 - Weekday Frequency of Service by Route (South).mxd
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 37
Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation
standard. These lines often operate on congested streets and serve the most passengers, resulting in longer dwell times. Because they serve the most passengers, the impact of late buses on passengers is magnified. In comparison with other large Bay Area transit agencies, AC Transit’s on time performance is lower than VTA, which reports an 85 percent on time performance (Q1 of FY15, Source: http://www.vta.org/transparency/ performance-indicators/bus-performance). However, AC Transit’s on-time performance is higher than San Francisco MUNI’s, which is 60 percent (November 2015, Source: SFMTA, https://www.sfmta.com/about-sfmta/ reports/performance-metrics/percentage-time-performance). Routes which failed to meet the standard are shaded in Table 4.3A, Table 4.3B, and Table 4.3C. TABLE 4.3A: ON TIME PERFORMANCE: TRUNKS/MAJOR CORRIDORS, RAPIDS
Route
Route Description
Type of Service
On Time Performance
51B
College-University
Trunk
71.0%
51A
Broadway-Alameda
Trunk
70.2%
88
Sacramento-Market
Major Corridor
70.1%
73
73rd Ave.-Hegenberger
Major Corridor
69.6%
18
Albany-Montclair
Trunk
69.3%
99
Mission Blvd.
Major Corridor
68.9%
40
Foothill Blvd., Oakland
Trunk
67.9%
97
Hesperian Blvd.
Major Corridor
66.6%
210
Fremont Blvd.
Major Corridor
66.5%
57
40th St.-Macarthur
Trunk
63.7%
72R
San Pablo Rapid
Rapid
60.9%
72
San Pablo Ave.
Trunk
59.2%
1
International-Telegraph local
Trunk
56.8%
72M
San Pablo-Macdonald
Trunk
53.7%
1R
Interational-Telegraph Rapid
Rapid
48.2%
TABLE 4.3B: ON TIME PERFORMANCE: URBAN CROSSTOWNS
Route
Route Description
Type of Service
On Time Performance
48
Bayfair-Castro Valley BART
Urban Crosstown
84.4%
BSD
Broadway Shuttle
Circulator
80.7%
70
San Pablo Dam-Appian
Urban Crosstown
79.2%
52
UC Berkeley-Albany Village
Urban Crosstown
75.9%
71
El Cerrito-Contra Costa Coll.Richmond Pkwy.
Urban Crosstown
78.5%
Winton-Tennyson –Mission Loop, Urban Crosstown Hayward
75.8%
22 37
Whitrman-Santa Clara loop, Hayward
Urban Crosstown
75.5%
45
Sobrante Park-Eastmont, East Oakland
Urban Crosstown
75.4%
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 38
Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation CONTINUANCE OF TABLE 4.3B: ON TIME PERFORMANCE: URBAN CROSSTOWNS
Route
Route Description
Type of Service
On Time Performance
46
Coliseum BART-Oakland Zoo
Urban Crosstown
74.9%
12
Oakland-Berkeley via Grand, MLK
Urban Crosstown
74.8%
47
Fruitvale BART- Maxwell Park, Oakland
Urban Crosstown
73.6%
31
Alameda-Downtown Oak.Emeryville via Peralta St.
Urban Crosstown
72.3%
25
North Berkeley-El Cerrito Loop
Urban Crosstown
71.6%
26
Emeryville-Lakeshore
Urban Crosstown
69.9%
11
Piedmont-Dimond Dist. via Oakland Ave.
Urban Crosstown
69.6%
20
Downtown OaklandAlameda-Fruitvale
Urban Crosstown
69.6%
32
Hayward-Castro ValleyBayfair loop
Urban Crosstown
69.5%
14
Downtown Oak.-Fruitvale BART
Urban Crosstown
68.1%
54
35th Ave.-Redwood Rd.
Urban Crosstown
67.7%
74
Marina Bay, Richmond El Sobrante
Urban Crosstown
65.9%
21
Oakland Airport-Dimond District Urban Crosstown
65.5%
76
Del Norte BART-Hilltop Mall via North Richmond
Urban Crosstown
65.4%
49
Ashby-Dwight loop, Berkeley
Urban Crosstown
65.3%
58L
Downtown OaklandEastmont via Macarthur
Urban Crosstown
65.0%
62
West Oakland BARTFruitvale BART
Urban Crosstown
62.3%
39
Fruitvale BART-Skyline
Urban Crosstown
60.2%
TABLE 4.3C ON TIME PERFORMANCE: SUBURBAN CROSSTOWNS AND VERY LOW DENSITY ROUTES
Route
Route Description
Type of Service
On Time Performance
86
Winton-Tennyson, Hayward
Suburban Crosstown
85.1%
251
Paseo Padre-Thornton
Very Low Density
80.1%
275
Union City BART-Lido Faire via Thornton
Very Low Density
80.1%
60
Hayward BART-Kelly Park
Suburban Crosstown
79.5%
83
A Street-Hayward Industrial-Tennyson
Suburban Crosstown
78.9%
65
Euclid-Grizzly Peak, Berkeley
Suburban Crosstown
77.1%
232
Paseo Padre-Cedar Blvd.
Very Low Density
76.0%
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 39
Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation CONTINUANCE OF TABLE 4.3C ON TIME PERFORMANCE: SUBURBAN CROSSTOWNS AND VERY LOW DENSITY ROUTES
Route
Route Description
Type of Service
On Time Performance
7
The Arlington, Berkeley-Kensington-El Cerrito
Suburban Crosstown
75.5%
239
Fremont BART-Warm Springs via Grimmer
Very Low Density
73.3%
67
Spruce St., Berkeley
Suburban Crosstown
68.6%
93
Bayfair-San LorenzoHayward Loop
Suburban Crosstown
68.3%
215
Fremont BART-Warm Springs via Osgood Rd.
Very Low Density
67.5%
94
East Ave.-Hayward Blvd.
Suburban Crosstown
66.1%
217
Mission Blvd. FremontWarm Springs Rd.
Very Low Density
64.9%
89
San Leandro Loop
Suburban Crosstown
64.2%
200
Union City BARTNewpark-Fremont BART
Very Low Density
63.7%
212
Fremont BARTPacific Commons-Newpark
Very Low Density
63.2%
95
Hayward BART-Kelly Park
Suburban Crosstown
62.6%
216
Union City-Newpark via Stevenson
Very Low Density
61.1%
85
San Leandro-Union Landing
Suburban Crosstown
53.6%
75
Eastmont-Bayfair Loop
Suburban Crosstown
52.5%
4.1.3 EFFICIENCY The previous section of this chapter evaluated service availability, seeking to assess the quality and usefulness of AC Transit service. The evaluation of efficiency in this section measures how well the District is doing at minimizing the cost of providing that service. Increasing the efficiency of AC Transit operations would allow AC Transit to provide more service or to provide the same service at a lower cost. MTC is focused on working with regional transit agencies on ways to improve transit operating efficiency. Plan Bay Area, approved by MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), seeks to increase the transit share of travel in the region. More transit service can be funded if operating costs are lower. This was a central concern of the TSP. The TSP required the Bay Area’s major transit operators to commit to cost reductions, or at least slowing of the rate of cost growth. These reductions are to be achieved by FY 2016-17. AC Transit has focused on three cost metrics as targets for reduction under the TSP: cost per unlinked trip, cost per passenger mile, and cost per revenue hour. The cost metrics compared in Table 4.4 below cover fixed route service, excluding the cost of operating paratransit service.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 40
Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation
TABLE 4.4 ANTICIPATED CHANGE IN EFFICIENCY METRICS
2013-14
2016-17 Projected
Cost Per Revenue Hour
$182.97
$190.87
4.3% (within acceptable TSP cost range)
Cost per Unlinked Trip
$5.57
$5.45
-2.2%
Cost per Passenger Mile
$1.71
$1.67
-2.3%
Metric
Increase/Decrease
Table 4.5 compares the AC Transit cost per revenue hour and cost per unlinked trip with the Bay Area transit system as a whole. TABLE 4.5 BAY AREA METRIC COMPARISON
Metric
AC Transit
Bay Area System Average
Cost Per Revenue Hour
$182.97
$165.57
Cost per Unlinked Trip
$5.57
$6.73
Source: Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operators (MTC, July 2015) COST PER REVENUE HOUR Cost per revenue hour (hour when the bus is actually operating) is a fundamental measure of AC Transit operations, driving other District costs. Earlier in the 2000s, AC Transit’s per hour costs had been increasing faster than the Consumer Price Index, the rate of inflation, but this is no longer the case. COST PER UNLINKED TRIP Cost per unlinked trip is derived from the cost per revenue hour and the number of passenger trips taken in that hour. An “unlinked” trip is a single trip on a vehicle, regardless of whether the passenger transfers to another bus. A journey from origin to destination could include one, two, or occasionally more unlinked trips. A “linked” trip is a combination of multiple “unlinked” trips made by a single rider that involve transfers. By attracting more passengers to the system, AC Transit hopes to reduce the cost per unlinked trip. COST PER PASSENGER MILE Cost per unlinked trip shows the cost of each trip, but trips vary in length. Cost per passenger mile introduces the element of distance to the analysis of efficiency. Unsurprisingly, longer trips require more resources, primarily bus operating time, than shorter trips. The change in cost per passenger mile closely mirrors the cost per unlinked trip. This is because the average length of a passenger trip on AC Transit (3.25 miles) is not expected to change significantly over the life of the SRTP. AC Transit’s cost per revenue hour is higher than most Bay Area bus operators, but lower than MUNI or VTA. However, AC Transit’s cost per unlinked trip is relatively low, lower than most major operators except MUNI. This perhaps surprising combination occurs because AC Transit buses have more passengers per hour than other bus systems in the region, except for MUNI.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 41
Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation
4.2 COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLANS AC Transit has participated in MTC’s Community Based Transportation Planning Plans (CBTP) in both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The areas covered by these plans are shown in Figure 4.5. The CBTPs are designed to help low income communities articulate their transportation needs, and serve as a basis for future planning and funding. The plans initially focused on transit needs, then expanded to include pedestrian and bicycle needs as well. The two counties are now taking different approaches to the Plans which have been developed. ALAMEDA COUNTY Between 2004 and 2009, five CBTPs were prepared for the Alameda County portion of AC Transit’s service area. In order from north to south, they covered the following areas: • South and West Berkeley • West Oakland • Central and East Oakland • City of Alameda • Central Alameda County, focusing on Ashland, Cherryland, and South Hayward The agency then known as the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) oversaw the development of these Plans. That agency, now known as Alameda CTC, intends to consolidate and update all of these plans and integrate the result into the Countywide Transportation Plan in 2015/2016. The original plans were done separately from each other and varied widely in approach, analysis, and recommendations. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY In AC Transit’s Contra Costa County service area, a CBTP was prepared in 2004 for the Richmond area. It covered northwestern neighborhoods in the City of Richmond (including Parchester Village) as well as Old Town San Pablo. This plan remains in effect and there are no plans to update it. AC Transit has incorporated CBTP proposals into its plans, where financially feasible and consistent with the SEP.
4.3 PARATRANSIT SERVICE PROVIDED As a fixed route transit provider, AC Transit is required under ADA to fund paratransit service. Paratransit provides shared point-to-point transportation for people who cannot use fixed route service. People must live within ¾ mile of a fixed route to receive paratransit service. The majority of residents in the AC Transit district meet this criterion, although some people living in upper hill areas fall outside of it. Service is provided during the same hours and days of the week as it is on adjacent fixed route service. Most rides are provided within the AC Transit district, but paratransit rides to other parts of the Bay Area may be provided as direct or connecting service. AC Transit provides paratransit service through East Bay Paratransit, which is jointly managed by AC Transit and BART. Under the consortium’s agreement, AC Transit pays 69 percent of costs. This figure is estimated to be $24.9 million in the current Fiscal Year 2014-15. This figure is projected to increase to $29 million by Fiscal Year 2018-19. In Fiscal Year 2014-15, East Bay Paratransit provided 728,000 rides. This figure is slightly over one percent of the rides taken on AC Transit’s fixed route service. The total cost (BART and AC Transit) of these paratransit rides
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 42
Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation
FIGURE 4.5: COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN AREAS El Cerrito Richmond
Walnut Creek Lafayette
Albany
Orinda
Berkeley
South and West Berkeley Moraga Emeryville
Piedmont
West Oakland
Alameda Oakland
Central and East Oakland Alameda San Francisco
San Leandro
Central Alameda County
Brisbane
Community Based Transportation Plan Areas South San Francisco Community Based Transportation Plan Areas Cities
Central Alameda County Hayward
Interstates Highways Arterial Roads 0 Burlingame
1
2
4 Miles
San Mateo
Hillsborough
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
¯
Union City
Foster City Fremont
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 43
Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation
was $34,015,000. The cost per ride was $47.46. Ridership was slightly down from approximately 754,000 in 2011-12, which represented the highest level ever. AC Transit provides training to assist passengers who can use fixed route transit rather than paratransit to do so. This provides more travel flexibility for the passenger and cost savings for the District.
4.4 TITLE VI REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AC Transit is required to assess its service performance on minority and non-minority transit routes. The most recent analysis was conducted in Spring 2014 using data from Fall 2011, 2012 and 2013. Staff assessed performance of each route according to definitions in Board Policy 550 and methods described in the FTA Circular. Minority transit routes are those where at least one-third of the route mileage is in areas where the population is at least 71 percent minority (71 percent is the district average non-white population). Differences found for the minority and non-minority transit routes in average load factor, maximum load factor, headway, on-time performance, service accessibility, vehicle assignment, and distribution of transit amenities were not indicative of any discriminatory practices. In preparation for updating Title VI compliance related Board Policies, AC Transit conducted a series of public outreach activities in May and June 2014 before a public hearing. The public outreach activities were provided to ensure populations protected by Title VI and Environmental Justice executive orders have a full and meaningful opportunity to participate in the development and review of the proposed Board policy updates. The most recent round of outreach activities included four community forums, one held in each of AC Transit’s planning areas, advertising on buses, information packets, and advertisements in both traditional and social media outlets. In addition, staff directly contacted 160 community-based organizations and made presentations to 22 of them, and spoke directly about the proposals with more than 575 individuals. Presentations were available in languages other than English for people with limited English proficiency. In addition, the materials were translated into Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean and Tagalog. On June 11, 2014, AC Transit held a public hearing to receive public comment on revisions to Board policies 163, 501 and 551 to meet FTA requirements related to Title VI (Civil Rights Act) compliance. The Board subsequently adopted a revised Title VI policy and program (see Appendix A). There are no triennial report issues which require changes in service.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 44
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget 5.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate that funding will be available to support planned transit service. This chapter and Chapter 6 (Capital Improvement Program) represent the key implementation chapters of the SRTP. They lay out what the District hopes to achieve in the next 10 years. Alameda County voters, with a ‘yes’ vote over 70 percent, approved Measure BB in November 2014. Measure BB increases the County’s transportation sales tax, making substantial additional revenues available to AC Transit for service. Other sources, such as the State’s new Cap and Trade funding programs, are expected to contribute additional, albeit smaller, amounts of operating revenue. The SRTP lays out a broad, high level, 10-year “road map” for the use of existing and anticipated future funds. Specific annual expenditures will be reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors in the annual budget. The District is engaged in several planning activities, outlined below, which could generate new service plans that may require additional revenue. Staff is formulating a SEP which will review and restructure service throughout the district, based on the earlier MTC-initiated Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) and on Board service development Policy 550. Restructuring routes to better serve emerging employment centers such as South Richmond, Alameda Point, and Warm Springs (Fremont) will be part of this process.
5.1 OVERVIEW OF SERVICE AND ANTICIPATED CHANGES • Measure BB will provide about $30 million per year in additional operating funds for Alameda County • Measure BB will support approximately 250,000 platform hours of service per year, or a nearly 14 percent increase in service • About 85 percent of anticipated Measure BB funding will be used for service expansion, with the remainder used to augment the District’s operating reserves and to make contributions to capital projects. • AC Transit will continue to seek funds to improve service in the Contra Costa County portion of the district (Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, North Richmond, Kensington)
5.1.1 TRANSIT SERVICE ISSUES HIGHLIGHTED IN MTC SRTP RESOLUTION 3532 SERVICE CUTS Current plans do not assume that any service cuts will be a financial necessity. However specific routes may be reduced, eliminated, or increased as part of service restructuring plans with the goal of increasing ridership overall. TITLE VI No service changes are required now to address Title VI concerns. Major service changes will be reviewed under the District’s Title VI policy, which the Board of Directors adopted in October 2014.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 45
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
5.1.2 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE—REVENUE HOURS In Fiscal Year 2013-14, AC Transit operated 1,685,688 hours of revenue service. This is AC Transit’s baseline service level. Measure BB will allow the addition of some 250,000 new revenue hours, an increase of nearly 14 percent. AC Transit will then operate some 1,930,000 revenue hours annually. That was the level of service provided in 2008-09, the highest level of service in a decade, and the service level before the 2009-10 cuts. In terms of comparative service intensity, AC Transit provides 1.19 revenue hours per resident of the district, VTA provides 0.77 hours (bus and light rail) and MUNI operates 3.95 hours per resident (one of the highest levels in the US) (Source: MTC, Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operators, July 2015). AC Transit operates local, trunk, rapid, and express (Transbay service), each of which will be affected differently by upcoming changes. Existing service is described in Chapter 2 and analyzed in Chapter 4. The SEP is expected to increase the level of local and trunk service. The SEP is not anticipated to propose changes in Transbay service, although changes may emerge from the Transbay Core Capacity Study. A majority of the existing 1R Rapid line, the International Boulevard/East 14th segment, is being converted to BRT.
5.2 OPERATIONS PLANNING 5.2.1 INNER EAST BAY SERVICE EXPANSION PLAN INTRODUCTION TO THE SEP AC Transit is currently in the final phase of the SEP for the entire service area. District staff has proposed revised service plans for all areas of the district, including West Contra Costa County. Extensive outreach on these proposals has begun. The AC Transit Board will be asked to vote on a package of proposed service changes. The SEP is a systematic analysis of all service provided by AC Transit. The SEP is intended to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness (ridership) of the transit system. The SEP process provides an opportunity for AC Transit to review and re-evaluate, as needed, AC Transit’s service patterns. This is done through the following activities: • Review of all transit services within a given area • Assessment of route performance • Assessment of demand growth and current and future travel patterns • Public surveys to assess use and potential use of the transit system (Gap Analysis) • Recommendations on how to link trips better with the service The Inner East Bay SEP examines AC Transit’s current service and measures its effectiveness in providing a quality transit service throughout the AC Transit district. Based on this assessment (as described above), the SEP will provide service recommendations to improve the route network and connectivity for the East Bay’s residents and employees. BACKGROUND TO AC TRANSIT’S SEP AND SEP GOALS In 2009, the MTC adopted Transportation 2035, the long-range transportation plan for the San Francisco Bay Area (now superseded by Transportation 2040). Transportation 2035 identified a $25 billion transit capital and operating shortfall over the 25-year period of the plan. The long-term financial challenges, coupled with current deficits requiring service cuts and fare increases throughout the region motivated MTC to initiate the TSP. The project progressed and focused its analysis on three main elements of sustainability: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 46
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
• Financial Sustainability – Focused on operating costs, revenues and pricing strategies for the largest seven operators, which carry over 90% of Bay Area transit trips (MUNI, BART, AC Transit, VTA, Golden Gate, Caltrain and SamTrans) • Better Service Delivery and Design – Focused on service design and delivery for the regional, sub-regional (local) and paratransit service analysis • Institutional Reform – Focused on the “how” transit services are provided and reviewed alternative delivery approaches A sub-study of the TSP was a specific review of service delivery called the “Inner East Bay Service Expansion Plan (SEP).” The SEP reviewed and assessed service connectivity between AC Transit and BART throughout the District’s service area, although it did not include smaller transit operators such as Union City Transit and Westcat. A service planning consultant, Transit Management and Design (TMD), was engaged by MTC to review AC Transit’s and BART’s current service. TMD assessed both the complementary and any potential competitive aspects of current service design to develop an optimally efficient service design. TMD reviewed the services provided by both agencies and, with MTC, developed recommendations that would meet the following goals of the SEP study: • Promote a seamless Inner East Bay bus and rail transit system • Build the Urban Core to allow for spontaneous (not requiring a schedule) bus and rail network use by customers • Match bus and rail service levels with demand, focusing on improving service productivity while increasing overall system ridership • Ensure on-going financial sustainability • Minimize the cost of network coverage • Identify alternative service options tailored to specific market needs Following this process, TMD worked directly with AC Transit staff to develop an existing conditions analysis and service recommendations that met the SEP goals stated above. These were based on the following guiding principles: • Focus resources on key urban trunk corridors to provide “spontaneous use service” in the urban core network • Refine coverage strategies for areas with infrequent service (30-minutes or less frequent) and areas with frequencies at 15-minutes or more frequent • Enhance Transbay service, using existing and new service designs • Improve productivity and efficiency • Ensure Title VI/Environmental Justice considerations are addressed in both service quality (spontaneous use) and coverage TMD’s analysis and recommendations quickly became outdated as AC Transit and BART’s ridership began to
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 47
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
grow in 2012 and ridership patterns changed for the region. This was further compounded by the 2013 BART strike that put more riders on AC Transit’s buses. Between 2012 and 2014, AC Transit’s ridership grew by nearly 5 percent overall and close to 20 percent on Transbay routes without any significant enhancements to the service network. As a result of this change, Staff set aside the initial set of SEP service recommendations and did not implement major service enhancements until 2014 due to a lack of financial resources. During this period it became clear that some of the Transbay passengers gained during the strike were continuing to ride AC Transit. With an improvement in AC Transit’s financial outlook and the passage of Measure BB, AC Transit re-initiated the SEP process in the fall of 2014 to develop a service expansion plan based on Measure BB operating revenues. EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO THE SEP Between 2007 and 2012, AC Transit ridership and service levels dropped to the lowest levels in the past decade for the agency. The shrinkage is directly attributed to the economic recession, which forced AC Transit to reduce service by nearly 15 percent in 2010. The goal of the 2010 service cuts was to reduce operating costs, while maintaining as much service coverage as possible. In order to achieve this goal, AC Transit reduced service frequencies, resulting in 40-minute to hourly service on crosstown routes and a reduction in trunk route frequency, including on lines 40, 51A/51B, 57, 97 and 99. The District also reduced the number of Transbay trips by 15 percent to reduce expenses and match the existing demand on lower demand routes. Most service dropped to 30-minute frequency. In addition to reducing local and Transbay service frequencies, AC Transit reduced spans of service. On many routes, service ended at 8 p.m. At the same time, AC Transit eliminated the most unproductive routes and route segments in order to further reduce operating costs. Though this action preserved service where it was needed most, it pieced together different route segments and made the overall route network less coherent to riders (and in some instances, different routes on weekdays and the weekend). This resulted in two prevalent route types for the service area: 1. Long routes created from interlining different route segments that saved on operating costs. Though these achieved the goal of the 2010 service reductions, they proved to be difficult to understand and operate reliably. 2. Circulator loop routes that started and ended at a common endpoint, mainly BART stations. These routes attempted to serve productive crosstown segments in Berkeley, Central County and South County, and they emphasized BART as the primary destination. The circulator routes did not have simple routing because of the complex road network of the service area. As a result, these routes became some of the most confusing and least used in the district. Despite the degradation in the service network from the 2010 service cuts, ridership increased by nearly 5 percent from 2012 to 2014. The ridership growth is evident on Transbay routes and some trunk routes where AC Transit has received complaints of overcrowding. Ridership gains can be attributed to both increased demand generated by the improved Bay Area economy and to improved bus operations as demonstrated by the greater number of scheduled trips actually operated. This increase directly correlates with AC Transit’s success in increasing the number of operators, the purchase of new buses, and greater maintenance attention. Still, between 2011 and 2014, AC Transit only made minor improvements to service frequency and the route network.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 48
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
With the passage of the Alameda County Measure BB sales tax authorization, AC Transit is now able to address the deficiencies in the route network. As described earlier in this chapter, Measure BB revenues will allow AC Transit to increase service by 14 percent to pre-2010 levels. Based on the goals of the SEP and the TSP, service will be increased to maximize efficiency and productivity. SEP PHASE ONE OUTREACH AND ANALYSIS Recognizing the need for public input and support to advance the SEP, AC Transit requested outreach support from MTC. MTC provided an on-call consultant in spring 2014. Outreach began in fall 2014. METHODS
AC Transit welcomed public input and interaction through a variety of channels. Each element is discussed in detail below: PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
AC Transit hosted eleven public workshops throughout the district between October 1 and November 10, 2014. Workshop locations were chosen to provide maximum coverage for public convenience and to allow focused conversation on specific areas. These workshops were designed to solicit feedback about existing service, explain common transit trade-offs and proposed new or restored service. The majority of each workshop session was reserved for a small-group activity to design a transit network. Using maps and ribbon, groups were asked to create a network of 15- and 30-minute frequency routes constrained by current revenue hours. Workshops in Alameda County included additional ribbon to represent the potential benefits of Measure BB on operating funds. This hands-on activity allowed participants to explore common transit trade-offs like coverage versus frequency. Finally, a representative from each group shared major points from their discussion with all the attendees. SURVEYS
AC Transit designed a short survey to better understand public preferences. The survey had two major components: (1) ranking characteristics that influence an individual’s decision to use transit over other modes and (2) preferences about service and network trade-offs. The surveys also collected optional travel behavior and demographic data. The survey was available online in English, Spanish, and Chinese and on paper at the public workshops. 775 surveys were received. COMMENT FORMS
AC Transit accepted open-ended comments in the form of email, telephone voicemail, written comments, and verbal comments at the public meetings. Comment forms were available in English, Spanish, and Chinese at public workshops. Approximately 120 open-ended comments were submitted during this outreach process. YOUTH ENGAGEMENT
Y-PLAN (“Youth – Plan, Learn, Act. Now!”) is a program championed by UC Berkeley’s Center for Cities and Schools to engage young people in civic activity and develop problem-solving and communication skills in a professional setting. AC Transit staff partnered with the Center for Cities and Schools and Oakland Unified School District to incorporate youth input in the SEP outreach. Eleventh grade students from MetWest High School reviewed routes and ridership data, surveyed customers, and developed recommendations. On November 5, 2014, students delivered their final presentations in the AC Transit Board Room.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 49
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
FINDINGS
AC Transit received almost 900 completed surveys and open-ended comments, as well as dozens of additional notes and annotated network maps from the public workshops. Staff analyzed this feedback and identified several common themes: RELIABILITY
Although the SEP outreach focused on route and network design, schedule reliability is undeniably the primary concern among current AC Transit customers. Asked if improved frequency would reduce concerns about schedule adherence, members of the public cited bus-bunching on high frequency corridors (San Pablo, International /Telegraph, and Broadway/College) as examples of why reliability improvements are necessary. • Frequency: Essentially on par with improved schedule reliability, improved frequency was one of the most common requests. Frequency is critical to growing transit mode-share and implementing efficient network design. In general, participants were willing to accept moderately longer walking distances and less network coverage in exchange for improved frequency • Speed: Improved speed (or reduced travel time) is also critical to growing transit mode-share. Route and stop design should emphasize minimizing passenger travel time • Crosstown Service: New or improved crosstown (generally in the Bay-Hills direction) were a common request from participants • Demographics and Mode Choice: Approximately half of respondents reported using AC Transit five to seven days per week. Only five percent of respondents reported never using AC Transit. Age of respondents was approximately normally distributed, with the largest portion (34 percent) between 35 and 54 years old. The median age of AC Transit passengers is 34 years old. Of respondents who reported race/ethnicity, most respondents (59 percent) identified as “white, non-Hispanic/Latino.” Of respondents who reported annual household income, the majority (53 percent) reported earning less than $75,000 per year. RANKING OF TRANSIT PRIORITIES
Survey-takers were asked to rank transit characteristics that influence usage. Results are ordered by respondent priority in Table 5.1. Survey respondents identified reliability as the most important transit characteristic, followed closely by frequency. These two characteristics far outweighed other options, consistent with research about consumer behavior and mode-choice. Speed, span of service, and stop location were ranked third, fourth, and fifth most important transit characteristics, respectively. Speed and service span were common topics in conversation and written comments. Speed was usually mentioned in the context of peak-hour commutes, but frequently brought up with respect to non-commute trips (shopping, appointments, and entertainment). Slow travel speeds, combined with infrequent service, made transit uncompetitive with automobiles for these non-commute trips. Span was most often mentioned in residential areas where service is limited or unavailable in evenings and weekends. Finally, coverage and network simplicity were ranked sixth and seventh, respectively. Existing customers may be both satisfied with the current coverage and familiar with the current routes.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 50
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
TABLE 5.1: TRANSIT PRIORITIES
Question Think about what you value about riding the bus. Which of the following characteristics would you prioritize in order to improve your experience? Which would most encourage you to take the bus over other alternatives? Please rank the following characteristics from 1 (most important) to 7 (least important). Answer Choice
Average Rank
Reliability. The bus should be on time, so I can plan my trip.
2.70
Frequency. The bus should come often, so I can plan my day easily. If I miss my bus, I should 2.71 not have to wait long for the next one. Speed/Time. The bus should get me to my destination quickly.
3.96
Hours of Operation. The bus should be available most hours of the day and on weekends, not just weekday rush hour.
4.01
Location. Bus stops should be close to my home and/or destination. I should not have to walk far to or from the bus.
4.16
Coverage. The bus should be widely available in most areas, including those with low demand.
4.83
Simplicity. The bus system should be easy to understand, especially when I need to take an unfamiliar route.
5.63
TRADE-OFFS
Survey-takers were asked to select a preference between pairs of common transit trade-offs. For each question, the majority of respondents expressed a preference for options that improve speed or frequency (between 55 percent and 81 percent). Staff will consider this strong preference for speed and frequency when developing route and network recommendations for public review. Complete trade-off survey and results are on the shown in Figure 5.1, Figure 5.2, Figure 5.3, and Figure 5.4.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 51
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget FIGURE 5.1: SURVEY RESPONDENTS BUS NETWORK PREFERENCES
FIGURE 5.2: SURVEY RESPONDENTS BUS SERVICE EXPANSION PREFERENCES
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 52
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
FIGURE 5.3: SURVEY RESPONDENTS BUS STOP SPACING PREFERENCES
FIGURE 5.4: SURVEY RESPONDENTS BUS SERVICE ROUTE PREFERENCES
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 53
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
COMMENT FORMS
Staff collected open-ended comments in the form of approximately 120 email, voicemail, and hand-written comment cards. A summary of the volume of comments related to general topics is shown in Table 5.2. Some comments addressed multiple topics, thus the number of specific comments exceeds the number of comment forms submitted. TABLE 5.2: SUMMARY OF OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS
Subject
# Received
General Themes
Route or Stop-Specific
38
• Various
Workshop
24
• 20 positive comments thanking staff, complementing activity • Insufficient internet presence
Span
21
• Longer span of service, particularly later service
Frequency
19
• Greater frequency of service
Other
18
• Various
Reliability
16
• Bus-bunching • Timed-transfers to/from BART or buses • Missed trips
Customer Service
11
• Operator courtesy • Call-center
Vehicles
9
• Requests for larger buses, capacity issues
Speed
7
• Expansion of Rapid/Limited services
WORKSHOP RESULTS
At each public workshop, participants were asked to design an ideal service network using large-scale maps and colored ribbon to represent different frequencies of service. The length of ribbon was scaled to the map to reflect current revenue hours, plus additional ribbon to represent potential Measure BB improvement in Alameda County. Maps were digitized to scan for common high-priority corridors among groups. Several themes emerged from the activity: • Simplified service. Participants generally mapped straight lines along major arterials with minimal diversions. This reflects a desire for a clean, legible network • Higher-frequency cross-town routes. Participants expressed strong desire for new and improved cross-town routes to serve as a connection between major corridors or connection to BART stations • BART connections. BART is a key destination, particularly in Central/Southern Alameda and West Contra Costa. This reflects a willingness to use bus-to-BART connections for commuting • Grid Networks. Given a fixed set of resource, participants generally identified a grid of strong north-south and east-west routes to maximize access and mobility
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 54
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
SERVICE STRUCTURE GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR 2015 Based on the goals and objectives set by the TSP, the results of the Phase One SEP and associated outreach, and the passage of Measure BB, staff proposes the following guiding principles to establish the SEP service restructuring recommendations: FUNDING:
• Establish a SEP budget using 85 percent of Measure BB operating dollars. This allows for remaining revenues to be used toward reserve and capital contribution. At this level of funding, AC Transit is able to increase service in Alameda County by 14 percent DESTINATIONS:
• Serve Priority Development Areas and transit-oriented developments • Per Board Policy 550, establish more improved connections to attractors not previously served well (e.g. Union Landing Shopping Center) • Re-establish connections to key destinations eliminated with the 2010 service cuts (e.g. Line 57 to Emeryville) STREETS:
• Serve designated transit streets as identified by the local jurisdictions (e.g. Fremont Boulevard) ROUTE NETWORK:
• Simplify corridor route design (e.g. San Pablo and MacArthur where there are three or more routes serving the corridor) • Implement a grid network where feasible • Establish consistent weekday and weekend routing • Design simpler routes with fewer turns to improve reliability and legibility • Plan for timed transfers for the grid network, BART and schools • Reconfigure confusing circulator loop routes • Develop shorter routes to improve reliability (60-minute travel time or less) • Implement Flex Service where warranted, beginning with Special District 2 (Fremont/Newark) STOP SPACING
• Change stop spacing so that it is more consistent with Board Policy 508-- remove or add stops where warranted FREQUENCY:
• Increase frequency (improve to 30-minutes or better and only in conjunction with improving reliability) • Replace 60 minute frequency routes with 30 minute frequency unless 60 minutes is warranted for the route function and demand • Ensure 15 minute frequency or better on Major Corridors; 10 minutes or better on Trunk Lines
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 55
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
HOURS OF OPERATION
• Develop consistent and improved service spans with 5 a.m. start times on trunk lines, 6 a.m. on other routes, and 8 p.m., 10 p.m., or 12 a.m. end times depending on service type • Operational Efficiency: Establish common endpoints for routes in order to access common operator restroom and break facilities, streamline road supervision, and create multiple routes to major destinations TRANSBAY GUIDING PRINCIPLES
• Increase span of service with existing fleet resources • Increase stop-spacing to improve speed, reliability and efficiency • Seek long-term recommendations under the San Francisco Bay Area Core Capacity Study being conducted by MTC • Pursue pilots for new Transbay services that alleviate BART over-crowding (Montclair Village, Fruitvale Avenue and 73rd Avenue) EVALUATION METRICS FOR THE SEP To verify that the implementation of the SEP recommendations is successful, AC Transit has developed a number of performance metrics to measure the benefits and impacts of the service improvements: LEADING INDICATORS-THOSE PRECEDING IMPLEMENTATION
• Ridership versus Coverage: Identify the ridership versus coverage ratio for routes and service hours based on route classifications. Current ratio is 70 percent ridership/30 percent coverage. The SEP’s goal is an 80 percent/20 percent split as measured by service hours with a frequency threshold of 30 minutes • Walk-shed Analysis: Identify the change in number of residents who are within ¼ mile walk of frequent service (every 15 minutes or more frequent) or ¼ mile of any bus service. This metric should improve with the SEP recommendations • Isochronal Maps: Identify the distance a rider can travel within a given timeframe on the old network versus the proposed network • Job Access Overlay: Spatially display the proposed network over an employment density map of the service area to determine if job access improves under the implementation of the SEP • Resident Access Overlay: Spatially display the proposed network over a population density map of the service area to determine if residential access improves under the implementation of the SEP • Paratransit Coverage: Analyze the paratransit coverage buffer around the proposed route network to determine if paratransit coverage increases or decreases under the implementation of the SEP • Title VI Compliance: Through various equity analyses (e.g. fare, trip travel time, service equity), identify impacts as defined by Title VI and mitigate accordingly LAGGING INDICATORS-THOSE FOLLOWING IMPLEMENTATION
• Ridership Increases: Though predicting ridership increases is difficult to estimate, AC Transit is confident that ridership gains will result from the SEP. Increases should be measured at least one year after implementation of recommendations and can be measured in net ridership gain and increase in rides per capita to
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 56
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
accommodate for population growth • Ridership Impacts: The recommendations will minimize ridership impacts (loss of passengers due to reduction/ elimination of service) as much as possible but some will be proposed • Ridership Productivity: In order to ensure that service hours are added efficiently, AC Transit will measure productivity of the individual route improvements and the service as a whole. Productivity is measured as the number of passengers per an hour of service • Schedule Reliability: With shorter, straighter, simpler and more easily managed routes, AC Transit expects schedule reliability to improve. This is measured by route-level and system-wide on-time performance SERVICE EXPANSION PLAN (SEP) SUMMARY BY AREA At this time, The AC Transit Board of Directors is considering an extensive service redesign and expansion. These changes are based on planning work and community input through the workshops and surveys. The changes are based on the SEP Guiding Principles (p. 46) The Board is expected to review and approve these proposals in January 2016. The proposed SEP’s approach to service improvement differs in each of AC Transit’s four planning areas. These four areas are Northern Alameda County, Central Alameda County, Southern Alameda County, and Western Contra Costa County. NORTHERN ALAMEDA COUNTY (OAKLAND, BERKELEY, ALAMEDA, EMERY VILLE, PIEDMONT AND ALBANY)
Building a Multi- Destination Transit Network In the geographic center of the AC Transit district, Northern Alameda County is the oldest and most densely populated part of the district, with the highest bus ridership. Northern Alameda County encompasses key destination areas for AC Transit, including Downtown Oakland, UC Berkeley, and Pill Hill. Several BART stations in North County are also key bus service hubs, such as Downtown Berkeley, Macarthur, Fruitvale, and Coliseum. There are a number of transit/commercial corridors which date back to the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, including Telegraph Avenue, San Pablo Avenue, and International Boulevard. These streets have retained at least some of their historic transit orientation. North County also has the most households without cars or with less than one car per licensed driver. In 2015, bus service in North County is extensive but many bus lines are infrequent, have limited hours or are unreliable (frequently late). Thirteen routes run 30 minutes or less frequently, in peak hours. Ten routes end service before 8:00 pm on weekdays. The North County proposals of the SEP are focused on improving frequency, reliability, and hours of operation. The route network (‘the map”) will, with modest exceptions, remain as it is today. With implementation of the SEP, riders will be able to more easily use AC Transit for more types of trips—not just commuting to work or school—over more hours of the day. With higher frequencies, passengers will be able to transfer between buses without undue delay. Confusing loop routes in Berkeley would also be replaced by a more easily intelligible route system. The plan would also upgrade service to key growth areas in North County—such as Downtown Oakland, Emeryville, and Downtown Berkeley. Key SEP proposals in Northern Alameda County include the following. The key goal for the proposed change is noted, though many changes have more than one goal: • Lines 1/1R (International/Telegraph) Speed: Split these long and unreliable routes into three separate routes on Telegraph Ave., International Blvd., and East 14th St. until the BRT line opens (scheduled for 2017). On Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 57
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
Telegraph, to improve speed and reliability, space stops on the new route approximately 1/3 mile (1,760 feet) apart. This is closer together than current Rapid stops, but farther apart than current local stops. • Line 14 (14th St.-High St.) Frequency: Extend line 14 from Downtown Oakland to West Oakland primarily via 14th St., to provide more frequent service on 14th St. • Line 18 (Solano-Shattuck-Park) Reliability: Split this long route into three separate routes to improve reliability • Line 49 Frequency: Split into separate routes on Ashby (with improved frequency), Dwight (with improved frequency) and on Colusa-Claremont. Ashby route will serve 4th St. West Berkeley retail district. • Line 51B (University/College) Reliability: End line 51B service to Berkeley Marina (serve it with the Ashby Avenue route) and have all service end at 3rd & University, to improve reliability. • Line 57 (40th St./Macarthur) Destinations: Restore service from 40th & San Pablo, the current western terminal, to the Emery Bay shopping center, providing direct service to major retail destinations in Emeryville. • Line 58L (Macarthur limited)/ NL (Macarthur Transbay limited) Understandable Routes: Eliminate low frequency, low ridership line 58L and increase frequency of service of line NL. With two lines instead of three, service on Macarthur will be simpler and more understandable. • Line 62 (7th St.-23rd Ave.) Frequency: Increase both peak and off-peak frequency. • Line 98 Understandable Routes: Split the existing route into two more understandable routes—one on 85th/90th Ave., one on 98th Ave., each with improved 20 minute off peak frequency. • Alameda Cross-Island Route to Ferry Terminal Destinations: New cross-island route to the parking impacted Alameda ferry terminal, via Shoreline, Encinal, or Buena Vista. CENTRAL ALAMEDA COUNTY (SAN LEANDRO, HAYWARD, SAN LORENZO, ASHLAND, CHERRYLAND, CASTRO VALLEY, FAIRVIEW)
Focusing Service on Better Routes The origins of Central Alameda County towns stretch back to the 19th Century, but the area was largely developed in the post-World War II period. The population of Hayward quintupled from 1950 to 1960, soaring from 14,272 to 72,700 (over 20,000 more were added by 1970). The area developed with generally suburban densities, a fragmented and curvilinear street pattern with a weak grid (except in parts of San Leandro), and numerous barriers to pedestrian movement. Employment is dispersed across large, low density industrial areas of San Leandro and Hayward. Nonetheless, AC Transit service is more extensive than transit service in many suburban areas like this. Unfortunately, the network has not been particularly efficient or effective. In order to maintain service along the lines during the 2010-11 service cuts (and even before), the hours and frequency of routes were cut deeply. In order to reduce operating costs, complicated—sometimes convoluted—routes were created. Confusing loop routes were created. The result is an area where AC Transit spends 13% of its operating funds in this area, but only gets 9% of its ridership. The SEP proposes a network that it is smaller and simpler, but provides more frequent service over longer hours. Most routes in Central County now operate every 60 minutes (once an hour). Under the SEP, they will run every 30 minutes. Fifteen minute service will be added to Davis/Estudillo Street, Industrial Parkway, Lewelling Boulevard, Tennyson, and West A Street using two routes that will operate along these streets. Most Central Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 58
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
County routes now end service by 8:00 pm, but under the SEP they will generally run until 10:00 pm. Lines 75, 83, 85, 86, and 93 will receive both greater frequency and longer hours of operation. San Leandro, Bay Fair, and Hayward BART will continue to be the principal transit hubs. Central County’s two major routes—line 97 (Hesperian Blvd.) and line 99 (Mission Blvd.) will also have improvements in hours of operation and/or frequency. By linking two existing lines (lines 22 and 60), the plan would also create a new crosstown route from Chabot College to Cal State East Bay—via the Alameda County civic complex and Downtown Hayward. The tradeoff for these service improvements is the elimination of low ridership segments on some routes in the area. All new or modified lines would continue to operate on at least part of their current routes. For example, today there are three corridors—line 85 and parts of the line 37 loop—which operate north-south on local streets between Hayward BART and South Hayward BART. The SEP would leave only one of these three lines in place, but with better service. Some low ridership segments serving low-density hill areas would also be discontinued. The outcome would be a route network which, to the extent possible, would be more concentrated on major through streets, and in that way more similar to service in other parts of the district. Some passengers are being asked to make a trade-off: walk farther to access more frequent service available for longer hours. SOUTHERN ALAMEDA COUNTY (FREMONT/NEWARK WITH SERVICE INTO UNION CITY)
Developing Flex Service There are no service change proposals in the SEP for Southern Alameda County. Instead, starting in spring 2016 , a test of “flex” service will begin there. Flex routes will operate in designated zones, within which passengers can make individualized requests for a bus ride from a transit hub to the bus stop closest to their destination. A few major fixed routes will continue operating. A number of transit agencies nationwide operate flex service. AC Transit’s program most closely resembles the program operated by the Rapid Transit District (RTD) of Denver. A similar “dial-a-ride” program was operated in Fremont and Newark in the 1970’s. WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (RICHMOND, EL CERRITO, SAN PABLO , KENSINGTON, EAST RICHMOND HEIGHTS, ROLLINGWOOD, EL SOBRANTE, NORTH RICHMOND)
Improving Key Lines as Funding Allows The SEP is primarily funded by Alameda County Measure BB, whose funds must be spent in Alameda County. Therefore, AC Transit’s ability to expand service in Contra Costa County is limited at this time. The SEP recognizes the need for service improvements on additional West County routes. There is substantial potential for additional ridership there, particularly with expected growth in Richmond. Should funding become available through a transportation sales measure in Contra Costa County (or other, yet to be identified, sources) AC Transit would propose additional improvements. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The SEP informs the Major Corridors Plan that will determine the level of corridor capital investments and the development of future Short-Range Transit Plans. This presents a unique opportunity to address a full range of issues in a robust public outreach process, including routes and schedules, infrastructure, and policies. Figure 5.5 illustrates how these three planning activities are interrelated and respond to a range of questions about transit.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 59
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
For legibility, clarity, and consistency, staff developed a single identity or brand for all three major planning activities called “PlanACT.” Characterized by clean design aesthetic and vivid color scheme, PlanACT marketing materials are meant to be contemporary, eye-catching, and interesting for existing and potential customers. The simple subheadings (Routes & Schedules, Infrastructure, and Policies & Vision) clearly communicate to the public the general topic and purpose for each piece of material. FIGURE 5.5. FRAMEWORK FOR LINKING PLANNING ACTIVITIES
Implementation of the SEP is part of PlanACT framework. As shown in the timeline in Figure 5.6, AC Transit returned to the public in August of 2015 with a set of route and network recommendations for community review. From there, AC Transit gathered feedback and refined the SEP recommendations. AC Transit then returned to the public with the refined recommendations via a formal public hearing process in November 2015. Pending approval of the SEP recommendations by the AC Transit Board of Directors, AC Transit can implement the initial phase of the SEP as early as June 2016 with remaining phases implemented over the following two years pending the availability of buses, operators and fleet facilities (such as the re-opening of the Division 3 bus yard in Richmond).
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 60
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
FIGURE 5.6. TIMELINE FOR PLANNING ACTIVITIES
5.2.2 OPERATIONS PLANNING IN ADDITION TO THE SEP 2014-15 SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PLAN The approved 2014-15 budget includes about $2 million in additional operating funds to improve service. In December 2014, there was an increase of peak hour frequency on line 97 (Hesperian) from every 20 minutes to every 15 minutes and line 99 (East 14th/Mission) from every 30 minutes to every 20 minutes. In January 2015, the Board approved operation of line 72R (the San Pablo Rapid) on weekends, previously the line only operated on weekdays. FLEX SERVICE AC Transit is planning to implement “flex” service in low density parts of the district. Fixed-route ridership is generally low in these areas. Under the flex proposal for Fremont and Newark, fixed route service would be limited to a few major, frequent routes. Other service would operate from these trunk lines and BART stations to any bus stop within a specified flex zone. This model has been implemented by other transit agencies, notably the Regional Transit District in Denver. The Board of Directors has approved a pilot flex route to begin operating in spring 2016 as proof of concept. Ten buses have been purchased and delivered in FY 2014-15. The first use of these buses will be in the area currently served by Route 275. BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) Construction and implementation of the East Bay BRT is ongoing and described in Chapter 7: Resolution 3434 projects. MAJOR CORRIDORS STUDY The Major Corridors Study (discussed further in the Capital Budget chapter) is primarily an analysis of appropriate capital improvements for each corridor where a major bus line operates. It may, however, lead to service changes in the SRTP time period. For example, corridors recommended for less intensive improvements, such as those funded by MTC’s Transit Performance Initiative project rather than BRT-scale projects, would be most likely to see corresponding service improvements within the 10 year plan horizon. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY AC Transit is working with MTC, BART, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, the Water Emergency Transportation Authority, Caltrain and MUNI to prepare the San Francisco Bay Area Core Capacity Transit
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 61
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
Study. This study is intended to develop a regional strategy to address short-, medium- and long-term transit capacity challenges confronting the major high-capacity corridors serving downtown San Francisco, including the Transbay Corridor. The region has been awarded a $1 million United States Department of Transportation TIGER 6 Planning Grant for this study. Combined with local funding, this will be a $2 million study. OTHER AGENCIES’ TRANSIT PLANNING EFFORTS Other agencies located within the AC Transit district are also engaged in transit planning efforts. These could lead, although this is by no means certain, to additional service by either AC Transit and/or other agencies during the SRTP period. Key studies in this category include: • West Contra Costa County High Capacity Transit Study: This study, being led by the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee and BART, is designed to evaluate transit solutions which could provide high capacity transit augmentations in the I-80 corridor. This study is multi-modal and could result in recommendations for either bus or rail projects. • Contra Costa County Express Bus Study: This study is being managed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). It will update a 2002 study of express bus service in both the AC Transit service area and other parts of Contra Costa County. The study will make recommendations for improvements in express bus service, which could become part of a Contra Costa County transportation sales tax measure in 2016. • Emeryville Berkeley Oakland Transit Study: This study was completed in January 2015. It was designed to recommend transit improvements for the West Oakland-Emeryville-West Berkeley corridor. The study is being managed by the City of Emeryville on behalf of the three cities in the corridor. • Late Night Transportation Working Group: This study was sponsored by the City and County of San Francisco and explored solutions to improve late night service to and from San Francisco, including service to the East Bay along the Transbay Corridor. Recommendations from this study, completed in mid-2015, included additional bus service between the AC Transit service area and San Francisco at times when BART is not operating. The involved transit agencies are continuing to work to improve late night service.
5.2.3 FINANCIAL PLAN BACKGROUND This section of the SRTP outlines AC Transit’s overall operating budget assumptions and expectations for the next ten years. It is designed to show that AC Transit will have sufficient revenue to operate the level of service planned. The section includes the key revenue and cost assumptions for the upcoming decade, a brief description of the District’s general financial outlook, and recommends an approach to the key tradeoffs for using the increased revenue expected from BB and other sources. The passage of Measure BB is anticipated to yield about $30 million per year in increased revenue beginning in FY 2015-16 (see Table 5.3). With these funds, staff is proposing a service improvement strategy which will bring bus service to the highest level in a decade. The strategy is also designed to improve on-time performance. There are also other indicators of a much stronger economic recovery in the East Bay, suggesting that current operating revenues may be reaching levels not seen since before the Great Recession. The overall fiscal context for the SRTP financial projections for operating expenses is framed by MTC’s TSP. The TSP requires that the seven largest transit agencies in the Bay Area submit and update strategic plans to MTC. The plans show reduction of cost metrics, such as cost per passenger, to an agreed upon level by FY 2017-18. In March 2014, the AC Transit Board approved an update to the five year projected TSP operating expense budget
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 62
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
through FY 2017-18. This updated projection is the basis of the current SRTP operating budget forecast. TABLE 5.3: TEN-YEAR FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS AC Transit SRTP Draft
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25
Total Operating Revenues
358,801
365,057
372,547
385,074
386,009
394,957
408,656
417,128
428,041
442,090
Total Operating Costs
348,006
357,257
367,507
379,395
383,831
394,621
403,942
416,921
427,580
440,922
Operating Surplus/Deficit Before Measure BB
10,795
7,800
5,040
5,679
2,178
336
4,714
207
461
1,167
New Measure BB additional revenue*
29,577
29,932
30,291
30,654
31,023
33,842
35,027
36,428
37,885
39,400
Operating Surplus/(Deficit) - After Measure BB
40,372
37,732
35,331
36,333
33,201
34,178
39,741
36,635
38,346
40,567
Reserve Contribution
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
-
-
-
-
-
District Capital Contribution
27,547
12,960
9,920
10,218
4,635
7,967
11,938
7,656
8,407
9,528
New Service Enhancement Operating Cost (net of addtl. farebox)
8,825
20,772
21,411
22,115
22,800
23,554
24,287
25,142
26,029
27,053
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
1,766
2,658
3,516
3,837
3,910
3,987
SRTP Surplus/(Deficit)
Note: Alameda CTC developed a five-year projection for Measure BB revenue. Because this is a ten-year document, AC Transit staff estimated revenues for the final five years.
FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE TEN-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN REVENUES
• Baseline or existing revenues (as of 2014) are estimated to grow at a faster pace in the initial part of the projection period. This is due to the improved economic performance in the San Francisco Bay Area economy and in the East Bay between late FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 • There will be biennial fare increases scheduled similar to the originally Board-adopted long-term fare policy but adjusted to better reflect projected CPI inflation trends for the San Francisco Bay Area for the upcoming years. • Other operating revenues like those received for Contracted services and other miscellaneous revenues would experience relatively minor growth • Sales tax-based subsidies other than State Transit Assistance Fund (STA), such as the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Measure BB and AB1107 (a half-cent sales tax collected in the BART district), would experience higher growth in the initial years of the SRTP than projected by MTC. They provide confirmation to the AC Transit FY 2014-15 Adopted Budget revenues expected for this category • Property tax-based subsidies, in particular the main property tax account (excluding Measure VV), will also experience slightly higher growth in the first few years of the SRTP long term forecast timeline • STA subsidies will experience a gradual decline due to the reduced demand for diesel fuel. STA funds come from a tax on diesel fuel sold in California. In late FY 2013-14, MTC reported a rescission in funds accruing to the District. This was due to a faster than expected drop in diesel fuel volume consumption statewide combined with lower than expected diesel prices • ADA paratransit related revenues grow at an average 3 percent, trending towards faster growth rates towards the end of the projection
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 63
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
• There will be no federal operating assistance revenue during the period other than that associated with the ADA program • The MTC Lifeline program will continue, with funding provided every three years OPERATING EXPENSES
• Operating expenses are based on existing level of operations and enhanced services funded by Measure BB • Salaries and wages are projected to increase at a rate commensurate with San Francisco Bay Area inflation and a wage structure based on existing labor agreements • Fringe benefits would grow at a net rate two percent higher than projected in the original TSP Strategic Plan (a change reflected in the recently updated TSP) due to the lower projected contributions towards healthcare by the unions. Healthcare costs are now projected to grow at a rate that is two percentage points higher than originally projected • Wellness programs will benefit both employees, by improving their health and well being, and the District, by reducing lost time due to illness. • Savings on fuel and related costs are driven by projected reductions in the long term price of diesel fuel, as indicated by market futures • The cost of consumption of bus parts, building repair materials and other office supplies is projected to decline as the average age of the fleet declines • The SRTP reflects greater savings than previously in insurance premiums, liability and casualty costs. These are due to general safety improvements at the facilities THE SRTP AND OTHER BUDGET DOCUMENTS
The SRTP differs from previous projections in that it includes updates reflecting trends and results confirmed during the second half of FY 2013-14. These updates also affect the SRTP’s financial forecast for the period beyond FY 2017-18, a five-year period not included in the MTC TSP forecast. Also, since the TSP does not include a projection for revenues, the present draft SRTP long term forecast presents for the first time a detailed update of all revenue sources for the ten-year forecast period included in this financial plan. TEN-YEAR OPERATING FINANCIAL OUTLOOK The long term financial outlook is significantly better now than what was envisioned in past years. The District’s existing operating revenue sources are projected to grow at an initially strong rate of 2.3 percent up to FY 201617, then moderately, and then again in a more conservative manner in the outer years. Revenues would stay higher than operating costs during all of the next 10 years. Figure 5.7 shows the ten-year financial projections.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 64
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
FIGURE 5.7: TEN-YEAR FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS WITH NEW MEASURE BB
45,000
40,000
New Measure BB
35,000
In $ Thoousands
30,000
Operating Surplus Before New Measure BB
25,000 New Service Additions on Measure BB
20,000
15,000
SRTP Operating Surplus After New Measure BB, New Service Additions, No Additional Reserve, No Additional Capital Contributions
10,000
5,000
‐ FY14‐15 FY15‐16 FY16‐17 FY17‐18 FY18‐19 FY19‐20 FY20‐21 FY21‐22 FY22‐23 FY23‐24 FY24‐25
In addition to Measure BB, this projection assumes the continuation at current revenue levels of Measure VV, a parcel tax measure in Special District 1 (the entire district excluding Fremont and Newark). However, the Board of Directors is considering whether and how to renew Measure VV. Renewing this measure requires a two-thirds affirmative vote from the public. The long term financial forecast includes the effect of estimated biennial fare adjustments under the adopted fare policy, which would maintain the inflation-adjusted revenues in place for existing fare media. The projection also assumes projected ridership growth. Because service will be increased, ridership growth is projected to be greater than this level, and will reduce the District’s cost per passenger trip. However, estimated ridership growth is limited in the initial project years due to capacity constraints until the Richmond Bus Division opens and the District expands its fleet. The forecasted operating surplus is projected to peak in FY 2015-16, then gradually decline. The factors below reflect the projected growth trend for the District’s operating revenues during the SRTP time period compared to other benchmark variables. • Staff’s projection for revenues is somewhat higher than MTC’s most updated forecast. The reason is that MTC’s forecast uses a much lower baseline starting point due to its reliance on lower economic expectations for the current FY 2014-15. By comparison, staff’s baseline reflects the most current information. For the same reason, staff’s revenue projection starts accelerating earlier than the forecast provided by MTC.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 65
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
• Staff projects that revenues will grow at a rate that is slightly lower than the average for past years for the District. This is a conservative assumption considering the higher growth rates after the Great Recession. • However, staff’s projections show revenues growing at a slightly higher rate than both regional economic growth in Plan Bay Area, the U.S. and inflation. This reflects the improved performance of the regional economy since Plan Bay Area was finalized and the better economic performance of the San Francisco Bay Area compared to the rest of the nation. Inflation is projected to grow at a very subdued pace. The budget projection assumes a continuation of current trends and existing legislation and ongoing labor contracts. It also assumes the continuation of the positive effect of cost improvement initiatives in areas such as insurance/liability and safety expenses, and lower costs in bus parts consumption due to a reduction in the age and maintenance cost of the fleet. Among notable new items, total operating costs will increase for the delivery of BRT service and for the higher net cost of operating a reopened Richmond Division (Division 3). The costs of reopening Division 3 are mitigated somewhat by about $1 million annual savings in deadhead costs. Revenue growth has been strong in the last two years. Based on preliminary pre-audited figures, the District has received greater funding than previously budgeted from sales tax sources in FY 2013-14. These include the TDA and AB 1107 funds. Given the strong property market in the Bay Area, AC Transit’s property tax revenues are also expected to increase more than originally expected in the short term. Finally, farebox revenues are expected to increase with higher ridership. These sources of funding contribute quite importantly to the earlier years’ improved forecast for the District’s operations. The long term financial plan indicates the District’s operating budget should remain sustainable and balanced, given the planned level of service. Budget operating expenses include additional costs, major initiatives, and the implementation of BRT service. The planned reopening of Division 3 to provide service both within and beyond Contra Costa County will also create additional operating costs. TRADEOFFS IN ALLOCATING FORECAST OPERATING SURPLUSES
There are three potential and, to some extent, mutually exclusive strategies for the operating surpluses forecast described above: • Capital Projects: Fund the District’s contributions to the cost of capital projects, estimated to require an average of $10 million per year. • Reserves: Continue funding increases in the District’s operating reserves. The District has currently $40 million in operating reserves or approximately 11.5 percent of the operating budget. Current policy recommends, but does not mandate, a maximum 20 percent of the operating expense budget. Reaching this maximum would set an annual maximum target level of $12 million under current policy and given current economic and operating factors. That level of reserve contributions would reach the maximum in three to four years. • Service: Increase annual revenue service hours. The long-term financial plan operating surplus presented in this chapter is not adequate to fully fund all of these expenses at the same time. The surplus could be used to partially fund one or more areas. The Board of Directors will need to set a policy on the allocation of operating surpluses outside of the development of the SRTP. The Board will need to consider how to allocate this projected stream of operating surpluses in the context of both the SEP and the SRTP. Allocations could vary on an annual, semiannual, or quarterly basis depending on the District’s needs, the status of the local, regional, state and national economy, potential natural disasters, and available new revenues. Measure BB allows the use of funds for reserves and Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 66
Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget
capital costs. Recommendations: As a draft proposal for consideration, staff recommends the following allocation of surplus funds: 1. Service: AC Transit would add 250,000 platform hours annually. 2. Reserves: The District would add to reserves until reserves are at 15 percent of the annual operating budget. 3. Capital Projects: The District would use remaining funds for capital projects. • Service: Adding service would benefit passengers and would increase ridership. Another rationale for the proposed scenario is the fact that the District needs to achieve the cost reduction targets mandated by the MTC TSP. By increasing ridership and controlling costs, we expect to achieve a reduction in the cost per passenger that will meet TSP goals • Reserves: The scenario presented here would prioritize increasing the operating reserve to 15 percent of the operating expense budget and not the maximum 20 percent as recommended, but not mandated, in the policy. A 15 percent share of the operating expense budget would be approximately $52 million, $12 million more than the current level. This could be accomplished by dedicating $2 million, $5 million, and $5 million from the forecasted operating surpluses projected for FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17, respectively. An operating reserve at this level would also be in compliance with the best practice set forth by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), as it would represent approximately two months of operating expenses. • Capital Projects to 2016-17: In this allocation scenario, the next element would be dedicating the remaining balance of the forecasted operating surplus up through FY 2016-17 to fulfill the requirement to fund the District contribution to capital projects. This would continue to renew the District’s infrastructure. It would help achieve a state of good repair and help assure adequate performance of critical facilities and equipment. It could also generate operating budget savings by reducing maintenance and continuous repair costs. • Capital Projects in the Out Years: Continue prioritizing reinvestment and renewal of the capital assets infrastructure in the out years by allocating the projected operating surpluses to fund the District’s capital projects program as needed
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 67
CHAPTER 6: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 6.0 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents AC Transit’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP is a 10-year snapshot of AC Transit’s capital needs and potential capital funding sources. The purpose of the CIP is to provide an overview of the capital projects that are needed to meet AC Transit’s goals of maintaining a state of good repair and providing an efficient and financially sustainable service. The CIP is not financially constrained so it should not be considered a capital budget. Instead, it should be seen as overview of projected needs against reasonable funding forecasts. AC Transit maintains the flexibility to prioritize certain aspects of the CIP based on timing, funding, impact on overall agency goals, and capacity for project delivery. While the District has identified capital funding that it could reasonably access over the next 10 years, there is still a significant shortfall between projected need and available funding. Additional funding at the federal, state, and local levels will be needed to fully fund AC Transit’s capital program. One of the key components of the CIP is identifying its interaction with the Operating Budget. The most direct relationship is the capital contribution from the Operating Budget. Each year AC Transit contributes funding from the operating budget for capital projects to fulfill local match requirements of grant funds and for projects that do not qualify for grant funds. The capital contribution has averaged $9 million over the last four years (FY 2012–15). Further service enhancements or cost efficiencies identified in the operating budget may need to be supported by associated capital investments. A clear example of this is an Operating Budget that calls for the expansion of service would require a capital investment in additional transit vehicles. The Operating Budget in this SRTP calls for additional services funded by Measure BB. This additional service will require additional vehicles and facilities expansion, along with other capital needs that will require an average annual capital contribution of $17 million from a variety of sources.
6.0.1 OVERVIEW OF CAPITAL NEEDS AND FINANCIAL OUTLOOK AC Transit used the financial assumptions in Plan Bay Area: Final Financial Assumptions document to guide the capital funding projections in the SRTP. As in Plan Bay Area, the SRTP divides funding into committed funding and discretionary funding. Committed funding is funding already allocated or programmed to AC Transit, funding identified in an agreement or resolution, or funding that can be reasonably assumed to be available to AC Transit. Discretionary funding is more speculative as it may require voter approval, legislative action or is part of a highly competitive discretionary program. Plan Bay Area identifies possible sources of discretionary revenues, and assumes a new regional bridge toll; a regional gas tax; and other anticipated, but unidentified revenues. Section 6.6 will further describe the sources and methodology for the funding assumptions. AC Transit has identified $1.5 billion in capital project needs over the 10-year SRTP time period (FY 2015–24). Assuming the District receives all committed and discretionary funding listed there is still a $249 million (16 percent) shortfall. The $1.5 billion is comprised of $669 million in committed funding and $592 million in discretionary funding. Assuming that the District only receives committed funding, there is an $841 million (56 percent) shortfall against the full CIP. This further highlights the need for new funding sources at the federal, state, and local levels. A summary of the CIP needs and the capital financial outlook is shown in Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 68
Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program
FIGURE 6.1: CIP PROJECT NEED AND FUNDING COMPARISON $300
CIP FUNDING (in Millions)
$250
$200
CIP Need
$150
CIP Funding (Committed) CIP Funding (Discretionary) CIP Funding (Committed+Discretionary)
$100
$50
$0 2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
YEAR
TABLE 6.1: CIP PROJECT NEED AND CAPITAL FINANCIAL OUTLOOK Years
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Total
CIP Need
$131,670,000 $98,637,998 $91,209,781 $139,263,704 $191,711,645 $251,191,246 $228,123,150 $136,483,878 $116,264,192 $126,388,803 $1,510,944,397
CIP Funding (Committed)
$114,039,000 $85,470,000 $59,230,000
$7,000,000 CIP Funding (Discretionary)
$63,928,000 $51,845,000
$70,677,000 $59,148,000
$50,366,000
$55,617,000
%
$59,238,000
$669,558,000 44%
$19,000,000 $20,000,000 $60,000,000 $62,390,000 $98,390,000 $87,390,000 $102,390,000 $68,390,000 $67,390,000
$592,340,000 39%
Committed Shortfall ($841,386,397) 56% Combined Shortfall ($249,046,397) 16%
6.0.2 CIP CHAPTER OVERVIEW The remainder of the cost section of the CIP chapter is organized around AC Transit’s major capital program categories: Fleet, Facilities, Corridors, Customer Service, and Information Services and Communications. Each of those sections will discuss existing conditions of that program, pertinent agency policies and/or plans governing the implementation of the program, and the recommended CIP projects and associated cost projection for the program. Figure 6.2 shows the funding of the CIP broken down by program category. The final section of the chapter will discuss the financial assumptions and provide an overview of all the capital funding sources.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 69
Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program
FIGURE 6.2: CIP PROGRAM CATEGORIES AND FUNDING $300
CIP FUNDING BY CATEGORY (in Millions)
$250
$200 GHG Reduction Initiatives Transit Centers/Park and Rides Corridor Improvements
$150
Technology Facilities Expansion Facilities Rehab Vehicle Expansion
$100
Vehicle Rehab
$50
$‐ 2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
YEAR
6.1 FLEET (INCLUDES REVENUE, NON-REVENUE, AND PARATRANSIT VEHICLES) AC Transit has a fleet of 586 revenue vehicles (buses) that is comprised of 354 40-foot vehicles, 90 30-foot vehicles, 86 60-foot vehicles, 46 45-foot vehicles, and 10 van-size “cutaways” (see Table 6.2 for more details). AC Transit maintains a spare ratio of 19.75 percent of its maximum service peak vehicle need of 471 revenue vehicles.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 70
Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program TABLE 6.2: REVENUE FLEET OVERVIEW # of Length Seating Vehicles (Feet) Capacity
Wheelchair Capacity
Manufacturer
Series
Bus # Range
MCI
6000
6003
6040 2000
7
45
57
47
Nabi
4050
4051
4090 2002
40
40
35
29
Year
Service Power Type Mode Over-theFixed Diesel Road Coach Route Fixed Urban Bus Diesel Route Vehicle Type
VanHool
2000
2001
2057 2003
30
60
47
43
Articulated Bus
VanHool
1000
1001
1110
88
40
32
28
Urban Bus
2003
Over-theRoad Coach Articulated Bus
MCI
6050
6041
6079
2003
39
45
57
47
VanHool
2100
2101
2110
2006
10
60
47
43
VanHool
5000
5001
5051 2006
51
30
25
21
Urban Bus
VanHool
2150
2151
2165
2006
14
60
47
43
Articulated Bus
VanHool
1200
1201
1227
2008
27
40
35
31
Urban Bus
VanHool
5100
5101
5139
2009
39
30
25
21
Urban Bus
43
Articulated Bus
VanHool VanHool Fuel Cell
2190
2191
2199
2009
9
60
47
FC
4
16
2010
12
40
30
26
Urban Bus
Gillig
1300
1301
1365
2013
65
40
37
29
Urban Bus
Gillig
6100
6101
6116
2013
16
40
36
29
New Flyer
2200
2201
2223
2013
23
60
52
46
Gillig
1400
1401
1468
2014
68
40
37
29
Gillig
6100
6117
6154
2014
38
40
36
29
El Dorado
3500
3501
3510
2014
10
24
14
12
Urban Bus (Commuter) Articulated Bus Urban Bus Urban Bus (Commuter) Cutaway
Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route
Retirement Age Year
Unit Cost
2016
15
$445,600.44
2015
13
$269,640.77
Diesel
2015
12
$459,454.22
Diesel
2015
12
$283,893.75
Diesel
2017
12
$441,390.68
Diesel
2018
9
$526,762.93
Diesel
2018
9
$339,816.93
Diesel
2018
9
$529,782.91
Diesel
2020
7
$396,283.30
Diesel
2021
6
$370,437.05
Diesel
2021
6
$530,374.00
Fuel Cell
2022
5
$1,232,095.00
Diesel
2025
2
$413,826.00
Diesel
2025
2
$435,371.00
Diesel
2025
2
$709,051.00
Diesel
2026
1
$453,977.94
Diesel
2026
1
$435,371.00
2021
1
AC Transit has a fleet of 154 non-revenue vehicles (everything other than buses) that is broken up into 48 fullsize cars, 30 pieces of support equipment (i.e., forklifts and yard tugs), 19 SUVs, 36 trucks, and 21 vans (see Tables 6.3 for more details). Two of the full-size cars are hybrids. TABLE 6.3: NON-REVENUE FLEET OVERVIEW
Program Car
Truck SUV Van
Support Equipment
Type
Quantity
Full Size Car
46
Full Size Car (Hybrid)
2
Heavy Duty Truck
9
Light Duty Truck
9
Mid Duty Truck
18
Sport Utility Vehicle
19
Light Duty Van
16
Mid Duty Van
5
Forklift
18
Scrubber
2
Sludge Removal
2
Trailer
3
Yard Tug
5 Total
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
154 Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 71
Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program
The current average revenue fleet age is 7.2 years, somewhat above the target average age of less than 6.0 years. The target average age is based on an optimal average age that is half the useful life of the buses in the fleet. The federally-established standard useful life for urban transit buses is 12-years and is 14-years for over-the-road commuter buses. Achieving the target average age would be accomplished by maintaining the replacement schedule based on the useful life. Deviations from that target occur due to late or missed procurements, or extended periods of time from order to manufacture based on supplier backlog. Table 6.4 shows the revenue vehicle replacement plan over the 10-year life of the SRTP (FY 2014-15 to FY 2023-24). The current average age of the non-revenue fleet is 11.5 years. AC Transit’s goal for non-revenue vehicles is calculated in a similar manner to buses; it is based on the useful life of the vehicles. The target average age for the fleet can vary a bit more than for non-revenue vehicles because the types and mix of non-revenue vehicles can vary based on District needs. Table 6.4 also shows the non-revenue vehicle replacement plan over the 10year life of the SRTP (FY 2014-15 to FY 2023-24). The SEP and the resultant SRTP Service Plan show a need for an expansion of the fleet by at least 47 vehicles over the period 2015-24. Table 6.5 shows the planned vehicle expansions over the 10-year life of the SRTP (FY 2014-15 to FY 2023-24). AC Transit may not necessarily implement the magnitude of vehicle expansion shown in the table. The vehicle replacement plan shown in Table 6.4 assumes replacing vehicles at the end of their 12-year useful life. AC Transit regularly evaluates the fleet mix and needs of current and planned service, and makes required changes in fleet replacement projects.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 72
Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program TABLE 6.4: VEHICLE REPLACEMENT COST
Type
Qty
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Bus - 40' Urban Hybrids
25
$17,900,000
$17,900,000
Bus - 40' Urban Diesel
40
$21,200,000
$21,200,000
Bus - 40' Urban Diesel
37
$19,923,760
$19,923,760
Bus - 60' Articulated Diesel
29
$24,985,472
$24,985,472
Bus - 40' Commuter Diesel
29
$15,865,775
$15,865,775
Bus - 40' Commuter Hybrid
10
$7,390,953
$7,390,953
Bus - 30' Urban Diesel
37
$18,005,319
$18,005,319
Bus - 30' Urban Hybrid
14
$10,483,526
$10,483,526
Bus - 60' Articulated Diesel
7
$6,225,511
$6,225,511
Bus - 60' Articulated Hybrid
3
$3,328,803
$3,328,803
Bus - 60' Articulated Diesel
10
$8,893,587
$8,893,587
Bus - 60' Articulated Hybrid
4
$4,438,404
$4,438,404
Bus - 40' Urban Hybrid
27
Bus - 30' Urban Hybrid
39
$30,628,453
$30,628,453
Bus - 60' Articulated Hybrid
9
$10,473,466
$10,473,466
Cut-Away - Under 26' 5-Year Gasoline
10
Non-revenue vehicles
154
$400,000
$408,000
$416,160
$424,483
$432,973
$441,632
$450,465
$459,474
Total
484
$39,500,000
$45,317,232
$23,672,888
$51,799,633
$1,349,348
$21,370,480
$41,552,384
2018
2019
2020
2021
$20,928,848
Total
$20,928,848
$916,375
$992,069
$1,908,444
$468,664
$478,037
$4,379,888
$459,474
$468,664
$1,470,106
$226,960,209
2022
2023
TABLE 6.5: VEHICLE EXPANSION COST
Type
Qty
2015
Bus - 40' Urban Diesel
15
$8,250,000
Bus - 40' Urban Diesel
25
Bus - 40' Urban Diesel
4
$2,271,902
$2,271,902
Bus - 60' Articulated Diesel
29
$26,371,403
$26,371,403
Bus - 60' Articulated Diesel
6
Bus - 40' Urban Hybrid
25
Vans - Paratransit
209
Total:
313
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
2016
2017
2024
$8,250,000 $13,966,128
$13,966,128
$5,541,531
$5,541,531 $25,203,638
$8,250,000
Total
$13,966,128
$28,643,305
$5,541,531
$25,203,638
$25,203,638 $11,974,763
$12,097,932
$24,072,695
$11,974,763
$12,097,932
$105,677,297
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 73
Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program
6.2 FACILITIES (INCLUDES MAINTENANCE AND FUELING FACILITIES, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, AND OTHER OPERATIONAL FACILITIES) 6.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS AC Transit has six operating and administrative facilities in regular use and seven transit centers that are utilized in regular service: • Three open operating facilities (D2, D4, D6) • One central maintenance facility (CMF) • One Administrative facility (GO) • One training facility (TEC) • Seven transit centers (Transbay Terminal, Ardenwood, Richmond Parkway, Eastmont, Contra Costa College, San Leandro BART Terminal, Uptown Transit Center) AC Transit is also currently in the process of rehabilitating another operating facility (D3) for regular use. Table 6.6 details the size, location, age, and other characteristics of the facilities. TABLE 6.6: FACILITIES OVERVIEW
Name
Address
Property Owner
Year Built
Age
Size (sq ft)
General Office (GO)
1600 Franklin St, Oakland, CA 94612
AC Transit
1989
25
100,000
Central Maintenance Facility (CMF)
10626 E. 14th St, Oakland, CA 94603
AC Transit
1984
30
517,000
AC Transit
1987
27
392,000
AC Transit
1989
25
266,000
AC Transit
1987
27
579,500
905 66th Ave, Oakland, CA 94621
AC Transit
1982
32
453,000
1758 Sabre St, Hayward, CA 94545
AC Transit
1987
27
833,500
20234 Mack St, Hayward, CA 94545
AC Transit
1987
27
29,000
TJPA
2011
3
156,000
Caltrans
2009
5
144,000
Caltrans
1998
16
136,000
Eastmont Mall
1997
17
30,800
BART
1972
42
48,500
Oakland
2007
7
7,000
CC College
1996
18
33,000
D2 - Emeryville Division 1177 47th St, Emeryville, CA 94608 D3 - Richmond Division (closed) D4 - East Oakland (Seminary) Division 66th Avenue (D4 Annex) D6 - Hayward Division TEC - Training and Educational Center TT - Transbay Terminal (Temporary) Ardenwood Transit Center Richmond Parkway Transit Center
2016 MacDonald Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 1100 Seminary Ave, Oakland, CA 94621
First and Missions Sts, San Francisco, CA 94105 34867 Ardenwood Blvd, Fremont, CA 94555 Richmond Pkwy and Blume Dr, Richmond, CA 94806 Foothill Blvd and 73rd Ave, Oakland, Eastmont Transit Center CA 94605 San Leandro BART 1299 San Leandro Blvd, San Leandro, Transit Center CA 94577 20th St and Broadway, Oakland, CA Uptown Transit Center 94612 Contra Costa College Campus Dr, San Pablo, CA 94806 Transit Center Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 74
Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program
6.2.2 NEEDS AT OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FACILITIES • Facilities State of Good Repair: Most of AC Transit’s operating and maintenance facilities are 25-30 years old and are in need of significant rehabilitation and replacement of systems. Isolated projects to replace the most-aged components such as roofs and yard paving/concrete have been completed in recent years, and a systematic rehabilitation schedule to address obsolete and aged components is being developed through the State of Good Repair Asset Management Project • Division 3: AC Transit is beginning the process of reopening the Richmond Division 3 facility. With the District nearing capacity at its current facilities, re-opening Division 3 is necessary to allow for proposed service expansion. The current schedule projects the facility fully opening for service in 2016. At the same time, the City of Richmond has expressed interest in having AC Transit move the facility so the City can develop the site for other residential and commercial uses, given its proximity to the Richmond BART Intermodal Station. They are in the process of identifying other suitable sites for AC Transit to occupy. With a suitable alternate location and reasonable financial and operational terms, AC Transit would consider relocating the facility. • New Paratransit Facility: AC Transit, through the East Bay Paratransit Consortium, operates demandresponsive paratransit service for eligible passengers in its operating area. The service uses three contractors who operate their own facilities, and pass the cost of maintaining those facilities along to AC Transit through the contract costs. AC Transit could acquire or construct its own facility the operators could use, thereby reducing contract costs or could restart AC Transit-provided paratransit service out of its own facility. • Additional Bus Facility: The re-opening of Division 3 will provide capacity for several years of service expansion, but AC Transit must continue looking toward future conditions and the possible need for another facility. Table 6.7 (page 77) details the facilities rehabilitation and expansion costs.
6.2.3 NEEDS AT TRANSIT CENTERS/PARK AND RIDES Transit centers are focal points of District service, often at route terminals and/or intermodal connections such as BART stations. They are served by multiple bus routes. While the District does not have an overall formal policy for the development of transit centers, they often arise from a natural combination of service design, intermodal connectivity, and land use characteristics. AC Transit’s development of park-and-ride transit centers is guided by Board Policy 317 “District Operated Park And Ride Lot Pricing and Cost Recovery Policy”. To summarize, the policy states that because park-and-ride facilities are not a part of the District’s primary on-street pickup service design, they should only be used where on-street pickup is ineffective. Park-and-ride facilities must have a thorough planning process and be selfsupporting through user (parking) fees. AC Transit is also a member of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA), an agency created to develop and operate the new Transbay Transit Center in downtown San Francisco. AC Transit currently operates 29 Transbay lines to San Francisco, providing commute and some all-day service in an era when BART is at or above capacity. The TJPA created a temporary terminal near the site of the new Transbay Terminal for use by AC Transit and other operators during the construction period. The District is the major bus operations tenant of the temporary terminal and will be the main tenant when the new Terminal opens in late 2017. In 2008, the District signed a Lease and Use Agreement with the TJPA which includes a capital commitment of $57 million in 2011 dollars by 2050 and an operating commitment for the terminal. The District has contributed nearly $13 million of capital funding, and will program another $22 million in FY 2016 and FY 2017. The remainder of the capital commitment will likely be funded by a passenger facility charge to be added to the standard rider fare, but the exact mechanism is still being developed. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 75
Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program
AC Transit and the TJPA currently receive Regional Measure 2 (RM2) funding to cover the operating costs of the Temporary Terminal. Costs will increase when the new Terminal opens; this may require significant additional operating funding starting in FY 2018 above the current grant-funded costs incurred at the temporary terminal. TJPA is currently working on updated operations cost estimates along with plans for increased grant funds. The plan provides for the rehabilitation and maintenance of current transit and park-and-ride locations. Expansion projects in this category consist of a second District 2 park-and-ride facility based on the success of the Ardenwood facility in Fremont and a Downtown Oakland “hub” transit center as the downtown revitalizes and grows in regional prominence. A summary of transit center and park-and-ride costs is shown in Table 6.8 (next page).
6.3 TECHNOLOGY (INCLUDES ALL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS) AC Transit is in the middle of major technology upgrades and must continue to plan for replacement and upgrade of these systems. They have a relatively short useful life and there are efficiencies and opportunities that new technologies can bring. Major systems upgrades in progress include: • Computer Aided Dispatch/Automatic Vehicle Location/Radio System (CAD/AVL/Radio) • PeopleSoft financial tracking • Hastus Integrated Operations bus scheduling The CAD/AVL/Radio project is AC Transit’s largest and most costly ongoing system enhancement and will provide schedule adherence information for the operator, real-time vehicle location and schedule adherence information for the controllers, and automatic data collection of the date, time, and location of many on-board events such as door openings, wheelchair ramp/lift use, and dwell times at service stops. The system provides an effective means for operators and controllers to share information on the current status of service, and is expected to improve on-time performance. The current project is budgeted at over $39 million and is expected to be completed in 2018. A related project will relocate the Operations Controls Center from Division 2 to the Central Maintenance Facility to better serve the upcoming BRT line and reduce the potential effect from evacuation scenarios. A summary of project technology costs is shown in Table 6.9 (next page).
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 76
Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program TABLE 6.7: FACILITIES REHABILITATION/EXPANSION COST
Type
2015
D3 Reopening/Rehabilitation
$18,000,000
Other Facility SGR - GO/D2/D4/D6
$4,310,000
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
$7,820,766
$7,820,766
$7,820,766
$7,820,766
$7,820,766
$7,820,766
$10,000,000
$45,000,000
$45,000,000
Relocate Division 3
$7,820,766
2024
Total
New Paratransit Facility
$5,000,000
New Bus Facility (Expansion)
$7,820,766
$7,820,766
$74,696,891 $100,000,000
$10,000,000
$22,310,000
2023
$18,000,000
Relocate Division 2
Total:
2022
$45,000,000
$45,000,000
$100,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$50,000,000
$20,000,000
$20,000,000
$20,000,000
$20,000,000
$80,000,000
$7,820,766
$7,820,766
$7,820,766
$17,820,766
$57,820,766
$97,820,766
$57,820,766
$72,820,766
$72,820,766
$422,696,891
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Total
$6,000,000
$6,000,000
$6,000,000
$6,000,000
$6,000,000
$6,000,000
$6,000,000
$6,000,000
$6,000,000
$60,000,000
Downtown Oakland Transit Hub
$2,000,000
$13,000,000
$13,000,000
New Park and Ride in District 2
$1,000,000
TABLE 6.8: TRANSIT CENTERS/PARK AND RIDES COST
2015 Intermodal Transit Center Rehabs
$6,000,000
$28,000,000 $1,000,000
Transbay Capital Commitment
$7,000,000
$7,000,000
$7,000,000
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$42,000,000
Total:
$13,000,000
$13,000,000
$13,000,000
$9,000,000
$12,000,000
$22,000,000
$22,000,000
$9,000,000
$9,000,000
$9,000,000
$131,000,000
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Total
TABLE 6.9: TECHNOLOGY COST
2015 OCC Relocation (for CAD/AVL)
$3,000,000
Systems (CAD/AVL + other)
$23,110,000
D3 Technology refit Transbay Terminal & BSF IT Equipment
$500,000
$3,000,000 $500,000
$23,610,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
Hastus, DailyOps Upgrade
$2,000,000
Electronic Fare Media Usage Promotion
$2,000,000
$5,000,000
$5,000,000
Off Board Fare Payment
$5,000,000
$5,000,000
PeopleSoft Upgrade (post 9.2)
$4,000,000
$4,000,000
Storage Area Network Replacement
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
Misc upgrades (LAN, WAN, Firewall etc) Total: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
$750,000 $26,610,000
$2,500,000
$5,750,000
$2,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$750,000
$1,000,000
$2,500,000
$750,000
$1,000,000
$49,610,000
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 77
Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program
6.4 CORRIDORS (INCLUDES BRT, LINE 51, TERMINAL UPGRADES AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SERVICE ON ROUTES) AC Transit pursues corridor enhancement projects to improve efficiency and reliability of its service. The major corridors are particularly important, given that they carry almost half of AC Transit’s ridership. Corridor enhancements include a range of treatments, including physical improvements like bus bulbs, queue-jump lanes, and traffic signal modifications for bus priority. “Rapid Bus” improvements package physical and signal enhancements with service redesign of a specific line (e.g., reducing the number of stops) to reduce travel time and often include special branding. At the high end of corridor enhancements is BRT, which the District is implementing on East International Boulevard/ East 14th Street between Downtown Oakland and San Leandro BART. The East Bay BRT project includes all of the elements of the Rapid Bus projects, as well as level boarding in conjunction with specially-designed bus fleet, raised platform center-median and side stations with enhanced lighting and security, off-board fare collection and vending, bus-only lanes, and further enhanced branding. The East Bay BRT project, scheduled to open for service in late 2017, will be the Bay Area’s first full BRT. The Line 51 Corridor project, currently in construction and planned for completion in early 2016, aims to improve performance along the 51A/B routes from Alameda through Oakland and into Berkeley. AC Transit has also received funding from MTC’s Transit Performance Initiative for signal and other improvements on line 97 from Hayward to Union City. Beyond these projects, AC Transit is currently working on a Major Corridors Study to identify the appropriate level of treatment for the District’s top 10 corridors and build local support for their implementation. See Table 6.10 (next page) for a summary of corridor enhancement costs.
6.5 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION INITIATIVES As noted in Board Policy 550, AC Transit’s greatest contribution to greenhouse gas reduction comes from shifting travelers from cars to buses. The District is also deeply involved in efforts to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions. AC Transit is the leading partner in the regional Zero-Emissions Bay Area (ZEBA) effort and a national leader in bringing fuel cell powered bus transit to commercial reality. The District has been operating buses powered by hydrogen fuel cells for nearly 14 years, with the current fleet of 12 fuel cell buses in their third year of operation. The buses run on many District routes and together have driven nearly 900,000 miles and carried over 3.2 million passengers. As part of this effort, the District has built two hydrogen fueling stations and converted one maintenance bay to handle the fuel cell buses, with a second maintenance bay conversion in progress. Both of the fueling stations feature on-site hydrogen generation to meet the California State SB 1505 renewable hydrogen generation requirements. At Division 2, the electrolyzer for generating hydrogen is partially powered by solar, and, at Division 4, the whole facility including the electrolyzer is powered by a directed-biogas fed solid-oxide stationary fuel cell. The District has also installed solar power generation at two additional facilities in an effort to reduce both power costs and greenhouse gas emissions. The ZEBA effort was initially prompted by still-pending California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations that will likely require some level of zero-emission vehicles in public transit bus fleets. CARB plans to announce the updated regulations at the end of 2015. The District is currently developing a strategy to meet expected zeroemission regulations, and projects in this category will pursue that end. Most of the funding for these projects is expected to come from grant sources and agencies such as CARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), or the Cap and Trade grant programs being developed. In the near term, the District is investigating the expansion of its zero-emission bus fleet and the replacement of key propulsion systems in the existing fuel cell bus fleet. Emissions reductions through strategic facilities investments are also regularly considered, along with low- and zero-emissions vehicles for the District’s non-revenue fleet. See Table 6.11 for GHG reduction initiative costs.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 78
Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program TABLE 6.10: CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENT COST
2015 Corridor Improvements
$20,000,000
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Total
$20,000,000
$20,000,000
$20,000,000
$20,000,000
$20,000,000
$20,000,000
$20,000,000
$20,000,000
$20,000,000
$200,000,000
$5,000,000
$70,000,000
$100,000,000
$30,000,000
Fixed Guideway Conversion (future BRT) EB BRT Extension (SL to BF)
$50,000,000
Contra flow lane on Bay Bridge
$8,000,000
Alternative Transit Access (Alameda/Oakland) Total:
$20,000,000
$20,000,000
$205,000,000 $50,000,000
$14,000,000
$14,000,000
$14,000,000
$50,000,000
$5,000,000
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$148,000,000
$134,000,000
$64,000,000
$34,000,000
$20,000,000
$20,000,000
$515,000,000
TABLE 6.11: GHG REDUCTION INITIATIVES COST
2015 GHG reduction initiatives
$2,000,000
Alternate Fuel Enhancement Program Total
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Total
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$20,000,000
$8,000,000
$40,000,000
$10,000,000
$60,000,000
$8,000,000 $2,000,000
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
$10,000,000
$8,000,000 $2,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000 $2,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000 $2,000,000
$10,000,000
$2,000,000
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 79
Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program
6.6 OVERVIEW OF FUNDING SOURCES The chapter now shifts from discussion of the District’s spending needs to discussion of the funding sources which are available to pay for those needs. One of the key methodologies used to develop this funding projection was MTC’s recently approved Core Capacity Challenge Grant program (MTC Resolution No. 4130). This 15-year funding program for the three largest operators in the Bay Area, AC Transit, BART, and MUNI, includes funding for fleet replacements, fleet expansions, and facilities upgrades. AC Transit’s share of the Core Capacity program includes a total of $1.138 billion to be used for fleet replacements ($780 million), fleet expansions ($90 million), and facility rehabilitation and replacement ($268 million). The funding is split among several fund sources, including FTA formula funds, Cap and Trade funds, AB 664 Bridge Toll funds, Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) project savings, and various local fund sources. AC Transit used the assumptions in this program as a baseline for all of those sources.
6.6.1 COMMITTED FUNDING Committed funding (see Figure 6.3 for projections) is funding already allocated or programmed to AC Transit, funding identified in an agreement or resolution, or funding that can be reasonably assumed to be available to AC Transit. FIGURE 6.3: COMMITTED FUNDING PROJECTIONS $120
COMMITTED FUNDING (in Millions)
$100
$80
Local Total
$60
State Total Federal Total $40
$20
$‐ 2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
YEAR
FEDERAL SOURCES Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Formula Funds: The main source of AC Transit’s FTA funding is from the Section 5307 program. AC Transit is eligible to receive this funding within the San Francisco-Oakland urbanized Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 80
Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program
area along with 10 other operators, including BART and MUNI. The large needs of this group of operators generally outstrip available funding. To handle the funding distribution, MTC manages the Transit Capital Priorities process to determine funding priorities on a recurring basis. For this SRTP, AC Transit used the FTA funds programmed in MTC’s Core Capacity program to project available funds over the term of the SRTP. The Core Capacity program includes $481 million in FTA funds over a 16-year period (FY 2015-30) or $30 million/ year. AC Transit assumed $38 million per year in FY 2015 based on MTC programming recommendations. This leaves $443 million for the remaining 15 years of the Core Capacity program, or $29.53 million per year. This assumption is on par with amounts received by AC Transit over the past several years. See Table 6.12 for complete committed funding projections. Surface Transportation Program/Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Funds: Both of these fund sources originate from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Surface Transportation Program (STP) is generally considered flexible funding that can be used on a variety of transportation projects, including transit, bicycle, pedestrian, road, and highway projects. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funding requires that projects reduce air pollution in areas that are considered to be in non-attainment under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. These funds are apportioned to the region and administered by MTC. AC Transit is eligible to receive funding from both of these federal programs through a variety of discretionary programs established by MTC and the Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. These programs include, but are not limited to, the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program, the Transit Performance Initiative (TPI) program, and the Freeway Performance Initiative program. Plan Bay Area assumes $186.3 million total from these two funding sources in FY 2013, with a 3 percent escalation rate per annum throughout the life of Plan Bay Area. AC Transit estimates that it could receive this funding distributed through a variety of regional programs (e.g., TPI and OBAG) at a rate of $7 million bi-annually. This amount is on par with amounts received by AC Transit over the past several years. STATE SOURCES Regional Transportation Improvement Program: The Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) identifies projects programmed to receive various state and federal funds, and acts as a proposal from MTC and the CMAs for Alameda and Contras Costa Counties to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for programming State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds. AC Transit anticipates $26 million in funds in the RTIP in the SRTP period for the East Bay BRT project. Infrastructure Bond Funds: In November 2006, the voters in the state approved Proposition 1B entitled the “Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006”. Proposition 1B authorized the sale of $19.9 billion in general obligation bonds to fund state and local transportation projects aimed at relieving congestion, improving movement of goods, improving air quality, and enhancing safety and security of the transportation system. AC Transit receives funding from two Prop 1B programs: the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) and the Transit System Safety, Security & Disaster Response Account (TSSSDRA). By the end of FY 2014-15 AC Transit will have received approximately $100 million in PTMISEA funding and $15 million in TSSSDRA funding. Staff estimates that $43 million of that funding will be used for capital priorities within this SRTP; the bulk of which are existing projects that are carrying forward into this time period. Cap and Trade (Low Carbon Transit Operations Program): The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) is one of the main Cap and Trade funded programs that can be accessed by transit operators. Unlike the other programs, LCTOP funding will flow to transit operators and the region by formula. The funding must be used to support operating and capital projects that lead to greenhouse gas reductions, with a priority to delivering those improvements to disadvantaged communities. AC Transit will receive $573,227 in FY 2015 and the draft state Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 81
Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program TABLE 6.12: COMMITTED FUNDING PROJECTIONS
Funding Sources
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Total
Committed Funding Federal FTA Formula Funds STP/CMAQ Federal TOTAL
$38,400,000
$29,530,000
$7,000,000 $45,400,000
$29,530,000
$29,530,000
$7,000,000 $29,530,000
$36,530,000
$29,530,000
$29,530,000
$7,000,000 $29,530,000
$36,530,000
$29,530,000
$29,530,000
$7,000,000 $29,530,000
$36,530,000
$29,530,000
$29,530,000
$7,000,000 $29,530,000
$36,530,000
$304,170,000 $35,000,000
$29,530,000
$339,170,000
State RTIP Existing Prop 1B PTMISEA FY 15 Budget Existing Prop 1B PTMISEA
$12,000,000
$2,000,000
$26,000,000
$14,160,000
$14,160,000
$2,000,000
New Prop 1B PTMISEA Prop 1B TSSSDRA
$12,000,000
$2,000,000 $21,000,000
$2,100,000
$2,100,000
$21,000,000 $2,100,000
$6,300,000
Cap & Trade Low Carbon Transit Operations State TOTAL
TBD $652,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$23,152,000
$18,912,000
$25,600,000
$4,600,000
$14,500,000
$2,500,000
$14,500,000
$2,500,000
$4,500,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$92,612,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$15,000,000
Local AB 664 RM2 TFCA BATA Project Savings
$15,000,000
$15,000,000
$500,000 $5,180,000
$500,000 $5,180,000
Alameda CTC - VRF Program
$5,180,000
$500,000 $5,180,000
$1,000,000
Measure BB
$10,700,000
$5,180,000
$500,000 $5,180,000
$1,000,000 $3,000,000
$5,180,000
$500,000 $5,180,000
$1,000,000 $12,000,000
$5,180,000
$2,500,000 $5,180,000
$1,000,000 $2,000,000
$51,800,000 $4,000,000
$11,000,000
$38,700,000
District Funds
$27,547,000
$12,960,000
$9,920,000
$10,218,000
$4,635,000
$7,967,000
$11,938,000
$7,656,000
$8,407,000
$9,528,000
$110,776,000
Local Total
$49,727,000
$30,340,000
$18,100,000
$19,898,000
$12,815,000
$26,647,000
$20,118,000
$16,336,000
$16,587,000
$27,208,000
$237,776,000
$114,039,000
$85,470,000
$59,230,000
$63,928,000
$51,845,000
$70,677,000
$59,148,000
$50,366,000
$55,617,000
$59,238,000
$669,558,000
Total
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 82
Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program
budget would approximately double this amount for FY 2016. How these funds would be used has not yet been determined. LOCAL SOURCES AB 664: AB 664 is an increment of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay, San Mateo-Hayward, and Dumbarton Bridge tolls and is intended to fund transit capital projects that relieve congestion in the bridge corridors. MTC commits these funds to match federally-funded transit projects. MTC Resolution 4123 - Transit Core Capacity includes $25 million in AB 664 funds over a 16 year period (FY 2015-30) or $1.5 million per year for AC Transit Core Capacity projects. Regional Measure 2 (RM2): Approved by voters in March 2004, RM2 increased tolls on the state-owned bay bridges. RM2 allocates additional bridge toll revenues for various transportation projects and operations within to reduce congestion or to make improvements to travel in the toll bridge corridors. AC Transit anticipates $15 million in RM2 funds in the SRTP period to fund existing projects including the renovation of Richmond Parkway Transit Center, purchase of replacement buses for the Dumbarton Express Bus Service, and the East Bay BRT project. Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA): TFCA funds have been developed by the BAAQMD. They are available through two main channels: the Regional Fund and the County Program Manager Fund. Eligible projects must result in the reduction of motor vehicle emissions within the Air District’s jurisdiction. The Regional Fund receives about 60 percent of the TFCA revenues and is administered directly by BAAQMD. The Program Manager Fund receives approximately 40 percent of the TFCA revenues and is administered in coordination with the Bay Area’s nine CMAs. The primary CMAs in the AC Transit service area are the Alameda CTC and the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA). Both of these fund sources are available through discretionary programs on an annual basis. Generally, $4 million is available from the regional program annually and approximately $1 million is available from the county program annually for transit projects. AC Transit believes it can secure a small portion of that funding for projects that enhance existing operations. See Table 6.12 for committed funding projections Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) Project Savings: With the completion of the Regional Measure 1 highway and bridge projects and the opening of the New East Span of the Bay Bridge, BATA project savings are proposed to be directed to the Core Capacity Challenge Grant Program. Staff has determined that these transit projects are eligible bridge improvement projects because they will improve functioning or use of one or more of the stateowned bridges. As such, these project expenditures, in an amount of $250 million, are proposed to be added to BATA’s long-range plan and budget. AC Transit anticipates receiving $83 million in BATA Project Savings over a 16-year period (FY 2015-30) or $5.18 million per year. Alameda CTC Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF): The Measure F Alameda County VRF Program was approved by the voters in November 2010. The fee generates about $11 million per year from a $10 per year vehicle registration fee. The goal of the VRF program is to sustain the County’s transportation network and reduce traffic congestion and vehicle-related pollution. The program includes 25 percent for Transit for Congestion Relief, which seeks to make the existing transit system more efficient and effective, and improve access to schools and jobs. AC Transit believes it can secure a small portion of that funding for projects that enhance existing operations.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 83
Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program
Measure BB Capital: Alameda CTC’s Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) includes $35 million for four Rapid Bus projects over 30 years (FY 2015-45). This is a project-specific program so AC Transit is assuming the use of funding for at least three of the four projects within the SRTP timeframe. The TEP also includes $300 million for Community Development Investments that improve transit connections to jobs and schools, or $10 million per year. AC Transit assumes $1 million every two years in capital funding to mitigate the impacts of new development on transit. District Funding: AC Transit provides funding from its operating budget to support capital projects. From FY 2012–15 AC Transit provided an average of $9 million per year in capital funding. MTC Resolution 4123-Transit Core Capacity includes a required contribution of $341 million in local funds from AC Transit over a 16 year period (FY 2015-30) or $21 million per year. Early years of the commitment (FY 2015-16) are offset by $38 million in Prop 1B PTMISEA funds. This lowers the necessary commitment to $18 million per year. This SRTP includes an increase of District funding to an average of $17 million per year. The increase may be partially supported by the recent passage of Measure BB. AC Transit assumes that other state and local funds will be available to help offset this need. See Table 6.13 for a comparison of CIP cost projections and committed funding levels over the life of the SRTP. TABLE 6.13: CIP COMPARISON WITH OTHER LARGE OPERATORS
Total CIP Cost AC Transit
Committed Funding
%
$1,510,944,397
$669,558,000
44%
BART
$9,600,000,000
$4,800,000,000
50%
Caltrain
$1,854,789,000
$1,784,320,000
96%
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District
$343,000,000
$343,000,000
100%
Samtrans
$269,000,000
$269,000,000
100%
SFMTA VTA
$15,749,025,000 $826,000,000
N/A* $522,800,000
N/A* 63%
Note: * SFMTA does not provide 10-year constrained CIP
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 84
Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program
6.6.2 DISCRETIONARY FUNDING Discretionary funding is more speculative as it may require voter approval, legislative action or is part of a highly competitive discretionary program. AC Transit used Plan Bay Area as a source for discretionary revenues and therefore this estimate (see Table 6.14 and Figure 6.4) includes a new regional bridge toll; a regional gas tax; and other anticipated, but unidentified revenues, a residual funding category used by MTC. FIGURE 6.4: DISCRETIONARY FUNDING PROJECTIONS $120
DISCRETIONARY FUNDING (in Millions)
$100
$80
Local Total
$60
State Total Federal Total $40
$20
$‐ 2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
YEAR
FEDERAL SOURCES FTA New Starts Program: AC Transit is working through a Major Corridors plan that will identify strategies for improvements for the 10 highest volume bus corridors in the service area. Those improvements could be as minimal as transit signal priority and as large as new proposed BRT projects. For the purposes of the SRTP, staff assumes that it will secure a $75 million Small Starts grant towards a future BRT project. Other US Department of Transportation (DOT) Discretionary Grants: There are several discretionary federal programs that are specific to the U.S. DOT (i.e., FHWA and FTA) and which could support AC Transit projects. These include the TIGER program, the Elderly and Disabled, Alternative Fuel, Research and Development, Asset Management, and Safety programs. Other Federal Grants: There are a few federal programs outside of the U.S. DOT that could support AC Transit projects, particularly advancements to the zero emission bus projects. AC Transit has included some probable funding from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for possible enhancements to the zero emission bus projects. AC Transit has also included funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and/or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to support safety and security projects.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 85
Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program TABLE 6.14: DISCRETIONARY FUNDING PROJECTIONS
Funding Sources
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Total
Discretionary Funding Federal FTA New Starts Program
$25,000,000
$25,000,000
$25,000,000
$75,000,000
Other US DOT Discretionary
$3,000,000
$13,000,000
$3,000,000
$13,000,000
$3,000,000
$35,000,000
FEMA/DHS Grants
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$5,000,000
DOE Grants
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$5,000,000
$5,000,000
$15,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$5,000,000
$120,000,000
Federal TOTAL
$25,000,000
State ATP
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$9,000,000
Cap and Trade
TBD
Transit and Intercity Rail Capital, and Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Programs
$5,000,000
$13,000,000
$13,000,000
$13,000,000
$13,000,000
$13,000,000
$13,000,000
$13,000,000
$13,000,000
$13,000,000
$122,000,000
Low Carbon Transportation
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$11,000,000
CEC State TOTAL
$3,000,000 $7,000,000
$14,000,000
$20,000,000
$3,000,000 $14,000,000
$3,000,000
$9,000,000
$14,000,000
$20,000,000
$14,000,000
$14,000,000
$20,000,000
$14,000,000
$151,000,000
$5,800,000
$5,800,000
$5,800,000
$5,800,000
$5,800,000
$5,800,000
$34,800,000
$11,590,000
$11,590,000
$11,590,000
$11,590,000
$11,590,000
$11,590,000
$69,540,000
Local Additional Bridge Toll Regional Gas Tax Other Anticipated, but Undetermined Revenues
$31,000,000
$31,000,000
$31,000,000
$31,000,000
$31,000,000
$31,000,000
$31,000,000
$217,000,000
Local Total
$31,000,000
$48,390,000
$48,390,000
$48,390,000
$48,390,000
$48,390,000
$48,390,000
$321,340,000
$60,000,000
$62,390,000
$98,390,000
$87,390,000
$102,390,000
$68,390,000
$67,390,000
$592,340,000
Total
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
$7,000,000
$19,000,000
$20,000,000
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 86
Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program
STATE SOURCES Active Transportation Program (ATP): The ATP consolidates existing federal and state transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and State Safe Routes to School (SR2S), into a single program. The purpose of ATP is to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation. AC Transit assumes that it can secure a modest amount of funding from this program to help support corridor projects, particularly complete street projects that are done in coordination with local jurisdiction. AC Transit may be able to draw on this program to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to transit centers and stops. Cap and Trade (Transit and Intercity Rail Capital and Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Programs): The Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program and the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program are both discretionary programs where AC Transit could compete for capital funding at the state-level. The focus of both of these programs is capital projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions with a priority focus on those reductions in disadvantaged communities. AC Transit is looking at these programs through MTC Resolution 4123 - Transit Core Capacity, which includes $207 million in Cap and Trade funds over a 16 year period (FY 2015-30) or $13 million per year for AC Transit. Cap and Trade (Low Carbon Transportation) and California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Air Quality Improvement Program: The Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) is designed to support development and commercialization of advanced technologies that are necessary to meet California’s air quality and climate goals. Because of the program’s success, AQIP continues to expand. The Governor’s FY 2014-15 proposed budget identifies $200 million from the state’s share of auction proceeds under CARB’s Cap-and-Trade program to be spent on Low Carbon Transportation projects that reduce GHG emissions primarily in disadvantaged communities. In FY 2015, CARB staff combined the two funding sources (AQIP and Low Carbon Transportation Investments) into one funding plan. The key program of focus for AC Transit is the Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Pilot, which has $20 to $25 million available in FY 2015. AC Transit assumes it could receive $2 million from this program in FY 2015 and $1 million per year for the remainder of the SRTP. California Energy Commission (CEC): The CEC’s Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program has a $100 million Investment Plan in FY 2015. AC Transit would most likely be eligible for the $15 million Medium-and Heavy-Duty Advanced Vehicle Technology Demonstration Program, $15 million from the Electric Charging Infrastructure program, and $20 million from the Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure program. The latter two programs have more of a light-duty focus so AC Transit would need to identify non-revenue fleet needs to compete for those funds. AC Transit estimates it could receive $3 million every three years from this program based on prior awards from the program. LOCAL SOURCES Additional Bridge Toll: A $1 bridge toll increase (on state owned bridges) is assumed in Plan Bay Area is expected to generate $2.7 billion over the life of Plan Bay Area, FY 2013-40, or $96 million per year. AC Transit received 6 percent of RM2. That assumption for the additional bridge toll, sometimes called RM3, would yield $5.8 million per year. Regional Gas Tax: Plan Bay Area assumes $5.1 billion over a 22-year period starting in 2018, or $231 million per year from an increase in regional gas tax. AC Transit assumes that it will be able to capture 5 percent of this revenue (approximately $11.6 million per year). Other Anticipated, but Undetermined Revenues: Plan Bay Area assumes $14 billion over a 22-year period starting in 2018, or $636 million per year. AC Transit assumes that it will be able to capture 5 percent of this revenue (approximately $31 million per year). Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 87
Chapter 7: Resolution 3434 Projects—Bus Rapid Transit and Major Corridors 7.0 INTRODUCTION Resolution 3434 is MTC’s program of major transit expansion projects for the Bay Area, most recently amended and adopted in 2008. The Regional Transit Expansion Program approved by Resolution 3434 will, when fully built out, provide 140 additional miles of rail service, 600 miles of new express bus routes, and a 58 percent service increase on certain existing transit corridors. Ferry facilities will also be expanded. Projects included in Resolution 3434 are highlighted for special attention in MTC’s SRTP Resolution 3532. AC Transit has two projects included in Resolution 3434. One is the East Bay BRT line from Downtown Oakland to San Leandro BART. The BRT project was referred to as “AC Transit Berkeley/Oakland/San Leandro Bus Rapid Transit”. At that time it was assumed that the BRT would extend to Downtown Berkeley via Telegraph Avenue but Oakland and Berkeley did not approve that part of the BRT. The other Resolution 3434 project is the Major Corridors improvement project, described in the Resolution as “AC Transit Enhanced Bus Hesperian/Foothill/MacArthur corridors,” with a cost to MTC of $41 million. In Resolution Attachment C: Funding Strategy, the same $41 million is designated for “AC Transit Enhanced Bus Grand/MacArthur Corridor.” Taken together, along with Telegraph Avenue, these corridors make up most of the Major Corridors study area. They also reflect the Major Corridors concept in an earlier stage of its evolution. As noted previously, the District along with the Alameda CTC, has undertaken an update of the Major Corridors study. It could recommend changes to the recommendations of the earlier plan. The construction of the new Transbay Terminal is also part of Resolution 3434. However, since the TJPA is the sponsor of Transbay Terminal, it is not included in this chapter.
7.1 EAST BAY BUS RAPID TRANSIT Capital Cost: The capital cost to construct the East Bay BRT is currently estimated at $178 million in year of expenditure dollars. Resolution 3434 estimated the cost as $250 million. At that point, the planned BRT extended to Berkeley on the north end and Bayfair BART on the south end. The current project is roughly twothirds the size of the original one. Capital Funding: The capital funding for the East Bay BRT project is currently being reviewed. The project received $75 Million from the FTA Small Starts program. There may be additional construction costs due to delays. Sources of additional funding will also be sought. Construction Schedule: The BRT project is nearing completion of final design, in conjunction with the cities of Oakland and San Leandro. The key projected dates going forward are: • Completion of Final Design
Fall 2015
• Start of Major Construction
Spring 2016
• Completion of Major Construction
Fall 2017
• Start of Revenue Service
Fall 2017
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 88
SRTP Chapter 7: Resolution 3434 Projects—Bus Rapid Transit and Major Corridors
Land Use: The BRT project has been a catalyst for transit-oriented planning along the BRT corridor. The City of Oakland prepared the International Boulevard Transit Oriented Development Plan (IBTOD) in 2011. That plan had major sections concerning strategies to implement TOD. Although the plan is completed, no environmental document was prepared for the plan, and it was not formally approved. City staff indicate that the IBTOD has the status of a policy document for the corridor. At the same time, the City reviewed the zoning designations of International Boulevard and other commercial corridors around the City. New zoning designed to be simpler and to promote development was approved for these corridors. AC Transit participated in both IBTOD and the rezoning as a member of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The City of San Leandro approved its Downtown Transit Oriented Development Strategy in 2009. The Strategy covers the area within a ½-mile radius of East 14th Street & Davis Street, excluding areas zoned for single-family residential use. The strategy rezoned the downtown and BART station area for more intensive commercial and residential use. BRIDGE Housing has started construction on a 115 unit affordable housing development directly across from San Leandro BART, the terminus of the BRT. AC Transit participated actively in the development of the TOD Strategy.
7.2 MAJOR CORRIDORS PROJECT AC Transit’s Major Corridors project has begun the process of Evaluation of key service corridors for potential capital improvements. Initial outreach meetings began in March 2015. The Major Corridors study is being prepared in conjunction with the Alameda CTC’s Countywide Transit Plan. Alameda CTC is also conducting a countywide Multi-modal Arterials Plan which could have a major impact on the major transit corridors. A plan with proposals for recommendations is expected to be complete in June 2016. At this early stage it is not possible to project the capital or operating cost or its land use impacts.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 89
Chapter 8: VISION 2040—An AC Transit that is Great, Green, and Golden 8.1 AC TRANSIT’S VISION FOR 2040 In 2040, the East Bay will have a great transit system, second to none among similar places. Residents, workers, and visitors will be pleased to rely on transit as their principal mode of travel for trips longer than walking distance. AC Transit will be a leading green transit agency: not only reducing automobile trips by providing its service, but acting as a leader in green business practices in the transit industry. AC Transit will support, and be recognized as supporting, residential and commercial development in the major Priority Development Areas (PDAs) in the District. See Figure 8.1 for the location of the PDAs within the district. This vision is further elaborated below.
8.1.1 CONTEXT FOR THE VISION, PLACES—GROWING IN THE PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS (PDAS) To realize this ambitious vision, AC Transit will need a supportive development pattern. What will the urban/ suburban environment of the East Bay be like in 2040? Will it help AC Transit achieve its goals? Trends are generally positive, but significant challenges will remain. Housing: Over the next 26 years, through 2040, the AC Transit district will evolve, but the broad outline of development will remain similar to today. Population in the district is expected to grow significantly by 2040, but not to transformative levels. Plan Bay Area projects population growth in the AC Transit district of some 300,000, or just above 20 percent of the existing 1,425,000. Plan Bay Area projects that ¾ of the population growth (76 percent) will occur in the PDAs. As a result, the PDA share of population in the district will increase from 35 percent to 43 percent, approaching one-half. This growth pattern would channel new development into denser, more urban areas, but existing zones of single family detached houses, with hundreds of thousands of units, will remain. Even as the East Bay of the 21st Century is being built, the overhang of the latter 20th Century will remain. Oakland is projected to receive the largest share of this PDA growth: over 100,000 people. Fremont, the second largest city in the district, would be the second largest gainer, with almost 30,000 new residents clustered around existing and new rail stations. Jobs: Job growth is projected to be somewhat greater, but still would largely strengthen existing employment concentration. The District would add 230,000 jobs, 36 percent of the existing total. Expected job growth in Oakland is particularly strong: 85,000 jobs or 45 percent of the existing total, focused in Downtown and West Oakland. Fremont again would be second, with the majority of its new jobs in the Warm Springs/South Fremont area around the new BART station. Warm Springs, the former Alameda Point naval base, and West Oakland are the three areas where the number of jobs is projected to more than double. Caution is advisable in making long term development predictions. 25 years ago, analysts might not have predicted Downtown Oakland’s post-2000 growth spurt. Berkeley’s rigorous development review process might have led observers to underestimate the growth which took place and is taking place in Downtown Berkeley. 26 years ago, Alameda Point was still functioning as Alameda Naval Air Station. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 90
Chapter 8: VISION 2040—An AC Transit that is Great, Green, and Golden FIGURE 8.1: PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS Pinole
Hercules
Martinez
San Pablo
Concord
San Rafael
Pleasant Hill Richmond
El Cerrito
Walnut Creek
Tiburon Lafayette Albany Belvedere
Orinda
Berkeley
Sausalito Moraga
Emeryville
Danville
Piedmont
San Francisco San Ramon
Oakland Alameda
San Leandro Daly City Brisbane Colma
South San Francisco
Hayward
San Bruno
Priority Development Areas Pacifica Millbrae Priority Development Areas
Cities
Union City Foster City
Burlingame
Interstates Highways
Hillsborough
San Mateo
Arterial Roads 0
1.5
3
Fremont
6 Miles
Half Moon Bay
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
¯
Redwood City Newark
Belmont San Carlos
Menlo Park
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 91
Chapter 8: VISION 2040—An AC Transit that is Great, Green, and Golden
8.1.2 CONTEXT FOR THE VISION, PEOPLE—NEW PEOPLE, NEW MOBILITY Numerically, most of the East Bay’s 2040 residents are already here. But, as individuals, many of the people will be new arrivals (by birth or net in-migration) or in newly formed households. Will this turnover of people help or hurt AC Transit’s ability to implement this vision? The signs are strongly positive. The large “Baby Boom” generation (born roughly 1945-1964) has been seen as the dominant demographic group in the United States in recent decades. Now the “Millennial” generation (roughly 1985-2000) is becoming increasingly prominent. The attitudes and lifestyles of Millennials seem to be substantially different than Baby Boomers. Baby Boomers have been seen as the quintessential suburban generation. Over the course of the Boomers’ 20th Century (1950-2000) the suburban share of population in the U.S. more than doubled, 23.3 percent to 50.0 percent, while the central city population stagnated. The U.S. was often described as a suburban nation, and thus inevitably a car-dependent nation. But in the 21st century there has been a U-turn in car usage, especially among the young. While miles driven dropped overall between 2001 and 2009, the average yearly number of miles driven by 16- to 34-year-olds dropped a remarkable 23 percent. Even well-off young people are making changes. A study by the Frontier Group (research arm of the US Public Interest Research Group) showed that from 2001 to 2009, young people (16-34 years old) who lived in households with annual incomes of over $70,000 increased their use of public transit by 100 percent, biking by 122 percent, and walking by 37 percent. Millennials also express a much stronger interest in living in central cities, and central cities now provide a broader range of options than in the latter 20th Century. We can only hope and assume these trends continue among the “post-Millennial” generations.
8.1.3 VISION 2040—GREAT: AC TRANSIT WILL, ALONG WITH OTHER AGENCIES, OPERATE GREAT TRANSIT SERVICE Great transit service in 2040: Residents, workers and visitors to the AC Transit district will be pleased to rely on transit as their principal mode of travel for trips longer than walking distance. People traveling more than a mile generally use either a car or transit, with a smaller percentage biking. As using a private car becomes more expensive, and perhaps less socially acceptable, the role of transit will increase. Common Fares: Great transit requires a system that is fast, frequent, reliable, understandable, safe, convenient, affordable, and pleasant. As Board Policy 550 notes, AC Transit is part of a “total transit system for the region.” While most trips, today and in the future, will be on only one system, it will be critical to make the bus/ BART interface as seamless as possible in terms of fares, transfers, and information. BART will have reached Downtown San Jose by 2040, and perhaps built other extensions or infill stations. Using AC Transit and BART should feel like a using a single system, whatever the institutional arrangements. 26 years should be long enough to develop common fare policies. Frequent: AC Transit’s Service Guiding Principles say that “a large part” of the system should operate schedulefree, which would provide a frequency of 10 minutes or better. The nine major corridors which carry more than half of AC Transit’s passengers would be the obvious target for establishing such service. Most of these corridors are longstanding and long-developed travel routes, the oldest, Telegraph Avenue, dates back to the mid-19th century. So it is reasonable to assume that they will remain key corridors, all the more so when reinforced by PDAs. Faster: A faster transit system, and therefore one that supports more frequency and reliability, will be supported by roadways that minimize the delays cars (and to some extent bicycles) cause to bus operations. Cities will need
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 92
Chapter 8: VISION 2040—An AC Transit that is Great, Green, and Golden
to provide improved facilities for both buses and bikes, and to assure that roadway modifications for bicycles do not degrade the travel time or reliability of bus service. Vehicles: The transit service will be great with or without new types of transit vehicles. Both recent and projected Bay Area transit improvements use existing transit modes. Unlike the hillside suburban favelas in Medellin, Colombia that generated the aerial tramway, the East Bay has no service gap which can only be served with a new transit mode. Indeed, a transit technology originally developed in the 19th century, the streetcar, has gained new popularity. It may be that upgraded capital investment to a streetcar or light-rail type service is appropriate on one or more corridors. The only new transit vehicle technology recently implemented here is the modern cable car on the OAC. It may also be that new forms of recreational transit (like San Francisco’s cable cars) emerge, but not as key elements of the system. A transit system can only be convenient if most people can reach it easily. By 2040, AC Transit will have established and achieved a goal that if an area’s population density exceeds 10,000 per square mile, the great bulk of residents will be within one quarter of a mile of a bus stop. It will be easier to achieve this goal because population will be somewhat concentrated; hopefully cities will also upgrade their walkway network where needed.
8.1.4 VISION 2040—GREEN: AC TRANSIT WILL BE A LEADING GREEN TRANSIT AGENCY A green transit agency: In addition to service which reduces automobile trips, AC Transit will be a leader in green business practices in our vehicles and facilities. Providing great service, service that supplants driving trips, is AC Transit’s most important environmental contribution. As Board Policy 550 (Guiding Principle 4) states “… AC Transit’s greatest role in alleviating climate change is to get as many people out of their cars and onto its service as possible.” Yet it is all too likely that climate change will be even more serious and damaging by 2040. As a major vehicle operating entity, AC Transit will want to minimize its carbon footprint. Even if buses are largely electrically powered, a possibility by 2040, the District’s carbon footprint would still be substantial. The District’s vehicles, particularly the revenue vehicles, are used far more intensively than private vehicles. The vehicles need to be stored, serviced, and maintained. In addition, AC Transit will continue to operate four divisions (bus yards), the Central Maintenance Facility, and the General Office. This scope of operations and facilities means that AC Transit may create a substantial environmental footprint, but has numerous opportunities to reduce that footprint.
8.1.5 VISION 2040—GOLDEN: SUPPORTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Economic development: AC Transit service will support, and will be recognized as supporting, residential and commercial development in major PDAs in the district. Surface transit in the East Bay began as “development oriented transit,” streetcars built to sell real estate along the Key System routes. In the mid-21st century, with the increasing prominence of transit, surface transit will again play that role. The access value created by BART stations has long been recognized, as the region becomes more transit-oriented, surface transit will again be critical. The trunk routes in particular will be a key complement to a BART system which is likely to still be straining to carry ever-increasing loads. Cities will recognize that having more people traveling along their major surface transit corridors means more people seeing their businesses, and more people using city businesses at bus stops. Some people already buy houses with reference to bus service; this will become more common as time goes on. Surface transit has often struggled in the 20th and early 21st centuries. Resources have been inadequate,
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 93
Chapter 8: VISION 2040—An AC Transit that is Great, Green, and Golden
attention has focused excessively on trains, and bus passengers have been stigmatized. But as the 21st century advances, the critical role of surface transit will become increasingly evident. This will present opportunities for AC Transit to seize, for AC Transit to become great, green, and golden.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 94
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: AC TRANSIT TITLE VI PROGRAM (SEPTEMBER 2014)
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15 —2023/24 | 95
