Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01011977 - Transportation-subject me > 061 � 61ygo wwyl xy� F ��w3 >, ti,aa ''' c ao _C� y,iC � a'�' •o� ed� ,O, y w ti 3E � d _ w � c• uro�.oT EJ L c� Oy a°'i apo 'El 2f 3 0 yY c g a�`d tow—.- Oy � co 0 � o�:5y >� rouoao � m uU� a ca'Tw a3 nqp 0 o o QQ F e0� 41 'or �" oc o � �-.E e�64oi vv';a3ce E � aQoa E_ to �o�� > 0 0 V y y = d V mom -34 G C cE.fl w A C "1•^� y.�L cz t0 t L rd C �m 1O IWO A 6 61 vi > E, CL { V 7 N N 61 0 0 Q C 6i a0.+A.0-ie �•�., y y��� y w FO. co S - �1 6~1 O o MW � a n So"•ooC (yw7y 0. oo .«. . d— may... 7 O CO yt-"O 1 �y Oy 0, 1.'L1L N 00 O O. �^ "3 b4�y� 3�•� scw u°y 6'"io >'Do00 �a 73 w ., � cOym sa�yp ycy Qy �y Er� vi.+ C'fl Vim✓'- 000'�� i y nUPPOF eta a3 ti pA v 0� 3Z �soya� " " 41�� �s61� 34"1"" �bo8� � �,t F. m V Zmq �i �vevt. 7mm�yorn �e s 61 go i. y^e c O y > 3 ? a E'+ a~3.g ° 1 w o w 6oai w cb c�� a~i Q to r. >A���ii a.uc ��0rr3 aiE oc. �' LQ,H'CWS-. Li'CFVi a0+S O F-�"O •y/1 n: 7 � 1 _i - 'DIVU uioal sueld autos peau am Ing `ITsuLjl arlgnd punoae,Buiuueld aq of lg2no am os `aaaq Ino JjjV9 aneq of'lueM aM aaow,fue saga ano anraP. 01 P101;e I,uea -am .uagM„ -plus sanl-a 1,Tuol aaojaq Zt aq 11,1! pue `mou seJ aol otgt Our,Ced aa,aM,, -luawdolanap a glint g2noJgl o$'01 ouaag pi hmolie SlIuaaaa lraunoa,agl Ing •slrea ao; lr asn of pauueld SIIeuT2rao L1it'S 'asneaaq"saeaS ao; uado plag sem puel agj, ouaas jaaglV.aadolanap Sq paumo 6 ALM421H of luaaefpe peel 3o aaard e 'ol AlleaTbTaads paJJalaa aH. „*op of Ouio2f s,j Hvg legm smou3i Apogou strum saes S 01 ao; ApadoJd siq uo`Irs of aaumo ,Sjaadoad a llal'.j,uea ant -sltluialle Suruoz pue �uruueld ano uo dantur algeaedaaar ue,paKaaM seq lua ulr[uwoa a a)lew of aanlle3 s,,Ldvg puH„ pauteldwoo santM ,Iwajs-Ss snq 000`00St a sT ' ( aeaS a uollllw 9-pt ano ao; $urlla2 a,r,aM IIS„ aolael anTI!q!q road•lsow al2urs aql uaaq seg Isoa Inq `uorsualxa aql 3o.Alr[rgrsea3 aql parpnis slerarldo L'SHS .walsss agl uT gaoTlu`v' pue i ingsIMd apnjaur 01 ueld leur2rao slT glrm gSnoagl Asea pinoM LHVS 2urnar14g 19961 aaurs uollllW j OOT$ Inoge pled aneq pue Allenuue uorlllw g-t,$ Inoge BuiArd Mou ase sluaprsaa Blunoo IseR IUVU aoueur; dlaq of - xea'sales luau-31eq agl pled lou seq gargm 19lunoo soaleW ueg ui laodatV leuotleuaalul o3srauea3 ueg of ,UVU pualxa of slesodoad inoge paswmur Xlaelnarlaed ale saaglo pue ag PIES sanTH ,',LHV of 11 xaos Pinogs am,Aes aldoad ant; Jeag �poX sleaals aql uo aldoad enT; of Klel nosjj,,. •alon aql sal;e Pres sanrg uoI u�tulrauno� 2angsllyd „`Inoge do paal3'Sileaa ale sluaprsaa Slunoo.Iseg aql furglawos sr.srgZ„ •aaluao ,Slrunwwo3 gaorluv atV Ie sieiai33Q'Z2IF�S glrM �urlaaw LT gageAl e.pueuaap >satlra aaagl aql 4q paldope suogniosaaaq� J `.•Irea,.Sq-paoauoj,`ol ease aql )[uli of ueld"� �e aanpoad jou saop :HVU 3j" — lmsmel, uolIIlw •OOT$'e ;o Ajjligrssod agltSutpnlaui urlae legal 2WIP4 passnasrp aneq.sarlta agI 3o steloT330 a u400 eiso ..esluo - uaalsea of aarn;zas lrea-pualxa 04,iataisTa irsuesy,= p dei easy Beg a,yl �tirrnssaad,ver :pooMluaag, pue• gaorluv Suraogg0rau, aoddns`of Alstiowrueun Pa;on-seq .11aunoj'Spa'ag,L; :12111$5 LJ.Id `n _ja1uM wis aunqul w VMS­ ,. iaj SUPIX3­* • +r alegap Bupf rud aql pa4aeds legl Item I,upinoa ly,3nogl aq slaafoad aaueut;of sanaasaa Ieltdea Ruins io3 weld S;)ua.Rntluoa stq sem It Ing •pies paeuaag 'paaaa; -ap aq of aneq lilm spafoad auxos suaddey Iegl;I •uotlitui ooz$Inge lag IIIM Lgvg legl uoissiuuuzo0 uotlelaodsmi uelitodoalajq aq;- Xq pion uaaq seq aq pallImpe paeuaag g4noglie`uuld aeaS-ani;sli aaueui;of spaau li sluea2 leaapaj pue alels ui uo[giva SLP$aqa;o Isom ao Ile.2utlla2gegpaad si la2pnq aqL •dlumiaaaun least;Io auip sigl ui sanaasaa s,lata;sip aql )!wtuoa of moq—ansst aaRael aql Mop -egsaano of pauaaas alggenbs 9uniaed aqa sauna IV •paeuaag gllax Ta2euvw Ie -aauaf)Aq pallitugns `zg-Tg6T ao;la,Rpnq slaafoad Ieti -dea uoill!w LL$pasodoad aql le Kaad Tsai;sli 30,w Dal -I!Wtuoa aql uagm .fepsangL paldnaa alndsip aqL 'puel uotlels suodeam Ieneu snidans uo y Semg2ig auau piinq of axil pinoem gaol _-aaaip aql q;)igm uollels aql ao; palez)olle"uaaq seq Aauouz ON •saom s,paoauo0 of iamsue ue aq IgVttu -uoisualxa Slunoa-Isea ue;o Iced aq pinom gaigm-uop -els zautiaeyg-paoauo0 glaoN pasodoad agl pies ag •sauzoq atagl punoae Rupfwd algetteee aql Ile m1el slol Runlaed aqi olui lag I,uea oqm saapu LtlVg legl pautelduzoa aneq `uotlels paoauo0 aql aeau Sluapisag-lied of aaeid ou aneq Saq;asneaaq LgVg .Suisn J uaae aldoad Xueui legl pauielduxoa ag uotlels alaom Jac[oliaaa0 Ix aql. asn of 2unjaas sluaptsaa Xiunoa Isam ioj se Ilam se sluapisaa paoauo0 ao;oaeds 2uplaed aaow paluem ay plus Inq 'aReaO aql pasaopua�tin3 aanau oauetg j 'SaRBA OJOUTa0n17 I aql pue elso0 ealuo0 Isea olui uotsuedxa aaueai; of pasn aq pinogs Iegl san.iasaa IaulsiP yltm a2eae2 2uplaed uoitltw E'S$ a 2utpimq Sq auop aq l,upinogs li p!us Inq — poaa2u aallituw0a uo[lealsiutui -pe saolaaaiQ 3o paeog aql uo san2ualloa siq pud ',fepsanq,L pan2ae oaugq otlaN aolaaai(I `saom JuiNaed ,SluapjSa.1 eaae nOIIeIS paoauo0 aql avail -ay of paleRtigo 6lleaow si .LUvq — cINv IXVO . neaang small aagsa7 NU131JBd aAwduxj off, �pajv2�Iq®q ,L2Iv 1861'l feyj-xepu j /. sawn e1900 el►uo0—y 0 L abed ? i i Q 04zi 00 aEy M °amJdm �-ouyG o�,�H oa GaG:i gyayGGv'm3 oHm Ny,F� ��F a � mD y.O c�s.�oS O,i0000C e a� G4�a �m °fix e LV aqq .. �.�bFFJ ^t,e; , ac Z �� f-AmFa uoOc a w V:y .3 cmE Z�;a d Nom.�m ^yP as a 3 0 o a G L H� °off - 1I•� �G' a p•Ga-° H N a G4 7 v G y o++ /�,�l.'`� p Wyk u�m o O igo� r O amq o 1 i y,g aeud ZISNVHI,aas - . { uwlspnawwoaau Lao; uolle!aossV ,sia8sueyu 61!3 age 01 uo!laala no 8n!p!oq no!;sanb ay; paaaa;aa inq 'Team.lest luawea!paad fStun .,Alpassnns!p­­jo00 s XrW Stu— aqy -gao!1uy pue 8mgsl =Ad of aull 111Va aq;pualxa P..1 111!ae;Bnnlaud lenop!p -pe ap!noad 61 p­ aq usa spun; ay; a neaaq lu,.ioduil s(ainssaw ay;piss-oaus!It spun;"ayjdn aaa;of papaau - I uo!laa,la;ne 1nq ao;aaa!p ;o pasoq ygVU aql no an!I" 1uasaadaa aae 'oaue!H. o11.m 01, 8ulp.maau 111uueal ."" aa� o; l !p o1 "I"', I n mops g.uop!sodoad ya!gm saxul sof? J.a,{qs luaaiad gg eq1 woa; awoa.pinoa sport;8u1yalow F"" 1o[1sq aq1 uo ".Cauow Au!aeld uo s!sClesu leo 1 gl!tn paga;ew aq lsnw d of ua 10 pus spun,{ aql:in'[ ,l!susa7 ssew e saos!eaadnsqy ao;C2uow amw sap!noad'Ogg .P1o1 ssm 1PH-:aleuas'.pel a1e1s.nau.V'pa..d seq uopaala ueleq ag1".ao;.Bunpeap eqT u!seuey spun;'uopslaodsaq aunp. s! 1oIM -u 1%aaylo;o uopngials!p aql a s uo paasld aq isn q aua8u!8in aas s!s!a!;;o u W aanseaw a41 ysalpsa Iq L -ipapejaod5osal _­ . inq 'uop° •p!ss aa!ID -aa;'no gans. .,.s­AX luaaaad gg anoge palianlp -;n, ClunoQ'-slsop ailuo� lunows aql aseaaa_w pinoa �uopaa�a uopslaodsusay _;o;.aolaaa!Q "I"I anoadde Cjuno u !as aMs aq1 C;y!q!Ssod aql 7o _- --a"-.�---—__a u!saalon aq1 31 s6emaPi. asnsaaq ua vni,o.gnop lasunop pus swalsCs llsueal slew C;unop Cq LN... '11lnyaasa ;o no!lanaisuoa a0; sannanaa aq of spaau aanseaw aql I.q: xe1 -2-;o asn ay1 s1!waad aausualmew Peoa lolleq ayl sasssd 1! ssaluo 'yL6T u!aP!malels saalon aq1 ao; papaau aae Saiegs leaol "S.... palaaklp ayl.30'.auon'. Sq Paeoadds 'g uopsodoad asneaaq'dol ayl};o uanel souo a ,aaaa 11iM ulsop ealuop legl - uollisodoad ajels plo aqj an yalgm 'saisgs a1e1s ldaaxa'suo!lsaolls jeaol u!.as -as C 13 a 1u waldm!,ploom i yian!p Cryo 01 aan-aw aql -uaaa;;lp ou aAew Ip.y os'sapl w y ansa..lo11sq.s saalod " I, 8u!paom papaawwoaaa ag'. unoa pus sa 1!a of pa;nq!a1s!p ayi.a o;aq eu!aeld aap!suoa uopeu!gwoa Cus as aas spun;aao;aq`dol ayl"330 of pap!aap pun saos!Aaadns V �'saxel se8 aql;o-saasgs Sip ao ..4q s!Cauow xui sad;o uws. In pasog ayi l!sueai sssw C;unoa'a111s 9u!lae Ip ao3 t!ea ­Alp eql'palou arts ., I ,Caudw xsl est eu!sol moi; usa aanssaw lollsq aq1 no awP spun;man aql ao;olq!8!la I daaK of pau8!sap.avow e.u; [ aom ayl pau!eldxa a llD non s Sion— e'aao;aq I.A.A a ".aalnM;)els apazug-smaN ' - -iaA aolaaa!Q s3laoM:a lgnd aalon sai!nbaa Ogg Hs asnuaaq INimodavIs muvw CH 1 1p p S KsadaIH ,lolls9 41 l 01 lou awaym J. ;do llew slyl 8u ld aap suoa 4Y lle 4 111 P s 14 F.la Cls o P[04 P 9 4Z �.. ■ �n oS s�� e am 7 s d Ca w i Ti 41 a03 ai9 S 17 uaae a 1 ssd 1 a lgnd 1 aol.ao;algePs a I op.a 3I au Ila s H/ aQ spun;eql a3ew o1 uoq!sodoad uo- nnlopa HPOPpe spun; agl uo u!p.la us bmpaa, `�. Aau0W! 1. Po1a ey1 u Pa s „ Ke ssed- aap!snoa pasoq a4l palsaEBne 11 ;1 uana puelsaapun 1dDW ­Ung aus!Aaadns - ' .ansa.. .cl n a'aan moq'CspaalsaA I L a8sd wo{y 4 1 W �� Socii _ a a:)Dld all AoW SUMun4 ®41SUDJJL 539Vd e1 SN0I101350M1 6L61's isnoriv'AVQS3NO3M AINOOJ VISOR V81N0:)"illy V;­r- Qa Snvly - SONIM ISM 83dVdSM3N AIIWVd ONIN110W 1V3S A1Nno:)V1SOJ VSIN05 JaZP i. SOfIOIJ M013WOS _ �-y" zafjje f AVGS3NO3MN081Vd q®�• 180d38 83HIV3M Implementation of Prop. S Needs Citizens' Approval Lesher News Bureau be held. It is already too late to,put a MARTINEZ - County .voters may be measure on the November ballot,he said. asked to vote on whether or not to divert Hasseltine said even if the voters ap- local gas tax monies-from road building proved the diversion, the supervisors projects to construction of mass transit would still have control of how to spend facilities next April - the local gas tax share. 'Supervisor Sunne McPeak, Pleasant "We could use our money as we see Hill,told the Board of Supervisors Contra fit,"he said. Costa County is losing money because a But Cline said the ability of the super- vote has never been held to implement the visors to control diversion should be stud- state-wide"ballot measure Proposition 5 ied by the county counsel. which passed in 1974. "I'm no lawyer, but the way I read 'Proposition 5 allows'.for diversion of 25 Proposition 5,the director of the state De: percent of gas'tax monies to mass transit partment of Transportation can-change if local voters approve. the percentages if there isn't enough mon- Gas tax money is shared three ways, ey to match federal funds in the bigger among the state, the counties and the projects,"he said. cities. Cline's question was referred to Coun- However, before the money is divid- ty Counsel John Clausen for a report., ed,the state allocates funds to mass trans- McPeak noted that the Mayors Con- it projects.to counties which have imple- ference is also considering whether to ask mented Proposition 5 by a local ballot. the Board-of Supervisors for a vote to im- McPeak said, "We will want.to be in plement Proposition 5. the position to get these dollars." . At the mayors' last meeting in Clay- Public Works Director Vern Cline has ton,.they heard from BART director Nello been opposed to the diversion of gas tax Bianco who warned that money for the An- monies.He said that the cpunty can't af- ti,och-Pittsburg BART extension may n6- ford the upkeep of its 1,000 miles of road in er be available because matching funds unincorporated-territory as it is.He noted for federal grants couldn't be secured that road costs have gone up by.480 per- without the implementation of Proposi- cent since 1963,but the gas tax per gallon, tion 5. seven cents,has remained the same. McPeak, who reported on the confer- Cline cautioned the Board,of Supervi- ence,said that recent proposed state leg- sors to limit the wording on any proposed islation such as AB620 provides matching ballot measure to the state's share of gas funds for counties which have approved tax monies.He said Proposition 5 allowed _ implementation of Proposition 5. voters to.choose whether they wanted "In the future, more legislation P state,county or city gas taxes or all three passed will have this kind of provision," ,'A6 be diverted. o she said. v Board'Chairman Eric Hasseltine, "We probably should be prepared in Danville, supported a :vote. He said the . Contra Costa County,"she said. earliest it could be put to the voters would The county received $6.3 million in �' be4n April when city council elections will gas tax money during the past fiscal year. Bus stop u p/{��'g TOY By CATH'°TA1L1Lg'N t9 � % •• �k Times Staff Writer ANTIOCH — When. g "� Bob Armstrong is late to a work because the bus whizzed past him at the bus stop the hair on the ' back of his neck stands Armstrong,you see,is M �s the manager of the east- ` county's Tri Delta Transit Authority. � , "Kinda makes you wonder who's in con w r gx trol,"he muses. a Armstrong has been trying to convince resi- dents esp dents to abandon their cars for the bus, but it appears the bus has ' abandoned an alarming number of riders, most noticeably Armstrong ; r �� } He's done just,about everything a patent man could do to catchy that ellusive bus. The problem is that hem43 must transfer from one bus to another. The tim- ing is critical, � � § Hes had the driver of � �x ,one bus try to radio the c driver on the bus hes missed, but that driver & invariably has his radio turned off. In despera tion, he's had the driver i block the second bus so it would stop and let him board. aF � slack performance. It's u , e questioned a distort file true picture. V not the kind of service I ,validity of the survey, AC Transit says it will want to be associated taken by local college make its own survey.If it with and I know the students. Gardiner also too shows buses are not board doesn't want to be speculated the matter on schedule, then the associated with a lacka- might be a move by Arm- schedule w i l l ,-b e l daisical attitude,' said strong.to try to discredit changed,Gardiner said. Armstrong, not one bit AC Transit so he can get But,he said, buses are amused by the situation. another operator in and subject to the same traf- fic problem is the run the transit system delays as cars and " buses run only once an differently. " hour, so if you miss the The contract between there's nothing he can do bus you either have to AC Transit and Tri Delta about stop lights or hav ing t wait an hour or walk. was signed before Arm- stop at railroad w Most people will miss the strong was hired. Arm- . crossings for slow trains. bus once and then say the strong said he would not Gardiner added that hell with it." have signed the contract AC Transit has received Armstrong has com- since it did not stipulate f'ew complaints from plained to AC Transit of- minimum service stand- east county residents ficials about drivers who ards or penalties. about bus service. Per- "sharp shoot',' — run- Gardiner complained sons with complaints ahead of schedule and that AC Transit would about the weekday bus leave passengers strand- have corrected any prob- service can call AC ed. He's also protested lems Tri Delta is having Transit at 754-4040. (J I 2-Alartine Yews-t:aaette.Wednesday, ov 28,39723 su' p' : rs, n ore . BAKI fbustx1 : County', supervisors 'Tuesday .: Avenue, Muir Road. and Center boosted-Martinez's-chance of get Avenue -< ting;-additional bus service by`ap The D"line will provide service . proving,a publie:works.propgsal;for :;' to the.other major access to Mar- extension­6f ar.extension-sof the. Danville..,BART ,tinei—Pacheco Boule'vard_'and bus run:-to downtown Martinez via� benefit the residents. of.Mt: View Pacheco Boulevard: ;. - and't' Vine,-- .Hill: However, the This ,"D".,b'us.presently has its -,present mid day Howe. turnaround.;' at'::.Diablo Valley ; < Road—Pacheco Boulevard service; College which.began;only.cast.month;.will... Marttmez city_council already hash :;:be,dropped. } votedto supPoit 'the "'proposal"` 'The" "D"`".line, though,. wiq 'which now goes to the$ART board.,s operate throughout the;-day with. for final approvaluheadways of only 30 minutes: , AC Transit,operatOs the 'D line;, It connects! with .Cobcord and.., undercontracL as at�,does Lhe 1 '" 'Pleasant Hill,bus line§;a does ttze . or Martinez tine which links down `"M line:_.It also connects with ,. town , Martinez.:to the Concorde BART in Walnut Creek and with,: i BART station .via 'Alhambra Walnut Creek .�- ba�a•cy' L`dO[..O p• Fa,a o.. Axa v . am2 28 •P, E$, c ag _Yas �o a o r nro.. A m a. ay'•0�.. 'x q$ ��,o•yE$ a'. `E .. o 7�•G'. CC.v. i s F' �l.oFh7v»v a Fg a, a,cpm ��-fiNo 3 �' �a ' �9 a• s Eav LFon , � � ❑ a $ F ,.3 a. fi. a .g9 CZ 00 F Fu Re g a a'y"L' � 111 .0 _ _.. Pm i ll U,'tool e alley of„pas!uioxd! ' au!yassE}l oueN pu¢'anss!au!lad!d ayl do-8uuq o1 P_P. uaaq says p!es uapy¢3.fxds!nxadng 2 m 31ng2 is q 0 osee soyl if. uo -p. jsm U.S i' xaylaym ap!oap 01 l08 „swal -goad IE ivalod}o epuag lle s!uas tdal it'sau1 !I 3 n¢nbglxun le an p E s em ax; q.lap. uni pinom 11 sang pies ansa' ,I p 3 s a lgnd l sl s!qy.. t "V S" lui pu¢, llep of zaupx¢y.I ox;au!ladc� amlose5 0D l!0 l�a4S 41;o uE V It pas., ayi m pou!sod.,}T� :d6 u S mo!xap uo0.di.sxosn , —d ql pallsc 1 a!`salag moL uemdlgmassy.a!i,x waQ ` la IWI ao�len - 'F1111 suouaUls iasuop x,PM pa loxmop poold :u aqi la%of til p,ay pees aai Eisop a lu p yi xo;s 0 euy umwop su U-puP s6eM A as -ale ❑S 1 Gem. p ld: stl ayl) n w l qo-p o op _ ;0 1481im1 H EQ n m6�q Sp— P'. PI tl n¢—M(I sw lq lax gmu auR-SUp-8 p..,..Id q am q ayi Ls lex u e Flun-ayl 8mpuam ql xo}.fz ,s n leg,eu axay ui¢l pycxal} ax w mollb+ lnq .is oa. ares;0 71 d axalsea aql peon ¢'000;054 Anes Sl S$m 9$.-d. i dex p¢pPnq IP pl qr - bed,ynp 6idf Fl ep a0npag• am.4a!q^l, �l@Ples G -a9pn[a oa x 4ad All m uo 11 m 0[4 1.2 a aM,' ns ylo fµn aql 9• lyl.lue uo laad aq Wil" 01 splq entp�lo Iesal>,❑a x pm max aqi�3 a! s eu y a p is aal alq_ d a43 3o-slx d m s m 1 x8 rayl,. .ql lexanas J.3 ( glt,n s m 3,,.P spaau 1 n xl.as 0aq'1nq it x;al sx ads ayj, ..poo,of 1 d 2maq ..fauom. 11 qi';o m.PI-P auq3—IM •uo!ss 03oax!Q 31 oM a!lgnd�Clunoj - ;mop s uip3R aggnd aqi ' .u!odde sly a5uanl;m uea aq a4 'syled a106o!q pae" I =Sfew os Souxanoa aqi;o uo!duau¢ lisuexl mq.euiyi.fue xo;6auom; aq1 0f_�C�g!0xo;xaUUUP.ail 8dpq„ legs;o asn sllgtyoad mel ale3S . 'tij pa mold puo yag;o lioug ' 'auamdolanap oyot u¢mdlgmassy apexaou3aQ snexi xo E1 sales alels aql mog 'e1y83 iaa 3 staapod In o,ail a.f ..,I jd maaad ,,1luo.ao m s4 ayi; 4 m. a;aqi. -5 mml;JO ded.ueo lyanoo aql£! eyi w sem isanbax amud aqy 'dwa}o asn¢0aq my pies-!ID - - 'f4—aql o suonxod 1 0o ayi q;osq¢ wasaxdax oqm voiels��l nq ay1 til salex sl!isn[eo a alien iaaxls qU.SaRaam aoagaanl a xo;lel! tau o alexado 1""t g pu¢ deo aqi of palplaxl s;olPT"'mpe, j Aep 3Paed-8uunssaxd u!Jlaq,xo; }o...1 a pae sxos!ALdns mod ` ppapye,pay ouoospass10 polxxgoq n-2-1-pdlun 'a.,,tmq o.;, nl lstea7 ail palls,'d,f1eaqp ayy x 1saS oswadns..ftanop elrop. uaop 9y8iv ie uo,sly8l loans, l i i;u salplsgns s q ea isIXa_l yl yiy"dxul w 6auom on 3 q'gonol —au 6a;e1 pue¢pm p'¢Sea l ueo¢ail llueq aql w noypm empn auc-3auis p s,y uRal¢ q 0[3 162 an 6 ql 9u!m ldm p -�o le�lolungl m sa0nemsseslaem PF n, ea,•u.mwo. IIS I— aq pies puel,1eo}o saU,s - ylaglayy I!alA9 q, pu ni-j!suig,ij iqsi oqv EI 9 6L61'9Z'npfI 'aunquy aqy.: i III THE BOA-RD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIF CRvLk In the Matter of Public } Hearing on Proposed Local ) April 13, 1976' Transit System. ) This being the time fixed for public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed local public .transit system policy, -and- the olicy, andthe following persons, representing various cities and groups, having appeared in support of said transit system: Mrs. Louise Giersch, Vice Chairman, Metropolitan Transportation Commission; Mr. Michael Corey, Vice Mayor, Moraga; 1,1r. James B. Lubin, Orinda Association; Mr. James Alkire, Mayor, Pleasant Hill; Mr. Edward Schilling, City of Concord; Pairs. Ernestine DeFalco, League of Women Voters, Diablo Valley; .and Mr. William Baker, Executive Vice P.res.ident, Contra Co sta ` Taxpayers` Association, having appeared in opposition to the plan, stated that before spending money for a transit system, it should be first determined whether people would ride buses and the cost to be borne by the taxpayer; and Supervisor J. E. Moriarty having stated that he has the sump reservations as Mr. Baker in that local public transit will not be self--supporting and will have to be subsidized by property tares, but added that the County should assist by providing the necessary local matching requirements to initiate the . system so that -the public may be able to determine whether the use and benefits will justify the cost, and that residents would then have ,an oppor- tunity to vote on providing the necessary funds with County support to be limited to two years; and Supe„risor E. A. Linscheid having stated that he, too, has some misgivings concerning the success of local public transit systems and warned that once implemented this service will be difficult--to terminate; and The Board having discussed the matter and the folloTaing resolution was thereupon adopted: IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Local. Public } Transit Policy ) RESOLUTION NO. 76/319 - The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT,: Because of countywide interest in implementing local.- transit, together �•rith the demand for an alternative to the use of the private automobile and in keeping with the national interest concerning.'energy conservation, the following local transit policy is adopted: LOCAL TRANSIT POLICY I. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is ;to outline County financial participation in initial implementation of local transit in the unincorporated area. It is .the -intention of the Board of Supervisors to consider providing from County sales tax revenues or other revenue sources other, than property taxes, funds to optimize the use of Federal Urban Mass Transportation Agency and Transportation Development Act funds for a limited period of time to permit the operation of a dem- onstration transit system to be financed locally on a continuing basis in conjunction with other Federal and State funds. II_ GENERAL CONDITIONS Before the Board of Supervisors considers interim County financing of the local transit system, it must be determined that a need exists and there must be a clear expression by the community that it desires initiating transit service with the understanding that continuation of the local transit service on a long-term basis is contingent upon establishing a source of on-going, adequate financing, exclusive of County funds, by the area of benefit.. Long-term financial arrange- ments to be considered shall include establishment of a local public entity with taxing powers authorized by a ballot measure. County financial participation shall be limited to a period of two fiscal years. During this period an arrangement for .an assured, on-going source of adequate financing of the system through a public entity comprised of the local area of benefit must be established. If the transit system serves both incorporated and unincorporated areas, County interim financial participation shall be commensurate with the city participation,. The County's pro-rata share shall be equivalent to cities' share as measured by such criteria as cost per capita, area served, route miles and headways. County interim funding shall be limited to local matching require- ments necessary to utilize-all available Urban Mass Transportation Auency (Chapters III and V) and Transportation Development Act funds, for providinq service at a reasonable service level. . If establishment of a local public entity with taxing authority is presented to the electorate and rejected, and other financial arrangements cannot be accomplished, steps will be initiated to terminate further County interim financial assistance. RESOLUTION NO. 76/310, In keeping with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Regional Transportation Plan, the County will encourage the extension of existing systems and the consolidation of local systems, so as to provide maximum efficiency and service.. Participation in alternative transportation such as demand responsive service, subsidized private carriers, special demonstration projects, and other programs may be considered if speci4l` circumstances show such participation to be desirable. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Board on April 13, 1976• CERTIFIED COPY I certify that this is a foil, true fi correct copy of thn 0:1:74nq: flo-::'--^t which is on file in my office, by the Board of . t ( - (,�<ta :bun:v. California, o❑ }',�o r;•.'. -i. .-r" J. ft. OI..;30N. County. - - C[::rk ez c:'cf:c;o Cic.ko:said Doard of SuperCis Drs. by DepctY Clerk. - . .�lp- t;=yian RP Phi " 1676 Ronda) nn Shackles cc: Public Works Director Director of Planning County Auditor-Controller County Administrator i RESOLUTION NO. 76/319 L l Council Oppose�s; :- ' Fare Proposal MORAGA—A proposed, "fare guidelines"resolution pending before the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has drawn opposition from the Moraga Town Council. The MTC plan would 'require transit systems in the nine-county M Bay Area region to pay 35 per cent of their operating costs from operat- ing revenues. Paul E. Kilkenny,assistant public works director in charge of transpor- tation planning for Contra Costa County, wrote that the MTC resolu- tion could have significant effects on the operation of local transit in sub- urban and semirural sections. l a-177 . i 1 r i l .r PO Wednesday, Sept. 20, 1978 ; Ful M_ on CCs Transportation Hodge-Podge .Lesher News Bureau "The transportation pie- gess, adding that despite a ly.integrated. MARTINEZ —,'County Lure in the county.is gettingWNhigh jlevel ofk%vmiaes, the Boggess an the supervisors and Bay area more muddled," 'aid Bog} di'fferestems afire-poorM _fo um Tuesday.: transportation officials will hoYd a special forum on methods`of public transpor- t tion, in Contra Costa on Oct.7. The forum will be held at i °-7:30 p.m. in Concord at the s` Contra Costa County Water Disiket headquarters, 1331 Concord Ave. Solutions to "our al- '' most-emergency transpor- tation situation in the.,, county" willbe explored, according to Supervisor } Warren Boggess, Concord, one of the meeting's organ- hers. i - 4L f . Thurs., Nov, 3, 1977 ECC 15 MTC - Takes Over, Locd sub, RI Fu' n , Nfflg i As anticipated, the Metropolitan Transporta-tion Commission has agreed to completely fi- nance local transit systems in Contra Costa Coun- ty from two to four years, depending upon when the buses first started rolling. Until yesterday MTC was funding 75 percent of the total cost of local bus systems with federal Transportation Development Act funds, with the rest coming from local sources. The new policy takes effect next July 1. Getting at least,t_wo years of total funding will be bus systems in Concord and Pleasant Hill and the line linking Orinda.and Moraga. Tri-Delta Transit, which serves Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood and other parts of eastern 1 i Contra Costa, is eligible for three years of com- plete funding. i The county's newest system, the Western Contra Costa Transit Authority, whose buses are 4 not even running yet, will get.four years funding. ; t But after their total funding periods run out, ) k directors of the various systems are going to have t to come up with plans for local financing. a c w o j6022 L a c 611DA Male ova- -ag 'Elam 'E3� �� E c�❑ E' 3 F�3 ¢o S Seo C m ro my J A n v� E S � � _ m a3 4� aS 900' II wvo= _ _ _ a,E o'3lE .cc .E z� w PMv U_m F m ❑ E 30'-E­_E 4. _ E 1,Qq"wqngy c E 4 -E v'$ a o E o F h 3 S oJf 02.0 UNIT 012Q, 3W E E 3 - 0 8 m ❑- H F m �M 3 _ 4- 3 _ a A Ea Fac.-. ac-E�> .-tea m„m'�'�ni ..„„„ Emo�',a` Eq A "g ( ® - m=oo wam E❑ 9E ” E 9 T"W­E' ” ;c Adak ® caE aE pF.E 4 a ;4 0 . E 3Milan 1 1. h - c F m v t ® m m. F,OU a E E m ' -E. Ev n,. L m E �a m.m mF 4 ''Ev E o use mg. Ax c v 3 w S E N¢ o Ply!,� E c .3 3 j - II a�5d mEmFF = E a, F EE oIMAM � MEN 3v„ Em c� F III `^y 3-m vsu Eao o� '> wEaE�3�,o ac7« WEc.GA V 12 3 �F, �l E - E 3 3 7^ 4 _ c� > { u E �E 9.12 z b 4m° E EH J LK @ ' . , QVIAIna "HwAx” MET-- -- E — F w ' O MEN a-1 tools 1 m 4 ' 02 a .E 12 US-4E f ` h E w ;r i - s ❑ F Q F E F�Ev �# a s � Ea eas Esq >Uvc ' SS - E 3� l S �t _ E MCI: E Fm " If � � �! - S= Sm -y F ENV fu :Nms aNdOn U:_. inE - - 8 �3eEm��e ;. '%a E w 3' f ®EEE - 2 ofBEEN c�4 v - E E - «�� r� Zips! "c a ao E in, E 4 Alegi me m. 4 c - c 3 1"i E E o e v» qF Ems ; c E �wE 3 qa 3. ny w vT a o my y g¢ Ew Umby! 1:22K °� cac a` q am c v of E Him, Ec°5'E <. I MW E M _ E 3 - i ¢ E E « - a cE E c co F3 E v o v Ec AA 8 E3q ;F.ft w .. r Mai m v i a L E v Eo E°- 3 ® S c U o0.x Esc a SFE a3-�� E -g= 3 a -acs= cx 3 �y �E ERu 'aE.72 2 6/ E _ �,E..ta 3 3 L ® M � � ...¢ .� �Eo E 3 S v sE .semEcS Y� E d 3 m�.. �3� - a Z2 E 3E 3 ao #: dei Iz 3 tE 2 L E E3� E _ CO Mo > r 3 � � ti E 6 n ° U h _ ..aQo Ed= o w 3q E E 3 E o: E m Ew E'T. : c E Sv E z= E U U V `03[-. '3 - a' .. 1 RECEIVED OCT Is 1.982 CLERK BOARD O SUP(;RViSORS CO�+t COSTA CO- B - CJa u Crain & Associates, 2 ' MARTINEZ LINK: CONSULTANT'S PROPOSAL FOR A NEEDED BUS LINE 1 .. Final Report August 1982 tPrepared by: Peretz Wittman, John Crain and Patricia Moix ' Crain & Associates, Inc. Los Altos, California ' Prepared For: ' West Contra Costa Transit Authority 1 f ITABLE OF CONTENTS tSection Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . i.ii 1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. 1 The Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. 2 The Consultant's Task. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. 3 Geography. 3 1. 4 About this Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. EXISTING SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2. 1 AMTRAK Rail Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2. 2 BART Express Bus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2. 3 Greyhound. • . • • • • . . • s . . • . . . • 14 2. 4 West Contra Costa Transit Authority (.WestCAT) . . . 15 ' 2, 5 East Contra Costa TransitAuthority (TRI DELTA) . . . 15 2. 6 Paratransit Operators. • • . . . 16 2.7 United Council of Spanish Speaking Organizations: . lg 2. 8 The Informal Trip. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2. 9 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3. TRAVEL DEMAND ESTIMATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1 3. 1 Overview and Approach. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . : . 21 3. 2 Community Input. 21 3. 3 Trip Purposes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3. 4 Special Needs Group, 24 3. 5 Commuters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3. 6 Trip Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4 . ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . 35 4 . 1 Criteria and Their Justification .. . . . . . . . . 35 4. 2 Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 ' 4. 3 The Recommended Solution • • • • . • • • • . . . . 40 4. 4 Justification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 5. ODESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 1 Service Plan. 43 Fixed Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 ' Stops and Feeder Services. . 54 Schedule of Service. 57 Fare Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 1 Requirements for Personnel and Equipment. . . 60 Maintenance Program. • . • 61 Supporting Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Farebox Recovery Requirements. . . . . . . . . 63 ' Promotional Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Cost Estimate. . . • • • . . . • . • • - • . 65 6. CONCLUSIONS • • • • • • • . . • . • • . • . . • • . . . 69 Appendix A. Mailing List of ContactPersonsandAgencies for The Martinez Link. • • . . . A-1 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (,cont. ) , Appendix per_ B. Memo: Public Transportation to Martinez for East and West Contra Costa County. . . . . . . . B-1 C. Methodology for Determining Transportation Handicapped. .. . 0-1 D. Memo: "The -Martinez Connection Public Transportation To Martinez for East and West County. , . . D-1 ' LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure ' 1-1 Population Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2-1 Existing Service Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ' 2-2 Existing. Direct Lines to Martinez. _ . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2-3 Transfer Connections to Martinez. . . . . . . . . . 12 3-1 Population Estimates for the Target Group. . 28 ' 5-1 Complete Route of the Martinez Link . . . . . . . . 44 5-.2 Routing Through Richmond, San .Pablo With Alternatives. . 49 5-3 Routing Through Pinole, Hercules. . . . . . . 50 5-4 Routing. Through Martinez. . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 5-5 Routing Through Pittsburg.. . .. . . . . . . . . 52 5-6 Routing Through Antioch. . . . . .53 Table . 2-1 Train Service Between Martinez and Riichmond_.---: .13 2-2 Levels of Patronage of Existing Transit Services. . . . . . 19 3-1 Trip Purposes for Martinez Link. . . . . . . . . . . .23 3-2 Geographic Distribution of Special Needs Group. . . . . . 26 3-3 Estimated Number of Monthly Trips for the Special NeedsGroup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 3-4 Monthly Trips to Martinez . . . . . . . .3.2 4-1 List of the Criteria to Be Used in t:he Design of the Martinez Link. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 4-2 Number of Persons Responding to Criteria. . . . . .36 , 4-3 Alternatives Considered., . . . . . . . .38 5-1 List of Stop Locations. . . . :45 5-2 Operating Characteristics: Distance and .Journey Time. . .48 5-3 Three West .Side Altenatives' From Hilltop Mall to Richmond AMTRAK/BART. . . . . .55 5-4 Scheduling of Service. . . . . . . . . . . .59 i i '. ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The Martinez Link is . a response to the urgent ' need to provide in Contra Costa County a public transit service to Martinez from east and west county. This need exists because .there is at present no direct and effective cross-county ' connection between the county seat and the eastern and western parts of the county, des- pite the fact that these two parts of the county ' contain 45% of the county' s population. • The existing transit services do not currently ' provide the Martinez Link despite the large number of operators: two are national carriers (AMTRAK and Greyhound) , one is regional (BART) , two are county transit authorities, one is a 1 paratransit service only for medical trips, others are smaller paratransit services at the municipal level, and last is the informal net- work of paying a friend for a lift. • Trip purposes as identified by the consultants relying on community input include four cate- gories: judicial, other personal business at government offices, medical , and commute to work_. ' • The Martinez Link will provide direct and im- mediate benefits to two specific groups of people ' within the general population. First are those who have special needs because their mobility is restricted by a handicap, by poverty, or by age; ' second are those who need to commute to work on a daily basis. • The total number of riders estimated by. consul- ' tants as likely to use the service is between 650 and 350 riders per day. Given the trends for increasing urbanization in and around Martinez and the developing local interest in ridesharing, it is anticipated that this number will increase as travel behavior adapts to the new service and its benefits. 1 iii • The design criteria for the Martinez Link -include nine items : one .of the three general , considerations is that the service must accommodate all passengers; one of the six technical considerations is that the service ' must provide satisfactory arrival and depar- ture times to and from Martinez. • Seven different alternatives were considered ' to be possible ways of providing the Martinez Link. Two were not suitable, four. were con- ' sidered suitable as supplementary carriers., and one--the fixed-route bus line--was adopted as the principal carrier. •, The Martinez Link bus Eine runs on a fixed ' route through the areas of greatest need in order to maximize access and has a limited number of stops in each location to maximize travel speed. The location of the stops allows transfers to other local transit operations. , • The Martinez Link bus line provides fast service to Martinez by use of the freeways wherever possible. • The service will be accessible to handicapped persons. one of the 4 . 5 carriers, the elderly , and handicapped dial-a-ride systems, will provide service from the handicapped rider' s home. to one of the accessible bus stops. There he/she will ' board the bus, using a lift if necessary, and ride to an accessible stop in Martinez. • The two service schedules include a base run I throughout the day with 96 minute headways and a commuter run for morning and afternoon , trips to and from work. • It is anticipated that the Martinez Link will act as a starter service for new employees who ' later may develop other ridesharing arrangements like car- or vanpooling. • Two supporting transportation .services are iden- tified- the ridesharing program of car-- and van- pooling administered by RIDES for the Bay Area, Inc. and the AMTRAK service from downtown Richmond to ' downtown Martinez. We propose a user-side subsidy discount mechanism to provide low cost rail trips from Richmond. ' iv ' it is recommended that any one of the three existing county transit authorities (WestCAT, CCTA, or Tri- Delta) be the transit agency responsible for pro- vision of service and that a private carrier be con- tracted to run the daily service. Any of the existing operators currently involved in providing medical, school, or general public transportation trips could be considered as a possible operator of the Martinez Link. • The promotional plan includes three elements : the information which would be available to the public, suggestion of a brochure to. explain about the Martinez Link service, and a proposal for a campaign to maximize the outreach to attrach public attention. ' • The estimated maximum annual subsidy cost of the Martinez Link is $273 , 500 (.1982 dollars) . This includes the cost of operating the vehicles, hiring the drivers, providing a user side subsidy for the supporting program, and a modest amount ' for the promotional plan. • The proposed fare structure is an adult one-way ' fare of 75� . The fare for seniors and handicapped is 500 of the adult fare. • It is estimated that the farebox recovery will be higher than the loo now obtained on the special E&H services but less than the BART and AC Transit levels. ' This consultant's report is a basis for final decision making by the Metropolitan Transporta- tion Commission, the county transit authorities, and agencies about the speedy implementation of the Martinez Link proposal. It is anticipated that these agencies will work closely with com- munity groups and other interested persons to ensure close cooperation bet�aeen the suppliers of the Martinez Link and its potential users . A final agreement about funding sources and other details mentioned in this report is needed nuickly. v t t 1 , INTRODUCTIOfd 1 1 THE PROBLEM ' There is in Contra Costa County a serious and immediate problem with public transportation. The problem is that Contra Costa, although a single county, has three distinct geographic areas--east, central and west--with little or no ' public transportation serivice connecting the three areas. There is an immediate need to remedy the lack of direct t connection between east and west county and Martinez, the county seat. There is no convenient and direct access by public transportation from these ends of the county to the tcounty seat, and there should be. As an example, a recent case of litigat-ion found that the composition of juries in ' the county was such that a trial by peers was not occurring. It is believed by cognizant officials that the lack of con- venient and direct public transportation is a central problem, although there is no data supporting this belief . ' Until now, the issue of public access to county facilities had been handled at a level lower than that of county-wide ' access. In many cases, county agencies and developed ad hoc arrangements to provide their clients with transportation to and from certain county services. With the consideration of ' the Martinez Link, it will now be possible to upgrade these ad hoc arrangements into a county-level system of direct ser- vice from the more distant parts of the county to Martinez. t 1, 2 THE CONSULTANT'S TASK: This study was undertaken by Crain & Associates at the trequest of Western Contra Costa County Transit Authority (WestCAT) . The two major purposes of the study were: first, tto identify the specific transit market which may require public t t 1 transportation service to and from east and west county to the ' county seat in Martinez; and second, to identify the specific type of transit services required to meet the transit needs of ' these communities. Together with these two major purposes, the consultants were asked to identify the existing services which are available to residents living in east and west county and which might be up- graded to become the transportation link between these areas and Martinez: In identifying these services, the consultants were to ' consider operational components such as frequency, cost to users, and eligibility requirements, if applicable. An unmet needs an- alysis was requested to assess the magnitude of the demand, identify primary. traffic generators, and specify when these needs occur. WestCAT also requested consideration of a series of alternatives, ' identification of low-cost transit service improvements aimed at addressing the specific needs, and a plan to show operational and , cost estimates to support the recommended proposal. In fulfilling these requests, the consultants have considered , the full range of data sources. These include general ones 'like analysis of census material, reviews of professional literature, , and interviews with officials familiar with the nroblems outlined above, as well as local sources like special surveys and site visits. There was an emphasis on collecting data about travel needs from , those persons and agencies closely associated with the local com- munities and therefore aware of- the general nature as well as the , specific problems associated with transit need. Along with a brief review of the layout and population ' distribution of Contra Costa County, this study has four major parts: first is the identification of the existing services (see Chapter 2) ; second is the analysis of data gathered to assess the magnitude of the demand which currently exists ineast and west county for services to and from Martinez (.see Chapter 3) ; third is the consideration of the alternatives available and the proposal of a service design likely to meet the identified needs, with the , 2 ' attendant supporting information to justify the proposal (see Chapter 4) ; and finally, the appropriate service design presented ' in sufficient detail to allow decision making about the levels of implementation and the mechanics needed to bring the proposal to ' fruition (see Chapter 5) . 1,3 GEOGRAPHY Contra Costa County is one of the nine Bay Area Counties and stretches from the Bay itself to the eastern mountains. The geo- graphical layout of the county (see Figure 1. 1) is an important feature in the interaction of the county activities and provides a ' partial explanation for the current lack of a strong link between Martinez as the county seat and the east and west county. There ' are three distinct parts to the county: east, central, and west county, located as their names imply. For purposes of this study, central county ' s importance 'Lies in the fact that Martinez is there, along the northern edge of Contra Costa County, on the southern side ' of the Benicia-Martinez Bridge. As a city, Martinez is one of the smaller places in the county, having a population of about 22, 000, an urban zone population of ' abort 33, 000, and a retail shopping zone area population of about 85, 000 . The city's principal attractions for the residents of east ' and west county are in its role as seat of the local government and focus for much local administration, politics, and county-level activities. In fact, Martinez was declared the county seat in 1850, at the same time that the first legislature passed the act ' which created the first 27 counties in California_ Contra Costa County was created a county at the sane time. For the last 130 years Martinez has been the county seat (.reference: Contra Costa County, draft Environmental Impact Report on the County Detention Facility, February 1977, pages 186-87) . Central county, of which ' Martinez is a part, includes the bulk of the population, about 355, 191 persons (1980 census) or about 55% of the county 's total ' 3 i o-co ti ii Cl V J i ! i o N O F � H h M a a o O ttN ti 1 O toCC N t ,� p / JC?J2- r- r r04 R ` i w Lo or. cc�, rcc W WN . UN T 4 � O 'mss •F. y, co c li population. For the most part, central county transportation is of ' a very high standard and provides a strong central axis of commuta- tion. The transit authority there is the Central Contra Costa ' Transit Authority, a recently formed administrative unit whose component parts had once been autonomous--city transit agencies for ' Walnut Creek, Concord, and other cities in central county. The new transit authority includes Martinez in its service area, but no parts of east and west county. The connections which would enable ' a passenger to get to Martinez from these areas is involved and time consuming. ' East County has a total population of about 111 ,700 persons (1980 census) and includes the cities of Pittsburg (32 , 600) , ' Antioch (42 ,200) , Brentwood (4 ,400) , and the unincorporated communi- ties of West Pittsburg, Oakley, Knightsen, Byron, and others. This ' part of Contra Costa County is characterized by small urban communi- ties and largely rural , farm areas. The population density is low, ' although there are signs of new house-building and growth. The area has a considerable number of persons who are elderly, handi- capped, or living quite near the poverty line. A major feature of ' east county is the mountain range which separates it from central county and Martinez . This range includes Mt. Diablo and acts as a barrier to generally easy movement between the east county area and the rest of Contra Costa County. There are two main transit ' operators working in the area. First is the local one, the Eastern Contra Costa County Transit Authority (Tri-Delta) , which runs two ' types of services--a fixed route series of schedules and a dial-a- ride service. Second is a more regional one, the BART Express Bus ' service, which has as its main goal feeding the BART train service from Concord. The BART Bus service has developed a strong local orientation, and BART system managers are eager to pass the responsi-bility for the local elements of the service back to the local operators. This has an impact on the Martinez Link in that the ' current way into Martinez from the Tri-Delta area involves the use of the BART Express Bus and a transfer at the Concord Bart Rail ' Station. One . of the objectives of the Martinez Link will be to ' 5 shorten the route between the Tri-Delta area and Martinez. On the ' basis of the evidence gathered so far, the general consensus is that the existing transit connections between the east county and Martinez , are possible, but neither efficient nor desirable. A direct link would solve many problems. West County has a total population of about 183 ,200 persons , (1980) and includes the cities of Richmond (74 ,200) , El Cerrito (22, 700) , San Pablo (19 ,700) to the south and the cities of Pinole ' (14 , 000) and Hercules (5, 900) to the north., In addition,, there are several populous unincorporated parts of west county which produce , additional demands for travel. In general, the southern part of west county is heavily urbanized and relatively poor; while the , northern part is more suburban with slightly higher income. In terms of .transit operations, the southern part of west county is serviced by AC Transit, the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, , which includes large parts of the southern area -in its basic route structure. AC Transit does run contract services into the northern ' parts of west county, but the general orientation of these lines is north-south. The northern part of west county is served by the Western Contra Costa Transit Authority (WestCAT) , which also oper- ates a dial-a-ride service. WestCAT operates a van service into ' Martinez for the residents in its service area and has maintained a long-time interest in promoting and implementing the Martinez ' Link. The current van service is a modest venture, but. it does illustrate the need for such a direct service from all parts of west county. One current option for a person living in Richmond ' who wishes to travel to Martinez is to take the bus to the BART train, then to take the train from Richmond to Concord. via a change ' in trains at MacArthur Station in Oakland, and then to take the . BART Express .bus (either the M or D line) into Martinez. This , journey can take up to three hours; and it has to be repeated on the homeward. journey. Another option is •to use the AMTRAK re- '. gional service which stops- at both Richmond and Martinez, on an infrequent schedule. . 6 ' 1.4 ABOUT THIS REPORT In the next chapter we look at the types of existing transpor- tation services between east and west county and Martinez. There ' are several ways of going to Martinez by public transportation, but, as will become clear, they do not answer the needs for this ' particular trip because either they are so indirect as to create a large time barrier or they are small parts of a long-haul run operated by a regional or national carrier. In neither case does the Martinez Link exist for local Contra Costa County residents. In subsequent chapters, the discussion focuses on estimating ' travel demands, identifying potential users and trip purposes , then on the different ways of meeting these demands, along with the jus- tification for choosing the recommended alternative. Last, there is a discussion about the proposed Martinez Link and its detailed ' programs--the new service characteristics and components. By way of conclusion, there is a comment about the sort of organizational support for the new service likely to arise from community and local governmental groups. ' 7 2, EXISTING SERVICES This chapter gives a brief overview of each of the existing ' public transportation options currently available to those who want to travel from east and west county to Martinez for a variety ' of trip purposes. In describing each option, seven aspects of service were considered key: 1) the directness of the route to ' Martinez and the frequency of intermediate stops; 2) frequency of service sufficient to allow a relatively convenient choice of travel times; 3) reliable service; 4) reasonable fare; 5) well ' located origin and destination stations; 6) vehicle accessibility and quality of ride; 7) barriers to improving service if it is ' partial. Figures 2. 1, 2. 2, and 2.3 show existing services. ' 2,1 AMTRAK RAIL SERVICE ' There is a direct rail connection between Martinez and Richmond which includes a passenger service of five trains per day. Although. ' the existing service does not include local stations east of Mar- tinez , there are tracks to both Pittsburg and Antioch. Although ' there are promising elements to the Richmond-Martinez service, there are also some problems. The promise lies in the location. of the t stations in Richmond and in Martinez ; in both places, the stations are well located for their service areas and are easily reachable by those who would want to travel. In terms of trip characteristics ' the train trip would be acceptable for almost everyone wishing to travel, and travel time is a scheduled 30 minutes. ' However, there are some serious problems. First is that neither Richmond nor Martinez station is accessible for handicapped persons; ' both stations would need to be fitted with wheelchair ramps. Although the Martinez station is manned and there are train personnel on ' 9 W t tt� �Js1 t ■� C cc At 10 cc s y lti Q � 1 a O J J N W W W ) In G ' Ew O .i U J % r-i a ,•� F N N ' U N O 1I In � ' U •I O N 2 $ U F o a a a z t7 D ' 14 O H U �_ U [� 4-4 ri fU�I w W ? IV ') H U N w to •.i H 41 +� O x O In >; lU LU a LU 1 V z 1 � . S a 1 W z � z F / :E _ ar L W 1 cc LU LU D m m w z W W y N J le CO' v U w ww O a a s a :V), X U / Y F W W W m j(1 / a U m Q ~ u !Y Q M W F- w07 m m O O I 1 W I �0 ( I I \ I 1 1 � •O O Z W O z l7 Z m � �QQ = m a U 2 ' 11 N ' F�"s` :n'h a Travis 3 Fairfield "y �� Air Force Base ►roma m OVN apar aP GREYHOUND Y rL ' .A `"`s fr f •4.f r� -w�.''�"Zt Rio ' Wallejo Vista` Benicia v,` i; � �` `x'✓ '? .�.-„ . ' '.� "” ,:w,. �'�_- To- ftft v �, r Crockett ; SPi u Rodeo �:' = �iAntlOCh ., „Martinez BART EXPRESS Oz �}. ,u �He�cules 6U5 - -,-,.,Pinole bakley� �` P t Cotacord {.Richmond BART TRAIN SERVICEfi TRI-DELTA 'S BART EXPRESS rritoPieasant Hill C' Brentwood " � Abba Walnut Creek TO sto -Berkeley Lafa ette tM -. v Alamo Onnda GREYHOUND �.* Moraga Danville t `• �. CONTRA COSTA ALAMEDA ' FIGURE 2-3 . TRANSFER CONNECTIONS TO MARTINEZ the train, Richmond station has no agent at this time. Another problem is that the fare level ($4. 55 one way) probably represents an economic rate and would be too high for the type of ridership which would use the Martinez Link. In a general sense, these problems are relatively minor, but a third problem which is more serious is the train schedule, shown in Table 2-1. ' TABLE 2-1. " TRAIN SERVICE BETWEEN MARTINEZ AND RICHMOND Richmond to Martinez Martinez to Richmond ' ---- A. 7 : 09 AM (11) 1. 7 :27 AM (18) ---- ' 2. 7 : 57 AM (708) ---- ---- B. 11 :45 AM (711) 3. 1: 17 PM (6) ---- ---- C. 2 :16 PM (5) ' 4. 457 PM (710) ---- D. 8 : 33 PM (15) ' 5. 9 : 02 PM (14) E. 9 : 15 PM (709) Source. AMTRAK timetable for West Coast routes , to October 30, 1982. Numbers in parentheses are train numbers. ' As is clear from the schedule in Table 2-1, the train ' schedule works reasonably well in the morning from Richmond to Martinez , with the 7 :27 and 7 :57 arriving in Martinez in good time ' for the opening of an office day. The mid-day schedule is weak , with a return train (Martinez to Richmond) at 11 :45 AM and one at 2 : 16 PM; and although the 1 :17 PM (Richmond to Martinez) is a good ' one for an afternoon in Martinez , there is no train returning until 8 : 33 PM. The last three trains are not usable for the Martinez ' Link because they are too late in the evening. There is a possible Martinez-Richmond commuter run in that the 7 :09 AM would arrive in ' Richmond at 7 : 39 AM, and a commuter would be able to return by train on the 4 :57 PM. The possibility of improving this level of service ' is discussed in the chapter on alternatives (see Chapter 4) . ' 13 i 2,2 BART EXPRESS BUS The BART express bus system is designed as a feeder to the BART train service from Concord. It is, however, used for local , transportation in east county and can be used to make connections to Martinez.. To do this , one must. catch the P or Px bus out of :east county into Concord. Out of Concord, the BART M line services Martinez. According to the BART schedule, the P bus actually be- comes the M bus out of Concord. So in most cases we are looking at a trip which does not require a transfer in Concord. it does , however, require time. With on-time perfect connections, the trip i can be made in one and one-half hours. . Use of the BART system from west county is a good deal more , complicated. The user must catch a local AC transit bus to the BART train station in Richmond. That train will take him/her to ' Concord via a change in trains at MacArthur Station in Oakland. From Concord, the BART bus service will complete the trip into ' Martinez. This trip can take up to three hours. The BART service does provide convenient scheduling,. accessible ' and comfortable vehicles. The greatest drawback is the travel time involved--three to six hours round trip depending upon origin. 2, 3 GREYHOUND ' The Greyhound Bus Lines do provide service between Antioch in east county and Martinez , but the schedule would meet only limited ' needs. To travel from Antioch to Martinez , one leaves Antioch at 4 : 40 PM arriving in Martinez at 5 :20. Traveling the opposite ' direction, a bus leaves Martinez for Antioch at 10 : 00. AM. There is no direct route from west county to Martinez by , ' Greyhound. One could travel to Oakland and catch an 8 :35 AM bus which reaches Martinez shortly before 10.:00. These one-way-per-day possibilities are stops on the Greyhound , Oakland to Sacramento route. 14 , 2,4 WEST CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (WESTCAT) WestCAT provides transit service to the northern portion of west county which includes the cities of Hercules and Pinole as ' well as surrounding unincorporated areas. In addition to providing service within west county, WestCAT operates one accessible van providing service to the general public between the WestCAT service area and Martinez. The van operates only when service has been re- quested, on a schedule which provides up to four daily round trips, ' Monday through Friday. Any rider may request transportation from any point in the WestCAT service area and may be taken to any destination in Martinez. Base fare for this service is $1. 00; seniors and handicapped persons ride for half fare. ' As a temporary measure, in response to the problem of lack of access to Martinez , WestCAT in April 1982 extended the Martinez van ' service to the Richmond area on a limited basis. Riders from Rich- mond must meet the van at 37th and MacDonald or at Hilltop Mall. This service is funded until the end of 1982 as a stopgap measure ' until a permanent west county-to-Martinez link is established. Ridership on the Martinez run averaged 382 persons per month ' for the first five months of 1982. Since its beginning in October 1980 , the service has averaged 367 persons per month. ' WestCAT provides good quality service with accessible vans and reasonable fares. However, excluding the temporary Richmond service, ' it links only the northern portion of West County to Martinez. 2 ; 5 EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (TRI DELTA) ' Tri Delta serves all of. east county from Brentwood to Shore Acres with a combination system of fixed route and dial-a-ride service. While their scheduling in itself would not be judged con- venient, it must be noted that they act in cooperation with the BART feeder bus system which also serves east county. The combination ' of these systems provides a relatively convenient service. Tri Delta operates accessible vehicles with reasonable fare rates. No 15 service is provided beyond east county service area, thus Tri Delta service is not an option for reaching Martinez. It is a ' possible first leg of a trip from which one can transfer to the BART feeder bus system .and follow the route described previously ' in the section on .BART service. ,2,6 PARATRANSIT OPERATORS ' EAST COUNTY The major provider of paratransit service in east county is ' East Contra Costa Transit Authority (Tri Delta) . As in west county, ' rural areas are served by dial-a-ride service which is open to both transportation handicapped and the general public. In the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg, the dial-a-ride system is open ' only to transportation handicapped. Fares are 50C one way door-to- door and 25� one way with free transfers to the fixed route For ' the same services, the general public .pays $1. 00 and 50G. Tri Delta' s service day is from 8 : 30 AM to 4 :30 PM, Monday through ' Friday. Reservations must be made 24 hours in advance. Special arrangements can be made to use dial-a-ride on holidays and weekends. , All vehicles are accessible. The City of Antioch operates an accessible van which provides dial-a-ride service in the city and some adjacent areas. Three days , a week service is provided in West Pittsburg, primarily to nutrition sites. Rides are prescheduled 24 hours in advance for service ' between 8 : 30 AM and 4 : 30 PM weekdays. Fare is not fixed, but is considered a donation by the user. ' While the combination of these two systems gives comprehensive service .to east county, the northwest limit, of service is Shore ' Acres. Thus a person needing to travel to Martinez must connect with the BART feeder bus system and travel via Concord to Martinez ' as described earlier in the chapter. 16 ' WEST COUNTY In west county, public paratransit providers include West Contra Costa Transit Authority (WestCAT) , the cities of Richmond, El Cerrito, and San Pablo. ' WestCAT service includes access to Martinez as has been des- cribed earlier in the chapter. In addition, the dial-a-ride service ' in Pinole, Hercules and northwestern unincorporated areas is avail- able to the transportation handicapped at half fare. This service, too, is described in the previous section. ' The City of Richmond provides two fixed route van services, a demand-responsive accessible van service, and a taxi subsidy pro- gram. Service is provided in the City of Richmond, San Pablo, E1 Sobrante, Kensington, and in adjacent unincorporated areas. While ' the Call-Cab and accessible van provide door to door service and an excellent choice of travel times for users (.24 hours, 7 day ' service) , cost of travel to Martinez by either means would prove prohibitive. ' The City of E1 Cerrito operates two accessible vans for elderly and handicapped residents of the city and serves adjacent areas to provide transportation for special programs. Rides are reserved ' between 8: 30 and 9 AM for same day service. Vans operate between 9 AM and 6 PM Monday through Friday. Fare is not fixed, but is a ' donation by the user. The City of San Pablo operates two vans, oneof which is ' accessible. Service is available between the hours of 9 : 30 AM and 3: 30 PM, with 24 hour reservation required. Tickets are used ' and are priced on a sliding scale. Service is within the city limits. Both the San Pablo and El Cerrito services adequately meet ' the needs to which they are addressed, but lack the ability to provide the Martinez link. ' 17 2, 7 UNITED COUNCIL OF SPANISH SPEAKING ORGANIZATIONS ' The United Council provides county-wide service under contract with the Contra Costa County. Health Department. This service is ' open to low income persons who need transportation between their homes and the county health facilities--clinics in east and west ' county and the county hospital in Martinez. Service hours are between 7 AM and 5 PM weekdays. Twenty-four hour advance notice is required for pick up. While the United Council does provide . ' convenient, good quality service, the vans are not accessible. Service is, moreover, not open to the general public, but limited , to clients of the county health program. 1 2, 8 THE INFORMAL TRIP ' In addition to the formal transit alternatives available for passage to Martinez , there is an informal system operating. This ' is the system in which neighbors or relatives who own an automobile agree to transport a person for a given sum of money. Ten to ' twelve dollars was quoted to us as the usual sum paid by Richmond residents. Undoubtedly similar arrangements exist in other areas ' of the county but we judge this informal transportation system as too expensive and/or unavailable to too many persons to be an adequate solution. ' 2,9 SUMMARY 1 Table 2-2 shows the levels of patronage on the existing transit ' services. It is possible for residents of west and east county to travel by some form of public transit to Martinez. However, all of ' the direct service is from the west, and it has severe limitations. The AMTRAK service from Richmond is too expensive and provides" no ' workable return trip; the WestCAT temporary van service will last -only through 1982 ; and the WestCAT service serves only the northern ' west `county. 18 ' Beyond this, all the other services are roundabout, taking ' two to three hours for each trip. The trip length and number of transfers are unacceptable for the vast majority of persons and ' present an impossible barrier to the handicapped and frail elderly. ' TABLE 2-2. LEVELS OF PATRONAGE ON EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES ' Number of Passengers Service Per day Per month 1. AMTRAK .passenger service 5 104 ' 2. BART Express Buses M line 85 1 ,776 ' D line 161 3, 347 3. Greyhound Bus n/a n/a ' 4. WestCAT 23 480 5. UCSSO 159 320 ' 6_. Informal trip n/a n/a Total number of passengers 433 6, 027 Notes: n/a = data not available. BART Express Buses are totals for each entire line. Tri Delta ridership is not included because there is no direct access to Martinez. 1 ' 19 3, TRAVEL DEMAND ESTIMATES °a 3.1 OVERVIEW AND APPROACH In the previous chapter, we saw how the existing transit services leave gaps in the supply of transit service to the county ' seat, Martinez, from the east and west ends of the county. In this chapter, we look more closely at the travel demands. Our in- tent is to define trip origins sufficiently to route service through neighborhoods of greatest need and, to the degree possible, estimate the numbers of person who might use the Martinez Link service. The material presented in this chapter includes (a) the process by which community input was obtained, - (b) the work on developing the understanding of the different trip purposes, (c) the analysis of the different subgroups within the general category of "special ' needs" group--that is, those whose access to Martinez is impaired by age, handicap, or poverty, and (d) the analysis of the numbers of commuters for whom improved access to Martinez might either draw them out of their cars or allow them the possibility of finding work in the growing local economy of the Martinez area. This is followed by a summary of all the trips from which the Martinez Link might ' draw its patronage. This summary provides a final quantification of the likely demands which the service would have to meet. 3,2 COMMUNITY INPUT In the process of developing this analysis, the consultant 1 relied heavily on local community group and official agency input. This included meetings, information provided by mail, and telephone conversations about trip needs, origin points and type of service 1 required. Initial communications produced several lists of names, 21 from which a master mailing list was established. The guiding principle in establishing this master list was that the person or agency on the list had special knowledge about the travel needs of a large group of people likely to have to travel to Martinez. The master list, shown in Appendix A, was used for- two mailings to receive input. The first mailing requested review of a master , list of trip purposes that the consultants believed the new service should address. Information was also solicited on residential areas ' most in need of service., the type of service needed, and the numbers- of umbersof trips that might be taken. A second mailing asked for comments on a preliminary list of criteria that would act as a guide to system design. 3,3 TRIP PURPOSES An important part of this study has been to develop an under= standing of the different trip purposes that would require or encourage a person to go to Martinez.. An initial version of the- trip purposes list was sent to the persons or agencies on the master mailing "list requesting their assistance in refining the trip purposes and providing base line information on numbers of trips. The cover letter and response form which accompanied the list are reproduced in Appendix B. Df the 44 questionnaires mailed out, 22 responses were re- ceived. Three letters were returned because the agency had moved ' or the office was closed, hence this represents a 54% return. Based on suggestions made in these responses, the trip purpose list was revised to the form contained in Table 3-1. This list shows four major trip purposes : 1) judicial, 2) other personal business at county offices, 3) health, and 4) employment. These are further divided into sub-purposes. 22 >i 0 n >44-) O 4-4 >1 -P •ri r4 Z aJ A Oa ' W r. X 0 0 0 x W U r7 i 4-) r-I rd ty) >~ 0 v 0 17)4J r. 4J ri -ri -,-I A -r1 -r1 r-I -cd 4J m -rt 0, -1 v -ri 4J r-i P.,•r4 --A O m ' x Q) � � Z rd •ri x � U:4 o 04 > u H U ' a NM N H F �4vmoro0 U ' In U rO rO En ro x U Q) m M rd tn' r. S 4 I:: v 1-1 U1 ►r 4 O r-I r, O v ' G4 -mi U Q.a •I-) Q) rd CQ rd rl -1-4 U) Q m -ri Q) aJ U "- aJ 1"i 4-) CU :5 4-4 Y4 N m •ri C �" cd IJ m 4-4 U .0 m U rtf >4 �A U) O N rl -r4 CT Z r-i 41 O ' W r-q m o ro 0 4-4 -1 C a m a cn 4v >1 4~ v o —1 O •ri •- �4 •ri m a o Z 4 o 4 0-rO4-) 04 4J CO >10 1~ a0 a OS� •ri U U S i v )-i -P.m -r1 � m a m � -J vri v o v 0 -r1 m F- r� b �-40 4b v �-4rdrl) 41 uvr (d +Pv ' a v U �-4 �4 -H m rd u m 2 R+ -P m ?i U 4 m UCO 1 O a P U) 44 -1.•1 •,-1 4-1 m •r1 �4 TLS rd N U •H 70 'C H U r-1 r-: W m C) r-I a) P 1J Q rd O a v �:5 4.4 O U ,Q 04 rd X M w v 0 1~ H W 033 00rO U �J 0 rd 4J rrr W H ' C4 U d 04 En M H 11) r1 r4 N M d' Lr) I ' M - W U� 4 4) ri I H r1 mz O mm m cid UO 104 �4 m M 44 m m +} A N 4-) O b) v N rd N v r1 �4 1a.4 >4 G N O m N m m b r. 04 0 v >1 ro N �4 It -P ra rd ro r4 0 o rd •r•1 E .Q �4r a v .-+ v ro v v 4-)v � U >i 4J �4 v o o 1-4 v �4 s~ ri r1 •ri �4 ro -P cn o ty) U) rC5 3 4S r-•I o m .,~ rd (1) o zs 4~ 0 :j 1~ E oa rO �4 v 0) >~ r4 S4 4 v CO �4 �4 Y4 :1 00 -W0 mv -r4Z � vri -W zro •ri (a o m 0 �4 r] U •ri m U 41 m rc3 74 rd U) -r-)ro •ri �4 •ri N 4J 4 3 >1 ro m 4-I v m >i 4) +J ~ N Z 4J -1 �.4 4-1 �i :� r- 1-4 .H is m r••1 v - 0) m -N 0) m 14 Z N m U 4 v s-..' 0 :� U 41 v O •ri 0 v —4 v m v Z 0)b rd r-I Z 1~ 0) 04 Z z tT 0.f v . . 4.) -ri 0 -r-I -J 4-4 T3 0 U m U U U rd 4-) a r-1 -r1 Z 0 �4 v v -r1 C �3 v -H 1.4 C Q) U -•-I all S4 fd '4 > :� sl 0 -H > m �Q r-i v m rd v F -1 -4 CO M U m -u m rd �4 . 04Z �CQ4mmm0f~ N -40rdU > - 4Q) --r4 > --4vNN -4 4 •lI >, r- •rivvU a, 0U :5 < FCFChU) r4QUPA --4Q % N p ;> E-4 RS r, a o (1) > xHa U C!) u U, h h h U Lrl U ri N rn Ln lD r- w m O r-1 23 The essential quality of the trips comes from their nature: ' frequently a person does not have the alternative of missing a court date; a person who is ill must go to a hospital. In considering the employment aspects, it was pointed out that. a person cannot get a job with union backing unless he or she is capable of presenting . him- or herself at the union hiring hall. If there is no .transit connection to enable a person to do this, he or, she cannot get the , job. To some extent, these trip purposes are being met through existing services, but on an extremely informal and haphazard basis. In the case of the judicial trips, the lawyers, public defenders, and others are arranging for transportation on an ad hoc basis , which , involves private vehicles, costly travel, and much single-purpose trip making. For example, the district attorney' s office .has several , persons who spend a considerable amount of time providing transpor- tation for victims and their families. , Certain county offices, for example,. -those concerned with the care of the aging, have become deeply involved in transportation. ' Their institutional arrangements include several centralized facili- ties and the bringing of their clients to the service , rather than taking the service to their clients. , Information received in this mailing concerning the number of trips made for the several purposes is discussed in section 3 . 6 of ' this chapter. 3,4 SPECIAL NEEDS GROUP Within the general problem of public accessibility to Martinez , ' there is a particular problem of accessibility by a special needs group. This group includes (a) those who are handicapped with a physical disability and cannot drive, (b) those at or near the poverty line who do not own cars and do not drive, and (c) those who are elderly and too frail to drive. These people have .the same 24 1 ' need to get to Martinez as have other residents of Contra Costa County but with fewer resources to make the trip. The special ' needs group includes those persons without cars, driver' s licenses , or regular and immediate access to a car. Table 3-2 lists by county section and census tract the persons ' within each sub-group: transportation handicapped, poor and near poor, and elderly. In addition, it gives the unduplicated number 1 within the special needs group for each census tract and section. To determine the number of transportation handicapped, we used a ' method derived from previous work (reference : AC Transit Elderly and Handicapped Planning Study, 1977). The formula used and the ' theory underlying the formula are found in Appendix C. For those persons living at or near the poverty line , we used ' the number of households at that economic level listed in the 1974 census (latest available data) . We translated the number of house- holds into number of persons by multiplying households by 2 . 9. This is the average number of persons in a poor household in Contra Costa County according to the 1970 California census. ' For the elderly we used a 1980 census total for the county (data are not yet published by census tract) . We used the county ' wide figure as a control total and distributed it by census tract according to the 1975 census distribution. To the degree that the distribution shifted in 1980 , these figures will be in error. This ' approach, however, enables us to use a more current figure for the ' total and have a reasonably accurate distribution . Using the National Survey of Transportation Handicapped People , 1978 , we were able to determine the percentages of persons double- counted across sub-groups, to correct for this , and arrive at an unduplicated count for the special needs group. ' Scheduling of a Martinez Link must take into account the location of this special needs group within east and west county. Figure 3-1 shows the geographic location of this group by relative density. It is clear from the map that within east and west ' 25 TABLE 3-2. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIAL NEEDS GROUP ' Elderly Total Transportation Poor and Near 65+ Years Special Population Handicapped Poor (125% of 1980 Census Needs Census Tract 1980 Census (TH) Poverty Level) Control Total Group East County , 3010 2,665 236 608 665 1,241 3020 7,098 369 .1,846 963 2,771 3031 4,712 330 1,242 537 1,798 3032 3,422 200 592 374 970 3040 2,944 160 496 304 802 3050 5,241 ' 445 1,655 808 2,475 ' 3060 7,817 414 1,020 917 1,921 3071 8,211 440 1,387 711 2,.124 3072.01 2,986 91 197 97 308 ' 3072.02 2,569 78 169 . 83 263 3072.03 8,941 273 589 290 920 3060 6,734 .226 535 309 866 3090 3,510 608 1,496 630 2,220 ' 3100 3,244 899 1,152 804 2,116 3110 2,911 211 841 291 1,153 3120 1,384 118 475 14.5 634 , 3131.01 4,563 133 245 164 425 3131.02 1,696 50 91 61 158 3131.03 3,7.22 109 200 134 347 3132.01 5,348 224 814 263 1,107 3132.02 4,948 .207 753 243 1;023 3141 7,779 577 2,301 880 3,224 3142 4,658 224 798 279 1,104 ' 3551.01 2,083 88 130 219 342 3551.02 5.15 22 32 54 84 3551.03 2,012 85 125 211 329 ' (.12)3552 (10) 80 (0) 2 0 (0) 4 0 111,793 6,819 19,789 10,440 30,725 t 26 ' TABLE 3-2 (Cont'd) Elderly ' Total Transportation Poor and Near 65+ Years Special Population Handicapped Poor (125% of 1980 Census Needs Census Tract 1980 Census (TH) Poverty Level) Control Total Group ' West County 3560.01 3,761 124 248 171 431 (.33) 3560.02 (431) 1,306 (14) 43 (28) 86 (20) 60 (50) 152 ' 3570 2,914 273 907 594 1,492 3580 4,508 281 865 545 1,411 3591..01 3,511 120 262 169 442 3591.02 3,841 131 287 185 485 3592.01 5,948 139 137 115 278 3592.02 5,725 134 132 110 268 3601 5,354 ' 174 320 295 624 ' 3602 4,211 157 384 248 642 3610 3,561 124 218 252 469 3620 3,398 165 479 257 748 ' 3630 5,635 216 528 359 898 3640.01 4,715 135 243 148 411 3640.02 4,756 136 245 149 414 ' 3650.01 1,260 131 613 165 794 3650.02 3,331 347 1,621 435 2,097 3660 7,236 389 1,482 542 2,061 3671 5,573 164 333 138 501 ' 3672 3,058 147 507 209 730 3680 6,010 429 1,787 636 2,457 3690 6,706 567 1,743 1,313 3,024 ' 3700 2,782 158 413 390 790 3710 4,499 289 661 766 1,395 3720 5,507 343 959 786 1,727 ' 3730 2,669 166 532 321 854 3740 3,520 303 798 848 1,605 3750 2,733 215 862 373 1,244 3760 4,727 513 2,288 730 3,065 ' 3770 5,098 546 2,584 623 3,282 3780 2,082 140 462 231 701 3790 5,842 395 1.,738 538 2,316 ' 3800 2,506 276 1,453_ 169 1,684 3810 5,824 351 1,413 510 1,953 3820 7,731 315 1,190 292 1,536 ' 3830 4,411 275 719 636 1,339 3840 3,961 188 309 509 795 3851 2,310 85 61 242 291 3852 1,584 66 73 178 243 3860 2,175 117 307 287 585 3870 2,459 118 287 236 522 3880 2,433 157 371 428 780 3891 1,795 137 297 412 686 3892 1,490 92 245 216 455 3901 2,468 119 197 339 519 ' 3902 1,850 134 277 394 650 , 3910 2,655 139 185 449 605 3920 2,687 146 151 498 614 ' 184,116 10,309 32,259 18,496 51,065 27 '•r ..r: •,,�� g d ^R2: 4:'• .q iSii •Yi :..C•:i.: p, i{Ln: •l' z.. 4' 4 p •.Y^t Il..:�. iJ, W v co E is i'y U �^ i j C / S� l Obi a .'. >x�._ _ ':;�,moo, j x, �_,..�-� t-J� •/, J o r> C •: O 54 LU 0 LU sa . a = 2 a E @ a :Uz a Lu CCtD LL v 4r d f: c p uj nn ' county there are clusters of tracts where the density of population of the special needs group is greater than others. In ' particular, for east county, these are census tracts corresponding roughly to the older parts of Antioch, Pittsburg and west Pittsburg. In west county, the densities tend to be greater in the south- ern, more heavily urbanized -parts , such as in Richmond, San Pablo, and the adjacent census tracts. In conclusion, it is °possible to see" that those in the special needs group amount to about 280 of the combined population of east ' and west county, or just under 82 , 000 people, the largest group of which is the poor and near poor. 3. 5 COMMUTERS ' The number of workers who commute to Martinez from east and west county is approximately 3 , 000. This estimate is based on ' analysis of material derived from two sources--the 1975 MTC work trip data and the 1975 Special Census data. ' The 1975 Metropolitan Transportation Commission data lists travel to work between superdistricts in the Bay Area. In the ' case of Contra Costa County, four superdistricts make up the county; one in east county, one in west county, one in north ' central county, and one in south central county. The two central county superdistricts include parts of east county and of Alameda ' County. Thus, it was necessary to make adjustments to the data. The second source was the 1975 Special Census figures for place of residence and place of work by various zones. As with ' the superdistricts, the boundaries of the zones required some mod- ' ification. The result of these analyses were matched with employment data provided by the Martinez Chamber of Commerce and from traffic counts, recorded by Caltrans , of vehicles entering the Martinez area. ' 29 The end result was a range of estimates, with a low of- 1,500 Martinez workers living in east and west County and a high of 3 , 000. (This range is disturbingly large, which might be expected in this brief study; but we will show later that our .judgement of the sys- tem' s economic viability is not dependent on this lack of precision in the employment estimates. ) ' 6 TRIP ST ' 3, RI E IMATES From the two previous sections, it is clear that the number , of persons needing public transportation to Martinez appears sub- stantial, both in relative and in absolute terms. In this section ' we attempt to bring together the basic elements of each previous section to assess the total need for public transportation to Mar- tinez. In the analysis below, we segment the transit market into , its components: the special needs groups and the commuter market. The user market for the judicial trips, other personal ' business -trips at county governmental business offices, and med- ical trips has been based on the exclusive needs of the special , needs group. This is- based on the assumption. that other persons would not be restricted in their mobility and can use their cars. ' Commuters, both current and potential, constitute the user market for .the trips to work. , Table 3-3 shows the estimated number of monthly trips by the spec'ial .needs group, by all modes, actual and latent, from east , and west county to Martinez. TABLE 3-3. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF MONTHLY TRIPS FOR THE SPECIAL NEEDS GROUP , Trip Purpose Absolute Upper Lower Estimate Best Guess Limit 1. Judicial 4 , 065 10 , 000 2. Other personal 48 , 400 ' business at offices 438 10, 000 3. Medical 1, 000 3, 000 6 , 100 TOTAL 5,503 23, 000 54, 500 ' 30 1 The lower -estimate of Table 3-3 is based on community input, the reported responses of local community groups, interested persons, and relevant social agencies. The number of medical trips is based on the reported referrals from county health ' clinics to the county hospital. These figures are judged to be a low estimate because those responding only know a portion of the demand. As is clear from the table, the response from those ' with knowledge about the judicial and legal processes was more forthcoming than the response from the other; but it is impor- tant to realize that this represents an undercounting of the others, not that legal judicial trip purpose represents a larger ' share. The higher estimate is based on a theoretical calculation ' derived from statistical material and modified in light of pro- fessional experience gained in work elsewhere. In simplified ' form, the method adopted was to take the number of persons within each special needs sub-group--the handicapped, the poor and near poor, and the elderly--and to apply travel and trip-making char- acteristics by trip purpose sub-group. l As an example the number of medical trips is based on the total expected medical trips ' reduced to represent only hospital trips to Martinez. Thus, it is an upper limit of medical trips on the Martinez Link. As is ' clear from the table, the judicial and other personal business trips at county offices are combined into a common category to match available travel data. We have made a best guess of the total trips by trip purpose ' which lies between the upper and lower extremes and is based on our judgment, knowledge of county conditions, and field work. Table 3-4 combines the estimate of trips to Martinez from ' east and west county, by all modes, for the special needs group and commuters and shows the fraction of these trips that might ' be carried on the Martinez Link. 1 1981 Bay -Area Travel Survey; prepared for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission; by Crain & Associates; August 1981. ' 31 TABLE 3-4. MONTHLY TRIPS TO MARTINEZ Trips on Mar- , Group All trips %on Martinez Link tinez Link Special needs 23, 000 50 il, 500 Commuters 76 , 000 to 114 , 000 5 3 ,800-5, 700 ' Total 100, 00 to 140, 000 NA Approx. 16 , 250 The computation of commuter trips is based on the 2,000 to 3, 000 workers making two one-way trips per day with a 10% absen- teeism factor (holidays, vacations, sickness) . The mode split estimates of 50% and 5% are based on our ' experience with ridership levels of special creeds groups and commuters relative to transit service with a performance level ' similar to that recommended in Chapter 5 of this report. The seemingly high special needs group mode split of 50% is based on the high degree of dependence that group will have on the pro- , posed service. This analysis is not based on sufficient data to allow a ' great deal of confidence in these projections. Probably the most convincing argument in support of this ridership projection ' is that the present proliferated transit systems which are perceived by the community as serving at best only a portion of ' trip needs, now carry about 6, 000 passengers per month (see Table 2-2) . ' Thus our projection .is about 2; times larger than the level of present demand, but based on a service we believe will be a much more comprehensive and effective system of meeting all of the , ..community's critical travel needs. Even more important, Chapter 5 will indicate that the rider- ' ship level on the Martinez Link, at the recommended fare level, need only be 4, 200 riders a month to satisfy a 10% fare box ' recovery requirement. 32 1 In summarv: ' Monthly trips needed for loo farebox recovery 4, 200 ' Present proliferated system carries 6, 000 Consultant's estimate 16, 250 History may show our 16, 250 trip projection to have been ' optimistic and/or the growth in ridership required to reach this level may take two or three years to develop. However, ' we believe the estimate to be reasonable, consistent with present day experience, and well supported by the outcry for service currently being voiced from various segments of the community. 1 1 1 33 r r r r 4, ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION r 4, 1 CRITERIA AND THEIR JUSTIFICATION In designing the service to cater to the trips generated by the Martinez Link, the consultants established a list of criteria by which the proposed service would meet the needs discussed in the previous chapter. The list of criteria is reproduced in Table 4-1 and is for the most part self-explanatory. The first TABLE 4-1 LIST OF CRITERIA TO BE USED IN THE DESIGN OF THE MARTINEZ LINK 1. The service must accommodate all passengers (including commuters, the transportation handicapped, and others) . 2. The system in all of its aspects must present no language barriers to recognized minorities. 3. Travel time to Martinez should be no more than 45 minutes from west county and 45 minutes from east county. 4 . There should be no more than one modal change (for example, bus to bus, bus to van, van to train, and so on) . 5. Fares relative to distance should be comparable to BART' s and consistent with the BART distance-graded fare structure. 6. Service should have a fare box recovery rate consistent with the MTC requirement for Article 4 . 5 elderly and handicapped service (say 10% of operating costs covered by fares) . 7. Trip purposes and destinations must accommodate all judicial, employment, medical, and personal county government business trips. 8. The scheduling of service will provide arrival and departure times in Martinez to satisfy, to the extent possible, the trip purposes stated above in Number 7. 9. Information about the service must have sufficient outreach to attract public attention. r 1 35 two items indicate the scope of the service; the next six items .relate to the operating characteristics of the service; and the last item emphasizes the need to include as strong an outreach campaign as possible to ensure sufficient. ridership. The criteria list was circulated to the community groups and public agencies in a preliminary form in order for the consultants to ascertain whether or not the list was complete and, if so, of what relative importance each item was. The cover letter and response form are shown in Appendix D. The results of this modest survey of- public opinion are shown in Table 4-2. TABLE 4-2 NUMBER OF PERSONS RESPONDING TO CRITERIA Letters mailed 44 Addressee not found 3 Responses 23 Response rate 560 Criteria Very Important Important Not Important Total 1 6 7 1 14 2 8 6 1 15 3 6 4 1 11 4 9 3 1 13 5 (7 said to keep fare as 5 13 low as possible, lower than BART if possible; it was an important element) 6 4 3 3 12 (Again, 2 indicated the im- portance of low fare) 7 7 3 0 . 10 8 8 2 0 10 9 8 2 0 10 As can be seen from the table, not everyone responding commented on ' every criterion. A considerable amount of importance was placed on the service accommodating all types of .passengers and presenting no ' language barriers. On .criterion 5, the majority of respondents 36 ' indicated that fares consistent with BART was not .as important ' as keeping the fares as low as possible. Overall, the response from agencies/groups familiar with the local transit needs en- dorsed the relevance of the criteria chosen to aid the design of the Martinez Link. 4.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ' In addition to considerina the major elements of service design which appear in the list of criteria, the consultants also ' considered the variety of ways to provide a service to meet the travel needs. The basic technology for the transit service is ' the rubber tire on public road, because it seems that at this initial stage of service development, adjustments cannot be im- posed on the existing rail service to achieve the frequency and reliability levels which would be acceptable to the majority of 1 users. The rail possibility is at this time considered to be present on the list of alternatives, but low on the list of ' priorities. Granted that the service will be based on rubber tire vehicles, the questions of 1) which sort of vehicle and 2) along ' what routes become important. Some of the alternatives con- sidered provided some insight into the different possibilities, ' but in fact there is limited scope for the type of vehicle and for its mode of operation. Table 4-3 shows the seven possibil- ities considered and their levels of suitability. Three of the alternatives considered were completely new ' to the study area. Although the fixed route service exists in the area, it would be a new application of the service type. The other four exist in the study area but have restrictions ' associated with them which make them unable to meet the design standards set out in the list of criteria. 1 i t I 37 i >1 � w 4-) —1 art aro .°'I Cris C ro O •H Q -4 4-1 ri 4-1 •11 4-1 •r1 4J v -4 4J v aa) v Q) 41 vas v aCi v v s] r1 r1 F� -4 @ •r1 r1 5 ri r 1 Sa ro Q v A v 0 Q W Q v S1 0) 441 N (C H cd r1 N ro r-1 ro r i ro v •ri 4 oav 4J 04v -W av +1 Q4 v -W A 0 -N •H at 1-1 -r1 0.,r•i +1 •11 Q4 r1 •11 Gla r-1 •rl m O 0 O �3 �:5 0 O z :� 0 :� 0 O �s z v) N �4 U) N �4 z U) cn ?4 ri) N s4 U) •rl �i x r1 N a) �4 Q) '(1) C 0 v >I 4-) N � o ro a G14 •r1 ri C si m -r1 •r1 .>~ r 3 U �4 +1 04 ri r I ro U •r1 N' ro N �4 C A s4 4-) ro �4 N v U v ro O N O 0 +1 •r1 ri >1 v O •,1 C U X4-) v •ri �4 A 3 3 -r1 ra N 4 Q) 4.1 Z -r1 ,b -H U -P at 0 rro •ri U r--I > 4-1 4-3 C > Q) i; i; ro -P N -0 N ro N ro -ri >1 14 ro ?.I a 0 ro N U Q) ro N ro 41 0)r-1 r. co (1) 4-) Qq 4.) -ri N C) -r1 Q) N S4 N N 0 rU O G S4 ri •r1 0 2S N ro N N )-i N C v v -,1 CS 0 r0 v ' 10 4-3 y4 •r1 ,� H > (1) �4 cd >1 N ,.0 r1 4-I Q) U N 1-t 0) 74 ro aJ Q) r4 :� +1 0 -ri r-1 •ri v ty) Gla v ri v U , 0 ro S4 4-4 -04 N GL CO ?i 4-1 r1 •rl �-I U 41 N r(3 w C cd N U 0 H C -1 0 U Q) U +1 ro 44 0 v r-1 rd 0 14 -H 4a ro x U N •. •ri 44 4♦ O U 73 -a H 4J 0 41 > v N Q) 9 .z 0 Q ro O -r1 O U 4-1 ro Gla U TI • A z7 v v a, �,I ,[ N +1. > 3 , ro �c it v N v v C v > > a, C U ro �4 � 44 +- ro 44 4-1 04 4-3C N 4 -r1 r1 � a-( v 10 v r0 C Q) Gla CO •ri ro aJ ro o. tow m y iT �4 v N C •ri ro ro Gla U $•, a) r(I U a O C ro -P it a -H Q) a r0 •r1 -N ?4 v 0 Q) �4 -H U S4 (d N r0 a) r-i U tP -P N �4 U Q) 0 ro 4) N a) (1)0 U S4 0 -Ho Gla x a U a) 04 •r1 Gla 44 C ro C C ra -r-I a)+ 54 O 0 ri U > >, ro 44 O C a) r-1 04 H U v -ri v 0 O 4J �4 �4 •,1 v �4 4-) v v •r1 O v Q 0 co Gla 4J U 3 �c 4J > I.- v -i a, �4 U 4-4 0 z >1 iJ co p 41 N a) ..0 >y 0 ro 1 a rC3 M O o C 0 44 4J v v 4 (d +) > v 3 1 u C 4.) v o o •ri v 54 N sa v'.0 - r1 .a -4 Q v v ro O N -P 4-1 9 C 0 4 ri r1 • ro Q) G LO 0)..Q - 0 0 0 tr 4-I -P 2s ro -ri N �a v s b +1 0s ra C Q) a) J-1 ro 0 C C > v Q4 4J r-I }4 rl a) •r1 N IQ r-1 4♦ -4.1 •ri v �4 (d ro (d M 0 = 0 >7-ri co H N r-i ro 0 v 41 r 1 O 3 •r1 r a) U O 0 ,Q r-I a' H (d r-I = ro ro Gla IQ N N 0 4.4 by 0 N r-I .Q m (n +1 U O) �l H FC Q ri -4 .1..1 a •rl -H S z r ri v O . v rd fzx 3 Ln ::I •ri o C x 0 O 44 ?4 r(7 S~ 4-1 rO —1 r-I v N -ri 0 0 ro a) a) M > r-1 O a) Gla O •H U C -P rQ .1~ W rl Q) -C 3 Nu U � -r1 0 U 0 N ro N ro U H 4 E+ m •ri v -ri N v +1 •r! a) 0l ty)ro C -ri ro N KHL v 10 v N > 4 41 z s4 > N z v s; 3: x z r� >v C 44 N -H l4 Ei S4 C) rd a) S4 C •ri N 4.1 O O a) ro ro 0 (d ro ro Gla c as 0 w Q a) m r1 ro 0 O C 11 v 1. E 1~ al 0 4.) N Q4 x 10N N of � .s~ •ri �( N4-3 TI N r•i Gl, Q) Q) r(j x 'c5 S4 rO 4J Q) ?i 04 N >s-ri v N a) N X Q > .--I N N Q) N aJ -4 N Iz a) N •rl C 4♦ ro a) > CP •ri r. N 0 ri .^. -ri -a -ri N :�i •r1 4-1 r0 U CE-( > ro r H rcl -r14 P ,--1 ro E1 O> 3 P O to H 40♦ 3 N v � (Ud Q) U co I 4� I N rb ' Uri N Q) •ri N •r1 v r C v .1. 3 > 4) U r-i U r•1 U 0 r-I -ri U ro -P - > N 14 1.1 ro • 1 r(s .•rl - r1 ro •rl -ri , } v 0 O > U > U > r1 Gla (d N > N >,r i Q) N 4-4 r1 ?4 0 - S4 O li N x .4 4! �4 r1 --3 •ri N U) >1 Ra Q) ri Q) ri C) > a) 1 (1) ro C U U ri 11 rci E., N N N C) tp >1 N 4-1 r= (d •r♦ 44 (1) C a) v C S~. 1-1 C r, 4) r1 C 4-I > O 4.3 a) a) N i O 4-1 O 4-1 O O -ri i-( Gla U �4 0 U 14 .1 >.i s~ 1; C: 3 r1 U C N 4 Q) ' Q) r-i .,1 - �-I 9 4-( Q) ra N ra a) 0 ro w Q) 0 44 .1.1 N Gla Gla > a ra C �i v N s 4 v �-1 r1 v Is v �4 >~ v r1 H O Q) �4 O �l (d •r1 (d : +1 ro •r1 z O +1 Q) a) U N 0 U U. A +) U A U ro -Q 4J •r1 U 41 0 9 z r v x U r0 C w .r0 HH v H > r1 C •ri ro a, w (d > C M U 4-1 r�1 �4 tD IW 0 >v ro .,N - N N O4 - �4 as (1) (d 0 (d C rd 4-I r1 U rO �4 U N N ro >, U S~ U O U •r I w -H rirl O 10 r i P -ri 4 R7 C r0 0 ro C: G SQ ro x H �>i m k• � � Q) • N 34 +) x o ro a n ri ro r1 (d C ro Q) ri (d A C U r-1 = > (d Gla A U) 4-1 � N � W 4a N Q N ' 38 ' ' The two completely new services were judged to be too young - in .their general development to be proposed for the Martinez Link ' because there is a need to press ahead with the service as soon as possible. To wait -for additional developments in the subject of transportation planning seems inappropriate given the other alter- natives available. For the most part, the existing services are either too small in scale and scope to be suitable to carry the testimated load or too restricted in their levels of service. For example, the vanpooling alternative is an excellent proposal for ' the commuter element and, as noted in the previous chapter, there is considerable public interest in it already. On the other hand, ' it is based on too small a vehicle for general use and the hours of service are geared to specific work trips. It would be unsuit- able for the special needs group and for its trips. By the same ' token, a dial-a-ride service for the special needs group would be too restricted for a service aimed at serving the general public. ' The fixed route fare stage line-haul bus was considered to be the one which best incorporated the items on the list of criteria ' while not being too restricted to either a particular group of, ridership or a set of operating characteristics. However, the ' consultants believe that the other existing elements would play a very important role in supplementing the new service. The existing dial-a-ride services and vanpooling arrangements will be affected ' by the new service in that they will probably find it worthwhile to act in concert with the new fixed-route fare stage bus service; but they will certainly be required to remain in general operation and to provide support and feeder services to the new service. 39 4,3 THE RECOMMENDED SOLUTION As indicated in the previous section, the consultants have ' narrowed the consideration of a suitable design for the Martinez Link to a small range of options. The most promising one is the ' fixed rout, accessible, line-haul .bus service linked to the County's elderly and handicapped dial-a-rade systems. _ As such ' this service would complement rather than compete with the existing services. ' In general, the new fixed route, fare stage service would be a long haul inter-city bus .line, covering the distance between ' Martinez and east and west county on a regularly scheduled basis at frequent headways. The schedule would be designed to allow a , person who lives in one of these areas to travel to work in Mar- tinez, take a bus into Martinez to transact personal business at , county offices, or to participate in county administrative acti- vities (the courts, welfare offices, and so on) . The location of bus stops and transfer points has been �. considered carefully to enable a person -to connect with the other existing services and so to maximize the travel opportunities. ' The bus stops and transfer points have been located to insure that those who are elderly or infirm or handicapped will not have ' to wait in the rain or exposed to other adverse weather conditions, but can wait in sheltered. places. By use of timed transfers, the , consultants have built as. little waiting time as possible into the daily schedule. 40 ' 4, 4 JUSTIFICATION The justification for this proposal of the fixed route ' bus line is that the unmet needs analysis has shown that the level of demand likely to be created for this new bus route will ' support a certain level of transit activity, one which can best be met by the introduction of a new bus route. The other possible ' service arrangements have been discussed in previous sections; but one important concept in the planning so far has been to balance the need to provide an improved service with the realization that ' local and regional resources are in short supply and cannot be stretched beyond reasonable levels. The transit picture in Contra ' Costa County is one which is composed of several operators, using various types of equipment to serve a large but segmented transit market. To some extent, the composite nature of the transit market reflects the geographical and structural composition of the county ' and so works in a functional sense. The problem which this new Martinez Link service is oriented toward .solving is the one of cross- overs; and transfers. The functional arrangements and divisions into east, central, and west county is successful at many levels, but does create the need for a unifying, intra-county element which the new service has been designed to serve. This is not to cast asper- sions on the roles and positions of the currently existing services. ' For the most part, they were established for reasons consistent with the needs of the localities which they serve, but in so doing, they ' continue to reinforce the geographical and structural status quo. The justification of this new service lies in the need to fill ' in the gaps and to connect the three major county parts together at an official level with the full support of the local transit agencies ' working together to maximize the transit capabilities. In. addition, justification of the new service has been shown by the unmet needs analysis , in which the demand for the new service has been estimated to include a substantial part of the public which 1 41 needs to get to Martinez efficiently. In the current situation, ' the trip to Martinez is itself part of the barrier in transacting . business or in satisfying the needs of good citizenship. If the , numerical part of the analysis contains some inaccuracies, the likely amount of error should be compensated for in the range presented. The need exists and this service design will meet the ' need as defined in Chapter I. 1 1 1 42 1 5, DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED SYSTEM The recommended system for providing the Martinez Link consists ' of three parts: first is the service plan, second is the promotional plan, and third is the cost estimate. The service plan includes ' detailed elements of the operational arrangements for the bus line , the bus route, the number of stops, a tentative schedule, fare and r ' zone arrangements, the personnel and equipment considerations, and maintenance considerations. Also included are other supportive transportation programs: the ridesharing agencies ' carpool and ' vanpool programs and the AMTRAK service. Lastly, there is a comment about the farebox recovery program. The promotional plan ' includes a discussion of the outreach elements and the type of pub- licity which should accompany the service plan. The cost estimate ' includes a rough approximation of what the Martinez Link might cost to operate in general terms. ' 5, 1 SERVICE PLAN. The service plan is based on the concept that the bus route ' between east and west county and Martinez will be a fixed route, long haul line with relatively few sops . See figure 5. 1 and ' table 5. 1. The line will follow the highways to keep the speeds high. At each stop, there will be an accessible shelter, either ' a public building or a purposely built station (as in the case of Pinole stop at Gate 13) . From these stops it will be possible to connect easily with the local transit services, both fixed ' route and dial-a-ride operations. As well as possible, the timing of the new service will be arranged to coincide with other vehicle arrivals and departures. An underlying theme is that this 43 T j jib � � IX'!1N0�H t � Ob A31N t .4� ,� !/' /$ 'f� Ylf\:.� c•.Jt S c¢�_ �� ."'.i � IT,,Jp�ar}� ��+ ;oo�nt �'� f / �g v ��+.-`\ ;'__ is +'� '6•y� I'e�f /�/o t �. !p � �. H 7)a w Y � 2 \ .. /� `�/�-----a \*' ,,.z~G �y*w Rp°E fes' 81` ``Y b b-✓ S1.t IF 5j 1 y o> � a �.•V t c (:'. oo0{fl '� p r IO -.•rr cs ,'� c, `+' y oN+b c\i^ �\\r G�� - ° '�° `v'"'E� \\ ' s1 '�._r�{N ^`�C•-,r.'�s...i\� \��I "^ '� �.ya b./.1�.-� .��` � �\ 4` �-� \ ' � � -•v�` .\ - � :/ 1 $` u _ �a \Aye= °� ' 1 ' TABLE 5-1 LIST OF STOP LOCATIONS ' v East County 1. Antioch - City Hall, Community Center Tri Delta 380, 381, Bart Bus P2X ' 2. County East Medical Center (Kaiser Tri Delta 380, 381, 382, Bart Bus Medio4l) P, PX 3. Los Medanos Community Hospital Tri Delta 380, 381, Bart Bus P, PX ' 4. Pittsburg - County Medical Clinic Tri Delta 380, 381, Bart Bus P2X 5. City Hall (Pittsburg) - County offices Tri Delta 380, Bart Bus P2X ' Highway 4 6. Ambrose Nutrition Site (West Pittsburg) Tri. Delta 380, 'Bart Bus P, PX, P2X ' Highway 4 Martinez ' 7. Juvenile Hall BART M Bus 8. Kaiser Hospital - VA Hospital BART M Bus, 3CTA 110 line ' 9. County Administration Building 3CTA 110, BART M, D, AMTRAK 10. County Hospital (Berrellesa) BART M Bus ' 11. John Muir Home BART M Bus Highway 4 and I-80 ' West County ' 12. Pinole - Gate 13 WestCAT dial-a-ride, AC Transit Highway I-80 13. Hilltop Mall WestCAT dial-a-ride, AC Transit ' 14. San Pablo City Hall AC Transit basic route services, paratransit feeder ' 15. Richmond - Civic Center AC Transit basic route services 16. Richmond - BART/AMTRAK station Both rail services, paratransit feeder, AC Transit 1 1 ' 45 - 1 service will act as a focus for further improvements to both the . connection to Martinez and the general transit picture in Contra Costa County. To this end, the Martinez Link can assist in or- ganizing the cross-county connections For example if . a group ' of workers began to take the Link from west county to Martinez , a possible development is that such a group could form .a ridesharing ' arrangement of either car- or vanpool. This would be a legitimate albeit secondary, objective of the Martinez Link: bringing together ' members of a ridesharing group. The primary objective is, of course, the creating of a cross-county public transportation ' connection. The proposed elements of the service plan that are recommended here are based on a series of assumptions that will be explained as , the discussion develops. To some extent, these assumptions will have to be modified by the decision-making process as certain local ' factors become more clear. Thus it is important to realize that these detailed elements of the service plan should be .subjected to t further review and, possibly, modification. FIXED ROUTE t In this section we consider the fixed route part of the new ' service. In fixing the route, the consultants have been aware of the need to run the bus through those areas, of greatest transit , need, yet at the same time to balance this need against the problems of covering so much ground in a reasonable amount of time. This requirement for a balance has meant that the consultants put the t bus on the highway as much as possible. This keeps the speed up, and because of the limited-access nature of the freeways it can ' keep the bus away from the serious congestion of the urban road system. Although it is true to say that a good bottleneck on the , freeway will distort completely a day' s bus schedule, the operating principle is that .the freeway is usually faster than the urban ' roads. In looking at the map, one can see that Martinez is closer 46 , to Antioch than to Richmond, but in fact the difference is minimal; both are about 16 miles from Martinez. By using the freeway as much as possible, the journey times remain about the same as well , about 33 minutes. Fixing the route was relatively straight forward in that it became a question of locating the bus line as near as possible both to the highest concentrations of areas of special needs groups and to the freeway. This meant that the locations served would be along a more or less straight line, and that the bus would run nonstop on ' the freeway once it finished picking up passengers. Similarly it meant that the pick-up points would be within the urban areas as much as possible. In fixing the route, another important consideration was speed of the bus. To some extent, the speed of the bus was determined by stop location and the proportion of urban and freeway running. For this exercise, the consultant adopted an industry standard: 20 mph for urban roads and 45 mph for freeways. This is the standard used by AC Transit in its route scheduling and it includes the times spent at bus stops. The bus stop time also includes time enough for wheelchairs to board via the lift. Table 5-2 gives the operational characteristics of the new service. Figures 5-2 through 5-6 show the proposed routing through the various cities, from west to east across the county. The two sides of the route are similar in terms of distance and journey time. For both the west and the east sides of the route the pro- portion of mileage on the freeway is over half the total. An important element of the route is the section of the journey in Martinez , a length of route almost seven miles long. This is so long because the bus leaves the freeway to run into town and by some of the more dispersed likely destinations, such as the VA Hospital and the Juvenile Hall, both of which are south of the freeway, and the County Hospital on the west side of town. 47 TABLE 5-2 . OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS: DISTANCE AND JOURNEY TIME Distance (miles) Time (minutes) Highway Urban Highway Urban 1. East Antioch-Pittsburg - 5. 6 - 16_ 8 Highway 4 2. 9 - 3. 9 - West Pittsburg - 1.4 4.. 2 Highway 4 6. 0 - 8. 0 - Subtotal East 8. 9 7. 0 11. 9 .21. 0 Total East 15. 9 miles distance for 32. 9 minutes , (0. 549 hour) journey time with an average speed of 29. 0 mph 2. Martinez (circulation) - 6. 8 3. West Highway 4 - I-80 6. 6 - 8..8 Pinole Gate 13 - 0.4 1.2 Highway I-80 3. 8 - 5. 1 - Hilltop Mall 1. 1 3. 3 Alternative A West along 23rd Street* to San Pablo City Hall* 2.2 - 6 . 6 to Richmond Court House* - 1. 6 4 . 8 to Richmond BART, and AMTRAK station* - 0. 8 - 2.4 Subtotal West 10.4 6 . 1 13. 9 18. 3 Total West 16. 5 miles distance for 32 .2 minutes (0. 537 hours) journey time .with an average speed of 30.. 7 mph 4. Route Total (1 + 2 + 3) 39. 2 miles distance for 59. 7 minutes (0. 995 hour) journey time with an average speed of 39. 4 miles per hour *Based on the preferred alternative local routing, alternative A. 48 Au L L-. �.• a`. -rj.l�` `t�;\.1�i�0. \" i,i,i!€ . N ry pu R . NTLLTOP MA °Y .i PAa%w• �BaSF a. '` {, 3 R ! t �� NhR anORI�tanOS •�e�`haa<° 'tnii• � f Oc ` � ,t • R=S,0°t�_ a0f.. s�\r �-o Pt 't. START N GapR RA1°.' 'SA'1 � �r f All rAel°,l w..,.c.a.iv i S. %y •u ;t / t '•�.��/ wns nv. t15 $ ��.+^(hlf�/`��t« '� a¢ Folling c �, Hllls ';_ y_ �.tatwr6X- t.„�/m` �� �Y CDi1BQB e,�gt,t•��' ' 'n Me—al c V u`,«ixA„ •" ,� af,j 3 ^,P 4,•1 o r .PR.:'w,,s f rjluctR _. 4 San sic !e o — s r>,r'R Fs W, d `,..• .1 y9 to �'n aAIy A+W�` Perk \o Rt Doul r 4 ,4 ,`` �'fil ooa eDLtlu wDoo i ,tom., J`!11an.y PARR n Rasp u �tRi a'a+M1'A h 1'py Qvr SAqgPw. <vtf° ... "Oar �2]i ,. �_.�• w � R`qA ^n� .� J IIDELpICRO Ca 4 irlW � f ��",5Y6 f4�4Y4° _ aaMDY n„1`i(Gn�! t i E< PD s�3�,,Li d a``�,e v s s•, � �»,« � (.',"M t RD .. tJmH � M`POASi6t Da.. 'Aq )iaa'RPRa"' .e/xx X 7 v IJ.y Ha��.�. Y�«. QA9t.O�rsty D �. �,y ,aRwA„vest♦ i A N ~ PITTSeURG AV. �'j f Mu"a T6Tj �I�p � 6 � NORTH�(RI�HIVIQI+TT)`�-C A oaf rr•`�.'.,w r :. S( G' �''u `o a `pi��Syt•_a'' iRtu�ecst% n `�tid a/Naw I _UE I i Av. �Posr Aw.”"':f�. g.nVr\yr of i•„ ,Sy+i.`Ls'""'ye di'i'a%'._".�". frr pc'._ .. .w.PR9YEV .F y.gfvereeo 4s.trr„Y- S r aat Pte,e �etatau CPk.�«v_inY.w'�._ ,. .ter- Y�^�v"I„� uoa� ��P•t`� ',�a��1:�,� � p �A -s t 21 25.unw.h ` TuuAL .a..,.���,�D��L� 'z«xroaa s.xroa: wwrarr t'� _ .n r •t�" �yi t4`S' � CHMONT) cuua,[ nr�r� k.S �X(' ouAtR,rc!.•.r � ^vs xtw.P,P_,r V`O�4v- 1 1 MI .l j, )n ///iii ^ xLLPI»r�,t". vl 't+5.^L 1 Av.a ' �,r• lc t-�z�%d• .��'c."'`\\"`r,`.�H1�\hr1 (1 �V\s , iv�tu/ 'lil»s ELr s�\n c �',����t�z ct D _ �✓�"`I� � ';,l ist t iloD^ 4.Yxoa Nl _ i.N'N a'.�"e '>a �'�`R• >ZA+ NAHt \ 1 IF I.w. ° - Ix i5�-- _- i�P O 1:S\i'60` n� Gw Y GAR'tt p,r• 1 !.� I`mk:«ctM �D s x t e1 A�\t �s/s 1 %22'� r<= I c lry "-,f'1. ��w Ln+t t. 7c-"'{'_ I R cllxi° ''':. 1e _ `rl , s.�.\ 6L--j„ .v.4$ s 7 15:1 \ w> �^ Rlq% o- Nluv I_ I� s43 ado;v}i+j °-� 1$ ;[v[ r ”' oY r<. A i w .•„5Y � A ar '^ i '3 ^ail \'. �, it 11 Y e«.iu:s��a ,,,, - s4�` <P _ c� /�� IRAaacfi'" i::,iM�..i - em.r,.• Rlttri'^$'�e .T 4fv.+1 r'e,,'s,•. x � \\ ��'s q�� k �`�' �-^.� nr 1 tVIA,Yiv rf,i Ua ' M 1`�.t n'�O- ` �- �-'1�.� ..�tG1'� v Y Ct�•'�Sj,,� .. `\C.l - i 'xal:li Ir r.`. i , j2 s 1.<41 �` Y''cl h.5. > Awa*4"` l/i i t a i^s>a ;—,m, 'i�;, I'•"-t�'--r�=fi`�� ' 61551(N_ AY. r�r -� 'PiSSCtt LL .n• ra c f „�. AV '?2VttA Crunf rV•"\ b�•C°X t v� � Mdar �, 00. M.. / �at Lt .ten C!'lANSI('9 .1111 a e yl +�w0✓•� u''., tM ILCntµ SLP C9mYa. A tt' E ei ice' i•- _/7 0� °tlw : ` o o ° _is m Av ry .,.; i cc,t.« z tt�' AI•i LA '��S �}E aRG 40 4 aX.nyf"S i. L'r'. c7 w awo Av. K r o o „ r�' n• '.. LLtR ''1S 9 r6a. -v� N° ,r 4�„�j •„ �\ '�3 .kmivaA t (��`N e�. sxow6P\'"�lC ii�•�!T�./ ra; m�«Li. t .`. �Y6 xla _ ; I AV� Irv' ' �, x^ nPk.v({OjF RS NPxr.•i.1""`�i t ORl. RS EL' ���i .i\"'/t;(\V�,,•,Xa. « � vJ S'i I�I�Ia�••. { ,;i •�\\�ni'n r y`„Y '.nl Ji� :II--"4,S`_=�"\ �dl'~ "\C.\<r Rif` ��+ �,� 5 u0 vti. r'�v,l,n'.`>� est�r• 1na�a.,: I "��o 'i:. ::un=. � ",sro ,;,':�Btwl,�«�,�.r,.�'.z,_! �:� .}e-•�\„�4,'. a' a.J�iof�-"D � 6 nv h�a�I ;��� irk. j-��t� i4 ��xr``,, �� o, at1L ..M.. �f :i� e �o f'� ^`/ i r'4�•C f\� �,\. `R�, _ .SQA 'r} p s -'�•�.'i la PO iP.0 PO r 1 1.6" A .i ` X r °?•r� Ri' �T PRnI " �5�� 1' MAN - -v�X V N,1J\'>.i �� 4tti V � i t 71 sLnrta Y i 4 ra �5a I < �- '--� x t ./ \o+� i�•'`; —."..._�.: rl �y n' : +r f+t ,, .,�' er vrl. - ti �,-,jvrki'�`. 1' Innrr4 a ar�a> « t r+`" � \ I '.`Y�P..��\iJ.¢ tV- -0"14 'ase�Er. t''d' �«•rsr. A `" *` ��`t\ c�`°• (' 3 � i � �`.�_ �va�a�v Off`'` '('tee"�`�%`e��''.Y w'` + `'':�`.t.�°'� *�t�� RI�C 11 /f'tt t -1��. 1!�.Y----•`.r_'�..•a'Ya�r��• Bus Route FIGURE 5-2. ROUTING THROUGH RICHMOND, SAN PABLO WITH ALTERNATIVES 49 tCG w b c U c� \ t S a t •'V�R�CtR. / . 'L � -•'s.,oa t3�p r�%,aO rna,Jl(..�. ;yOq+ RN v Ye r W �arrr TYo0> 'ba of .so stat u a S a�t+w G� 1? �oc 444..t. 401* •L'. ' Y S -�"tr°+y�o-{�. srb� Y S+n -e St rtec4r p ap�1\�'•� �o�,nw � •� � �.ip ��/k .4 Ytt c .C% .X � �j4�S p •in� *fid, �'+ <,<�-,�b �{' i;j SY +'��'� atvn p c a� <� •b Gj 1 M " ��.ir�4 Vy��O n•L rP 1 0 *°bora 'C°� � t` ((���� ♦ rJ i� S � �,gbpGVtP �.✓" ♦r ��$' � ^y W t++ rivalr; wM dJ%as` Sf ��r��bphsls`3 �` ?;° P r�`/�/vs�4W s�rO'�h�w a•3o- x �Fb.? «wn Sb�*r6`�T/,<//�" p�`�'`�/'b,4ah'E. E"'� O a aE U J t- ri 2. ?os •in•�����.J i -..r °s\�eJp s++ ..✓ t7 Ci : p'�L Wa•+ y' `a Un j ;�� F♦ r.�. � �xetl Wyp1-6 �°µ4,.'�,,e» y�4�a�•��'1 S fx't'y° of f�I G r �.`a°"+'.�: •i`� � �'��F �`'` �` :'` t i.' tgl?�;+r`♦„”�„ .ya.iso� ; b al l.' ':�,,,,r`.., ,j'L \\.•`, ,l %AA c \)\•WgC,S a `�"Qa tlSn /PIC"• .. � CCRi ? �,^�/r .� ML r c `� . IERc�, C`�-/� �r'c i ...->•b7+,n cS.o M e ^ / .� t. > �• Y v` b°I too 3 r °e o;:'..� Ctf \ +'"o, ,C�r,+oe:a ?t s/ c, ^.` '^,� j y�'i; Q'•:+ �t o`t" yo, d o," s �, h 3 t L)� tfi J-Ld, ,rf.a €�,Zi•i"n�. y{tOQ' tl C '� �P 1'r �009L 1P t tlNl`t'Y��y a tplP Off' b�ya�i}t� r °f1(�R.\ 3w,n°`?4 SJ y.F. 9y 36 Rtl'4fq (�'N •",� °Q "� . ' 4 \yVR^ Y vii iF '�'� JJ tp �Ylt'i•vs�'r° `L�:.� L Q �`. . '��a.R.b 8��.a^''q g .o••3�'"Aii�in .ro°�i� s� �t b a� � � 1.Y/ OH7 ��<�:; ;I Ha• o .8 �7 xr� � �, ',r ��T''.Mo�. - e.<to 4- Cj1 J'• m v v9x � w a t+tst ys ar : Noq''s vau. Trb c` y G T e"i nt t.Mae'c', i ° J.'IY •-btJ .1l,Y LS Y-a . �J ' y 12 P, � M3w•5N S >h L' SOµ �t+ b u�e�W I• ¢ K]:nNinM Z=' r' ♦<� o a ° .�f/../` •3' ,�envX.'' - t t ~z 4 �� • Y ' �� c kt•.b Rc l hr'' > 1 Ec��.v��a c - nMNbXbO t' '`L>� a;8 T x 9w,x�,s �•'^°I G i�.'>V 'aL_°'-rpt ♦i sa semv �p�"` a`sN„•,o 8 �k ,�v<' .�. � i. -. ` \�:•r a slrr4:./.gra/ti'.,n. w � �a;” t°- - `��\s�+l,oaee,rsr o.i na"+g�aa•t. � d .� �"�.� - t. rjnE a hay P'� \ / l OAF- 5n, r��� o' 1 - .._ .--.. ,._- `� t �f «� �'>oa.r dam,`40�ct.Wl,y:°"''tl• a p,'aw����`'�" �� 41 �o �°a-w`a's::�� a..r•[r. +.cam Y3aan3t a� "I iaad`x•,t„t�� V a T o•J awn S'• ' 0'0 6� 2 � a 'Uli=`a b•assn £ S r uo a l` ate/ r"` •�u >c. N'" ,,�y. Sy¢o.0 cc � \')'*°�/«�� h'{�:d�#!"v j°ro•r• �� s<,.p"c<. n•}n• °;$ r� g y�lt�� t'J q., x' x+ '[a6a rn371 rrE J ": ,na 61�3tlpnf � ?,ar+val y�rrr \ /Jg1 r, • �1 .y opl `... phi. a Ma9mra a)J,� "•4��/,� ,aa `� \ G ,x �0 rya �1y a��) � v1� )D•3aKilrA � � „ `y§* Aaa>r>�6 4 gg Mr ar'iaa 31,3xrativ0 aD ab) Au +acfY. S'i� �l'ta•� I W Ln C}[ f.-�°', � 5 Ify"y � mr•"� i c /,y icy v ! ' m <- ^ ,.«4.�. ��`g a far y'"��. 1$ W t•Q��i-ss [O 'atl 3MDx 3 _ x n Y • 'Y W� e _ rai' V 600Dr 'aa o * ' co ?�.1 '%)a�' F W y "' , 3 Mo aua ..- .s"' "' ,fit• V> A �;v e �i Q� y' Q.x blot'. {•� D � tva+airi � nr 3n�n- "•+�,nn«�L�na Q,� ¢ � o- ,�w d,•�� u r�- �,,,.\ t 'nv tt3x5 •k^""/ ` ?,a b tno+?o�.ianossiw`! pp'15?t�"1 a�a1 ell, "'yi tea. rµ?« 'fi=•t s'S«,4S P �' m IN ., 4` x aA h i `fie y C ti4,Y3 «Q Y < vax�x,r '4'`/ AtH•a0 VALLEv PD . o ',o � ' `-3 9� $ sEo �(\� (z Leer t '�,,e•°T" . 33 Jam( y\ 'T ` nx3>'.� •Ua� N CAN j4T Y e ST.MAN 145T u az gr I LLI �V tSrk spa \ sago m r 51 0 ,s Vie" '� vary pT313 Nxb os e�31138('y+l pg jOMOMYli b �° \ P giii4t i` 2 f) -5 -, �OYOb 3001N3n01 tr - .YO 1}iNOynW ?,� �fy \. � "�� p e � •,nu«rs",;�'� .��o ori� M soewist-_pia � 1 tet, jsy� �)nrA � I{''" :+•ee.+°'� E ..Fv r�*asi"�_', - �� � G e'4 ._N�Nq J • h j llw ���v.w'at,,.a y°>to'a+q rr 48oP -+:+eo¢ to'':SSt ��,y°.130'N��-��r fga' .`, 4 s a • Sn7rt ~ 3A. i !��',"`moi 8♦ aO *'+�' .y.�oe `M Ih��iN �.`��'�.L`]s. ^R 3 of��� ; ~IYAI>� G x-� is• .0 J[i'�8 Jr`�grsy`ba .bp L W G 0 ie h1)�m 4: 0 S ` 1�L`xO''"u4.y�q bad` ry e v14� J3gtty RD. N 9Z W Nf yp OTDif: •A" 0DCt •• C DOAC VOXiIYtl���$upir $ Aer'fpi. Tf- �y1 �.._: t}` F ON 0 Y18 M afnS371—' -,F.c;. a •• MOD n 11W a� ""ntl3NS 3NI100r11 4 rNdtrY °0� 1�~`rj�'1'�J V r'!, NIE, •W 7 Y :Fr tNE i REtn .NGWT Z �. �EA vvv�� �yW 1 ..�y-r•� g .. � � s '��Y �'OOvi"`p•Y � � p f r�i y er!e , U �.,.,b �r+^ x; VII yyd r� z x <' r &:, r t5�, �"n ,•�µ � Al � i Y J J (f'(1 d.8 s,9i�r."° n^ a3^ R Nom° ,�t zat '' ,nr" SYNOVO.x ky� 1 4y r" a e � Yarr 2 aO L"Oa, J a' V cflY' 5� R actz.....s'xG�c.1`� jrna yl*e 1$�1�� ">• 't _ yI! O m- �P -i'% `"� vlrt•+ e t/Lff�� r y .a �, sn3�- g j CID ' r. �,� S!I Yi �� q t. P o0•.�L�� i�Z~�uar.F^ L§ i'bvw�~f'a�sSt�.B F II _POs�,°�°i°s"3� zJ u a 1•ffi �'Y sa,v��o'� nc�a��. (;l j t f[:°.a8 s Viii a $ a r x°. 1 ! !� M��! • .iFx g r 1' tr V x3e t101 iso .3 Pbu Q i iE�. _ •� �P.,Ey<xan3r eecrWi'";Davi:v r' lYaua 'v '^i .l `s�aanc3311-L R r�' tea is e:i 3:�J ^� ^iI'n �"'7�' �` �'� 5 t ♦5,iwn'xe N�!;?� '1� ` .� Ate. Nei .&� � uz a oS' ��.+'.•yc x>a'• :'Yy�.r/-ar ., t Y �.b `�I 1•^ri.l �n.at ,/86sa s� ♦ b�. � • ~�LS� �I 9� i]S 33{e'• ; t��t.nwir 1 �;1�3'� } �Q �+f,y - ��y�'a M �j3 $ • i°'s 1 �;,��� r .a, �,". r-- n x r 3�� e J o J.{M a v' '` Y , � .-¢�� r�5 Ha �3 !"�!� '1$iO,�_�__, •we� :r�=4}�>nsasa('(���M «. 1"'t",rP '"f.'�' '1t°=. _u.H S _ i ^•+a: J�e3s=1 AT1bR� A, a`� ♦ - • i� r 7 r� S";'-1,ST,T w3 �U,t•nL',.4r ,� �£ pK/S�l�� G �ft`,'f c1.4A• 3Y 7,1 �ry j .."U 6 � Q+-�/�3]�♦� ..�+p,?a-/�/�`auy) i' P"G AriWOT OPt. t b s __... - 1 •SS',`_.. p M` ..yp�•.-..!• ... 'raT i!'',rFs:m—•1 ei°°'uco ,'.gin } 4 ..t« 3axsy�~� ds «, ,N,sy - U '4'} L leo ♦�v a N�Sy�rc i'� cf,Pw4 'n SPlar fP�a�"� 8! ey o .13?�,4y�5'�,t,%:{ G-*Oh,sl t 1 m'°•Baa, _ ti. b Hj +_ 3 f',r5'''`t,`n,,' �`—,',�� s.PR'�'7'"''a'1r s♦�>.�,",..-ps".4�o.' � MY �'...3� `%:l� tta '"!",4. ` `� �Il:- to 1 - - �� --- w e't�e.`nu— ♦'r'�; {� R,i N ♦c t 'ice i' "Ym••19 // 031, P-:ndiS - �Q;' � oxpy t; a r.aoe I` •,� � _ s 8.a 4Fd m •y� �tu.ty 1+ ' iM '; a`�}j,",��•: cx,>♦: 7`C'J' N d.,;:.. �'('°h7lwtt ,a, is *i+5,f -J ���R/�� / rx P P t•,r..�� 1 j 4 '.^ •�* � ..8 utn, .+ ./ ^�rf''n�♦!> r.a,� oPtc oars c�1�' 53 - Table 5-3 shows the three alternatives considered for the , fixed route in the western part of the county. The west side of the route of the Martinez Link was to provide service to those , parts of the area in the greatest need--those parts where the density of the special needsgroups was highest. Coupled with this was the necessity of providing as fast a route as Ipossible , for the bus. Alternative A represents the recommended route because it provides the best combination of these two .elements. ' It is the shortest route in terms of distance, only 16 . 5 miles, but not the shortest route in terms of journey time. The shortest ' -time route is C. with 28 .3 minutes. The problem with Alternative C is that it does not provide satisfactory service to San Pablo because it makes only a short loop off the freeway to Brookside Hospital, whereas Alternative A provides a direct run through the middle of San Pablo taking only an additional four minutes. Alternative B travels farther south on the freeway than does A, making good .speed. However, when it leaves the freeway to t cross San Pablo using the city streets, the speed is quite slow, offsetting the time savings obtained in extra freeway travel. ' The issue of bus stop location will be considered next. STOPS AND FEEDER SERVICES An important feature of the Martinez Link is that it enables simple connections to the existing transit services in the lo- calities it serves. For example, the Martinez Link bus connects with fixed route and paratransit operations in both the eastern ' and western sides of its service areas. The previous table 5-1 shows the places on the bus route which are proposed for stop locations and the opportunities these present for transit con- nections. On the eastern side there are six stops proposed, each ' of which is already a major trip attraction, a city hall, hospital } or clinic, or similar public agency. The communities included '. are Antioch, Pittsburg, and West Pittsburg. 54 �: TABLE 5-3. THREE WEST SIDE ALTERNATIVES, ' FROM HILLTOP MALL TO RICHMOND AMTRAK/BART Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Distance Time Distance Time Distance Time ' (miles) (minutes) (miles) (minutes) (miles) (minutes) West out of Hilltop Mall East out of Hilltop Mall, Highway 4 to Pinole Val- down to 23rd Street, to back to I-80 ley Road San Pablo City Hall 1.1 3.3 7.7 .10.3 2.2 6.6 Highway I-80 South Pinole Valley Road to San Pablo City Hall to 0.6 0.8 Pinole City Hall Richmond Court House ' 0.6 1.8 1.6 4.8 Off to San Pablo City Hall Pinole City Hall to Doctors Richmond Court House to 1.8 5.4 Hospital Richmond AMTRAK/BART San Pablo City Hall to 0.9 0.6 0.8 2.4 Richmond Court House ' 1.6 4.8 Doctors Hospital to Highway Alternative A total I-80 (Appian Way) 4.6 13.8 Richmond Court House to 0.2 0.6 Richmond AMTRAK/BART Highway I-80 to Brookside 0.8 2.4 West side route total (a) Hospital ' 16.5 32.2 West side route total (b) 3.2 4.3 Average speed 30.7 mph 17.9 35.1 Brookside Hospital Loop 0.7 0.9 Highway I-80 to Richmond ' off ramp 1.5 2.0 ' To county complex 0.4 1.2 ' To civic center 0.9 2.7 ITo Richmond AMTRAK/BART 0.6 1.8 West side route total (c) 16.7 28.3 ' 55 Within Martinez, there are five stops proposed at key points ' throughout the city and at locations where there is likely to be high demand. These include two south of Highway 4 , and two in town , at well-known county facilities. A fifth .stop is added in the southwestern part of town to broaden the travel opportunities and to make access to the Martinez Link bus as easy as possible .from , the Martinez end. At all stops, it is possible to transfer to the BART Express Bus M Line, and at the two downtown stops it is possible to transfer .to the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority CCCTA 110 line. Other possible transfers include the BART ' Express Bus D Line and AMTRAK' s passenger service. On the western side of the bus route, there are five stops ' proposed: one in Pinole at Gate 13 , a newly developing transfer point for the northwestern part of the county; one at Hilltop Mall , , which is already a popular collecting point and likely origin and destination for many wishing to use the Martinez Link service. Another stop is proposed for the City Hall at San Pablo, which ' is reachable by the existing paratransit feeder service and has several existing programs which could act as additional support ' for the Martinez .Link. The fourth stop is proposed to be the Richmond Civic Center, a known point and one which is well served ' by the AC Transit basic route services. The last stop is proposed to be the Richmond AMTRAK/BART station, whose location is also , well known and easily reachable by the existing transit services. This last stop has an existing transfer function, and the addition of another transit service will reinforce its importance as a , transportation mode within the larger metropolitan system. For example, it would be possible for a person in E1 Cerrito to take ' a BART train to the Richmond station and transfer to the Martinez Link bus for a direct trip to Martinez. 56. ' The spacing of these stops has been considered to give the maximum number of people access to the Martinez Link bus with the minimum number of stops and route deviations , but it would be possible to add to the number of stops or to change slightly their position without disrupting the remainder of the stops, once the experience of operation has shown the necessity for these changes. To this end, it is an advantage that the last several stops of both ' the eastern and western sides of the route have been located along city streets -and not the freeways. The urban street grid allows more flexibility from this point of view than the entry and exit ramps of the freeway. ' There is an existing network of paratransit operations serving most of the communities in the eastern and western parts of the ' county. These have been described in general terms in Chapter 2 , but it is important here to make mention of their role in providing ' an additional feeder service to and from the Martinez Link. It is anticipated that these paratransit services will take up the role of providing access for those elderly and handicapped persons wishing to use the Martinez Link but who are unable to get to the Martinez Link bus stops unaided. ' SCHEDULE OF SERVICE ' A basic principle in the scheduling of the service was the idea that a person could get to Martinez in time for the opening of the business day. This was defined as about 8 : 30 AM; as a result the first bus to Martinez arrives at 8 :20 AM. It was. also con- sidered important to schedule arrivals and departures to and from Martinez throughout the day on a regular schedule. To meet this requirement, it was decided to allow the bus to run from one side ' of the route to the other, or in other words, to enable a passenger to go from say Antioch to Richmond on the same vehicle. Thus, the scheduling enables one bus to do a "figure eight" pattern , with Martinez as the mid-point. 57 It is estimated to take a bus 86 minutes to cover the entire , route from the departure in Antioch to the arrival in Richmond. It is estimated to take 33 minutes from Antioch to Martinez ; to take about 23 minutes of circulation time within Martinez ; and to ' take about 33 minutes from Martinez to Richmond. As noted earlier in this chapter, the route of the Martinez Link service is two ' balanced loops. It is important to note that it was assumed that the buses would be based in Martinez and originate the day' s , schedule from there. In terms of frequency, there are two basic schedules. First is the basic day schedule which will provide the .regularity of service which is part of the requirement for the service design in , meeting the need for relative consistency within a working day. The headway frequency is 96 minutes; which includes 86 minutes of journey time and a ten minute turnaround time at the journey' s end. , This will provide for an opportunity to catch up for lost time due to unusually heavy traffic congestion and for a driver' s; break at ' the end of each long run. The amount of "schedule recovery" time at the ends of the route is based on AC Transit standards. It ' should be noted that the journey speed was assumed to include the stop times at each stop; and one would assume that, for the most , part, the driver would get his or her break without too much trouble. The second schedule is supplemental and can accommodate the commuter traffic likely to be using the new service. This schedule is based on a split work shift and has a primary orientation toward delivering the commuters to Martinez just before working hours start , and taking them home at the end of the working day. The bus arrives at 7: 45 AM and departs at 5:15 PM. In addition, this bus schedule , provides several more bus runs to cover the beginning and the ends of the 'business day and so increases the frequency at the times when , further capacity is likely to be required. overall, the basic schedule provides seven round trips per day, , and the commuter runs on the split shift provide an additional five round trips. Table 5-4 shows the details of the bus times. '58 TABLE 5-4 . SCHEDULING OF SERVICE ' EASTBOUND Leave Arrive Leave Arrive Richmond Martinez Martinez Antioch 6 :29 AM 7 :02 AM 7 : 04 AM 7 : 37 AM ' 7 :12 AM 7: 45 AM 8 : 05 AM 8 : 38 AM 7 : 47 AM 8 : 20 AM 8 :40 AM 9:13 AM 8 : 48 AM 9 : 21 AM 9: 41 AM 10: 14 AM 9 :23 AM 9 : 56 AM 10: 16 AM 10 :49 AM ' 10 :24 AM 10 : 57 AM 10 : 59 AM 11: 32 AM 11: 52 AM 12 :25 PM 12 : 35 PM 1 : 08 PM 1:28 PM 2 : 01 PM ' 2 : 11 PM 2 :44 PM 3 : 04 PM 3: 37 PM 3: 39 PM 4 : 12 PM 3•: 47 PM 4 :20 PM 4 : 40 PM 5 : 13 PM ' 4 :22 PM 4 :55 PM 5: 15 PM 5:48 PM 5: 23 PM 5 : 56 PM 5 : 58 PM 6 : 31 PM WESTBOUND ' Leave Arrive Leave Arrive Antioch Martinez Martinez Richmond ' 6 :29 AM 7 : 02 AM 7 : 04 AM 7 : 37 AM 7 : 12 AM 7 : 45 AM 8 : 05 AM 8: 38 AM 7 :47 AM 8 : 20 AM 8 :40 AM 9: 13 AM 8 :48 AM 9 : 21 AM 9 : 41 AM 10: 14 AM 9 :23 AM 9 : 56 AM 10 : 16 AM 10 :49 AM ' 10 :24 AM 10 :57 AM 10 :59 AM 11 : 32 AM 11: 52 AM 12 :25 AM 12 : 35 PM 1: 08 PM 1:28 PM 2 : 01 PM 2 : 11 PM 2 : 44 PM 3 : 04 PM 3: 37 PM ' 3 :39 PM 4 : 12 PM 3 :47 PM 4 : 20 PM 4 : 40 PM 5: 13 PM 4 :22 PM 4 : 55 PM 5: 15 PM 5 :48 PM ' 5 :23 PM 5: 56 PM 5 :58 PM 6 : 31 PM ' 59 FARE STRUCTURE ' An important part of the service design was the consideration , about the fare structure. The importance about the fare structure was indicated very strongly by the responses of the interested ' persons and agencies who were invited to comment on the preliminary list of design criteria. They all agreed on the importance of ' fares and on the need to keep the fares as low as possible. It is recommended that the Martinez Link use a simple flat fare structure of 75� per one-way trip for regulars, with 50% off , for seniors and handicapped persons. This fare would be the same 75� for all trips to Martinez regardless of destination. This , would be consistent with the other operators in the area such as WestCAT and BART Express Buses, both of which offer a similar ' discount. By way of comparison, WestCAT charges a $1. 00 fare as a base fare and BART charges a base fare of 5V plus .a' zone charge , which would give a maximum fare of up to 75fi, depending on the length of the trip. , An additional proposal, which is aimed at stimulating rider- ship and would be particularly valuable in the early stages of the development of the Martinez Link, would be the addition of a free t ticket or free pass to each envelope sent to a potential juror. The idea is that if a prospective juror were to receive a summons , to appear as a member of a jury panel, he or she would find out about the Martinez Link, its convenient schedule, and perhaps try it as a means of getting to Martinez for the jury selection. This could act as an encouragement to the residents of east and west ' county to show up for jury service and to use the Martinez Link. A variation on this idea might be to offer riot a free pass, but instead a free ticket one-way into Martinez. ' REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT ' To some extent, the requirements for personnel and equipment are based on the dictates of the schedule. It is recommended that ' 60 ' the vehicle operator- for the Martinez Link be a contractor, working ' under a long-term (up to three year) contract. This would enable the .vehicle operator to begin to amortize the equipment needed to ' run the service and at the same time to build up the necessary ridership to make the service as effective as possible. As noted in the section about scheduling, there is a long day ' base schedule in which two buses run from one origin to Martinez, through the city, and onto the second origin. At the second origin, ' the bus and driver take a 10-minute break and return to Martinez, pass through Martinez, and onto the first origin. By using an 11. 5 hour schedule bus run, the schedule requires two vehicles, each with one full-time and one part-time driver. Thus the base schedule ' requires two vehicles and four drivers on a daily basis. In addition, there is a commuter run schedule which is based on the idea . of a split shift, four and one half hours in the morn- ing, a gap of over four and a half hours in the middle of the day, and about three hours in the afternoon. Again, there are two ' vehicles, but it is recommended that the drivers be hired. to work a split shift and thus the requirement for this schedule is only ' two drivers. In total, the Martinez Link will require four vehicles (two ' for each schedule) and six drivers. Furthermore, as noted above, it is recommended that the Martinez Link be operated by a contract ' operator in order to reduce as much as possible the capital outlay needed at the outset. ' MAINTENANCE PROGRAM As indicated earlier, a major element in the reduction of capital outlay will be the use of a contract operator to run the service. As such, .the maintenance program will be the contractor' s responsibility; and the responsibility of the public authorities ' will be limited to contract enforcement. ' \ 61 t SUPPORTING PROGRAMS , The supporting programs include placing some emphasis on the existing transportation services which could supplement the new ' service. These include the carpooling and vanpooling programs administered by RIDES for the Bay Area, Inc. and more active use of ' the existing AMTRAK rail passenger -service. The new Martinez Link service was designed to be the 'princ_ipal link between east .and ' west county and Martinez ; as such, it is a. generalized service, aimed at as wide a number of trips -as possible. In contrast, these supporting services are likely to be more restricted -in scope and, ' while they cannot compete with the Martinez Link on the. general level of service, they provide a strong support role for the new ' service. The new service can. serve also as a focus for these supplemental services, enabling them to concentrate their potential ' ridership into travel patterns and then to build into specific travel arrangements. ' . The first two services, car- and vanpooling, have specific market niches within the general transit market. The general area , of Contra Costa County is viewed as fertile ground for more outreach work on the subject of vanpooling. -The role of these pools is limited by their nature to journeys to work and so to skimming the , peak period demands. This will alleviate overcrowding of the line-haul bus of the Martinez Link once the ridership patterns ' have developed substantially. As such it is an arrangement which may take place after the start up of the service has attracted ' considerable ridership. The existing AMTRAK rail service has a unique capability to ' support the Martinez Link. There are five trains a day in each direction which provide a comfortable, short journey from downtown Richmond to downtown Martinez (see chapter 2 . for more details) . ' The tracks and major infrastructure are in reasonable working order to extend service to Pittsburg and Antioch and indeed the consultants ' have discovered that AMTRAK is considering reopening passenger 62 ' ' service to either Pittsburg or Antioch. According to a conversation with AMTRAK, the possibility of reopening one of the eastern stations for passenger service is being considered seriously. Preliminary engineering reports have been completed and the policy work is being ' done from ,washington. One improvement, however, to the AMTRAK rail service which would bring about immediate benefits to those whose travel needs include getting to Martinez easily and cheaply is to reduce the cost of the AMTRAK trip with a user-side subsidy. This could be ' available to those who have either purchased rail tickets at dis- count at specified locations or have been given the opportunity for ' reimbursement after the train trip has taken place. Either way would be acceptable, but if the cost of the rail trip is not sub- sidized in some way, it will remain very expensive relative to the alternative modes of travel: $4 . 55 one way compared to $1. 00 on WestCAT and 70� on the new Martinez Link. This user-side subsidy ' arrangement would be an additional cost of the Martinez Link service , as the difference between the actual and discounted fare would have to be covered by the subsidy funds. ' FAREBOX RECOVERY REQUIREMENTS As noted in the mailing sent to the interested persons and agencies, the farebox recovery requirement is an issue addressed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and it is an indi- cator of performance as well as a means of measuring the level of subsidy required by the service. In targeting the farebox recovery ' at the level of at least 10% , we are following a precedent set by other county transportation programs. It is a level broadly fol- lowed by the Article 4. 5 paratransit operators in Contra Costa. County and is quite close to the target level of 11% set by Central ' Contra Costa County Transportation Authority in its five year transit plan. It should be noted that this is a target level and that because the Martinez Link will be a completely new service, it ' 63 could take some time to reach this level of 100. The paratransit ' operators range in their farebox recovery rates from as low as about 6% to a high of about 15% . The financial implications of ' this 10% level will be considered in more detail in the cost estimate. ' PROMOTIONAL ?LAN ' If the Martinez Link is to be well used, it must be widely known. A good promotional plan is an important ingredient of the ' system. A first step in the promotional plan will be to produce a poster and a brochure clearly and simply written, with the basic , information about the service which the public needs.. Social service agencies and paratransit providers need to be ' contacted and provided with information to pass on to their clients. The support of these agencies and organizations is important as they have direct contact with many individuals for whom the system ' is designed. A telephone number needs -to be publicized through which" users ' can get additional information on the system. The most logical source for this service would be the proposed coordinated para- ' transit information number. Likewise, the county broker would be a valuable source of. continuing schedule coordination between para- , transit feeder systems and the Martinez Link,. Finally, a good public dissemination plan is needed. The following list suggests some important channels: ' 1. Posters in conspicuous public places , 2. Brochures distributed to social service agencies, paratransit operators, city and county offices 3. Media releases ' 4. Assistance of county broker , 5. If feasible, advertising on AC Transit buses 6. - One time .promotional plans, for example, fanfare ' around first run of the Martinez. Link . bus 7. Information provided to RIDES for dissemination ' 8. Poster and brochures provided to major employers in the service area. ' 6.4 ' The above list includes a somewhat comprehensive approach to promoting the Martinez service. Use of all these channels of ' communication may not be possible; this provides, however, a broad range from which to choose. COST ESTIMATE A major component of this series of recommendations is an estimate of the likely costs that this new service will incur ' based on certain assumptions. The first assumption is that the cost of a vehicle hour is $30. 00. This $30 rate includes all ' hours the bus is o>>t of garage, whether in revenue service, dead- heading, or parked during the driver's break at the end of a run. The $30 is based on current industry levels gleaned from experience '. throughout the Bay Area and central California and on the relatively high schedule speeds for the Martinez Link (higher speed means higher per hour costs) . The second assumption is that there will be a contract oper- ator who will do the actual operation of hiring drivers, running the buses, and keeping to schedules. The funding agencies will ' work throughtre transit agency responsible for provision of service, which might be any one of the three existing transit ' authorities (WestCAT, CCCTA, or Tri-Delta) . It is assumed that these agencies would then contract with a private operator to ' run the service for a specific period of time. The importance of this assumption is that it relieves the Martinez Link of capital considerations. tIn determining the number of vehicle hours, one must keep in mind the number of vehicles and their scheduling. There are ' four vehicles in all, with six drivers . The basic schedule is for two vehicles running from 7 : 04 AM to 5: 56 PM, which is 10 ' hours and 52 minutes (10 . 87 hours) . The commuter run schedule is for two vehicles running from 6 : 29 AM to 10 : 57 AM or four ' hours and 28 minutes in the morning and from 3: 39 PM to 6 :31 PM or two hours and 52 minutes (.7 . 20 hours in total) . 1 6.5 Table 5-5 shows the total amount of vehicle hours for the entire system within the first year of operation and the cost at ' $30 per hour. TA - ,. BLE 5 5. COST ESTIMATES Base Schedule Commuter Schedule ' Buses 2 2 Revenue hours/day/bus 10. 8.7 7. 20 ' Days per year 255 255 Cost/bus hour $30 $30 ' Cost/year $166 ,311 110,160 J This is not the complete cost estimate because although it includes the total running time, it does not include platform time, dead-head time, user side subsidy and promotional costs. ' Table 5-6 includes these and shows the total cost estimate for the first year of operation. ' Platform time is about one quarter hour at the beginning and end of each work shift in which the driver cleans the bus, reports ' his or her receipts, and deals with matters of administration and the like. There are six drivers per day. This would add another ' three hours per day, costed herein at $20. 00 per hour; which would add another .3 hours .per day x 5 days per week x 51 weeks per year ' x $20. 00 per hour. This would add another $15, 30.0 per year to the cost of the vehicle running time. (Platform time is priced at ' two-thirds of bus running time. ) Dead-head time in these schedules is minimal because the start and end points of the bus runs are in Martinez. Even so, it would ' be necessary to add an allowance for this time which is essential for .the moving of the buses to the proper places for starting and for garaging : Assuming that the total dead-head time was about 10 minutes at the . beginning and the end of the working day, this , would add another 20 .minutes (.0.3 hour) per day. This x 5 days per weekx 51 weeks per year x $30 per hour gives an additional ' $2,295. 00 per year. 66 ' We have estimated the user side subsidy cost at $7 , 100 per year. This would discount 2000 one-way trips from an AMTRAK price of $4. 55 to a user price of $1. 00 . In addition, we have included $2 , 700 for the promotional plan, the main cost of which would include printing brochures, posters, and similar materials. The total gross cost is estimated to be $304, 000 for the first year of operation of the Martinez Link. The net cost (gross cost less fares) will of course be lower. In considering the breakdown of the costs, one can see that the platform time and dead-head time taken together represent only about 60 of the total costs; the majority of the cost is taken up with the scheduled running time. TABLE 5-6. TOTAL COST ESTIMATE FOR THE MARTINEZ LINK 1 Base schedule $166 ,311 Commuter run schedule 110.,160 Subtotal $276,471 Platform time 15 , 300 Dead-head time 2 ,295 Subtotal 17 ,595 User-side subsidy (AMTRAK) 7,100 aPromotional plan funding 2 ,700 Less revenues,, estimated at a $303 ,866 maximum of 10% of costs 30 , 387 Net, minimum funding required $273 , 500 (rounded.) As stated elsewhere in the report, the ridership can be estimated only within a wide range. The above estimate is believed to be the most conservative assumption. If all of the 6000 passengers using the present systems-were brought into the new single system, the farebox _recovery would exceed 20%, twice. the value cited above. i 1 67 6, CONCLUSIONS I By way of concluding this report, the consultants considered Lit appropriate to review the current situation regarding decision making about the Martinez Link and the likely political support that such a public transit connection -might have. As indicated previously, the idea of a cross-county public transportation con- ' nection is not new. It is an idea which surfaces periodically, but for which resources and implementation schedules have not yet ' been approved. As noted in the executive summary, it is anticipated that this report would become a focus for further decision making which would lead directly to the implementation of the Martinez Link as a viable bus line running from Antioch to Martinez and on to Richmond and return. iIn general terms, there is a vast amount of interest and local support for the Martinez Link on both sides of the county and with- in the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. A previous proposal was initiated by the Board of Directors of the Western Contra Costa County Transit Authority (WestCAT) for a six-month demonstration project. In August 1979 , the Contra Costa County Board of Super- visors passed a resolution (number 79/792) which "fully support [ed] " the proposal and "recommend [ed] that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission sponsor a six-month demonstration project to provide public transit services between the cities of Richmond and Martinez . " In July 1979 the City Council of Richmond passed a similar ' resolution expressing its full support. Although expressing a great deal of interest in the proposal as put forward by WestCAT and supported by Contra Costa County and the City Council of Richmond, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission was unable to act on it due to staffing and resource limitations. It was agreed that WestCAT would continue to press 69 ahead. It was agreed that the Public Works Department of Contra Costa County would present a more detailed proposal, which was . circulated in the early summer of 1980.. There were .technical dif- ferences between the County' s proposal and WestCAT's. For example, the County proposed a fixed schedule and WestCAT a demand respon- sive, 24-hour notice service; and certain transfer arrangements , were not finalized. However, despite the technical differences, both organizations remained in favor of the idea of the Martinez Link. , Support for the Martinez Link from the eastern side of the county comes from the transit operators there and the potential , users. Tri Delta has long been aware of the need to extend its service to include Martinez, the county seat, and as part of the Eastern Special Transportation Project identified a direct _line to Martinez as an "unmet need". The transit authorities officials interviewed about the proposals presented in this report affirmed that such a direct line is still important. In addition, a Tri .Delta transit user_ survey found. interest in a direct bus line to. Martinez : "it's important; BART is a problem there; [and] doesn't satisfy the need of the community [for] time- liness [and a] direct route to Martinez" . The survey found more interest in this proposal among urban respondents than among rural ones. l The other eastern transit operator is BART with its Express Buses. In its five year plan and in discussions with officials, BART has indicated its intention to upgrade the Express Bus service to the original objective of acting as a feeder service to the BART rail. service. It has developed that the Express Buses have become ' the local bus route for short haul trips and BART would prefer to transfer this local function to the local transit operators. On the other hand BART is. cognizant of the difficulties facing these 1Tri Delta Transit Authority Transit User Survey, Summary and Findings, June 1982 , by J.. Warren and Associates, Attachment E. 70 1. relatively young transit authorities and has agreed to phase the transfer over a period of time to enable the local authorities to pick up the traffic which has now developed. In particular the BART officials wish to upgrade the P series buses to a more express service, which would affect the only public transit eastern link ibetween east county and Martinez. The P series provided a good local service within the east county and a means of reaching ' Martinez via Concord and to transfer to the M bus. In supporting the Martinez Link, the BART officials would be able to release the ' P series Express Bus service for- more express-like activities while enabling the existing ridership patterns to remain more or less intact. This brings up the point about who the operator of the Mar- tinez Link might be. From the previous chapter about the recom- mended system, we can see that there is a need for a managing agency for funding and administrative purposes. Similarly, there is a need for a contract operator who actually runs the buses, for existing, operators to play supporting supplementary roles, and for a central ' information agency from which a potential passenger would get infor- mation about how to take the desired trip. This last-named agency should be the proposed paratransit broker, whose office is now being established. It is. anticipated that a large amount of support would ' come directly from the community and from the many interested persons and agencies who have expressed the need for the Martinez Link. The managing agency would be one of the existing transit authorities. The obvious choice might be CCCTA, the central transit authority, because Martinez is in its transit service area and it is so centrally placed within the county. In addition, CCCTA has initiated the beginnings of the take-over process outlined above ' from the BART Express Bus service with its 110 bus line, which services Martinez and Concord and which BART hopes will take ' pressure off both the M and the D bus lines. On the other hand, CCCTA. is the newest of the three transit authorities and has an ambitious .program of local service to cope with at the present time. ' 71 There are coordination mechanisms between the three transit authorities, and the efficiency and quality of service should not .be affected by the choice. It is perhaps too early to expect CCCTA to take over this new service, but given the coordination between these transit authorities, there is no reason to delay the ..implementation of the Martinez Link. The need for the service is ' in fact mentioned in the CCCTA five year plan (1983-87) : While no specific plan has yet emerged for improving ' the linkage between areas, several approaches are under discussion, including improved linkage between Martinez and Richmond and between Martinez and Pitts- ' burg. (page 5-41) As stated in the executive summary, there is a need for further , refinement in the data and proposals presented here in this report; this report is intended to be a focus for final decision making and problem solving. The consultants recommend that the problem of who will be the transit agency responsible for provision of service be solved first to assign them the authority and mandate to implement i this much-needed Martinez Link. r 72 , i � ,ePENo,. a i MAILING LIST OF CONTACT PERSONS AND AGENCIES FOR THE MARTINEZ LINK 1. Ann Moghaddas 10. Clarence Jackson Focal Point Dept. of Social Services 2131 Pear Street 1325 MacDonald Pinole, CA 94564 Richmond, CA 2. Employment Development Dept. 11. Thomas Meyer 500 Chestnut Street 145 Park Place Brentwood, CA 94513 Point Richmond, CA 94801 ' 3. Employment Development Dept. 12. Emma Kuevor 2126 Lido Square Affirmative Action Office Pittsburg, CA 94565 County Administration Building Martinez , CA 94553 4. Rubicon Programs, Inc. 2400 Bissell Avenue 13. Veterans Administration Hospital Richmond, CA 94804 150 Muir Road Martinez , CA 94553 5. Art Schroeder Council on Aging 14 . Veterans Administration 706 Seaview Drive Service Officer E1 Cerrito, CA 94530 823 Main Street ' Martinez , CA 94553 6. Bruce Weiss CCC Public Defender 15. Many Hands, Inc. ' 3811 Bissell Avenue P. O. Box 1487 Richmond, CA 94805 Pittsburg, CA 94565 7. Dee Hughes 16. United Council of Spanish Victim-Witness Assistance Speaking Organizations Program 516 Main Street District Attorney's Office Martinez , CA 94553 ' 100 37 Street Richmond, CA 17. Carmen Estrada UCSS ' 8. Alan Sjostrand 100 Village Drive District Attorney' s Office Brentwood, CA 94513 100 37 Street Richmond, CA 18. UCSS 987 Rosemary Lane 9. Rose Manning Oakley, CA 94561 Dept. of Social Services ' 3431 MacDonald 19 . UCSS Richmond, CA 799 Railroad Avenue Pittsburg, CA 94565 ' A-3 MARTINEZ LINK MAILING LIST (Cont`d) 20. American Cancer Society 31. Sally Schultz Attn: Barbara Reid Area Agency on Aging , 1341 Newell Avenue 2425 Bisso Lane, Suite 110 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Concord, CA 94520 21. Edna Huerta/Bob Chandler 32 . Diablo Valley Blind Center Dept. of Social Services 175 Alvarado Avenue 3865 Shopping Hts. Lane Pittsburg, CA 94565 Pittsburg, CA 94565 33. Supervisor Tom Torlakson' s 22. Betty Conners Office Dept. of Social Services Attn: Diana Link 3865 Shopping Hts. Lane 45 Civic Avenue Pittsburg, CA 94565 Pittsburg, CA 94565 23. Dept. of Social Services 34 . Neil Bernstein ' 2500 Alhambra Avenue Marketing and Community Relations Martinez , CA 94553 Mt., Diablo Hospital 2540. East Street 24. John Lee Concord, CA ' Dept.. of Social Services 2850 Willow Pass Road 35. Brad Seigel Pittsburg, CA 94565 Economic Development Coordinator. City of Martinez 25. Lucille Duncan 525 Henrietta Street Dept. of Social Services Martinez , CA 94553 740 Third Brentwood, CA 94513 3.6. Stephen. Emslie Planning Department 26. Pittsburg Health Center City of: Martinez 45 Civic Avenue 525 Henrietta Street Pittsburg, CA 94565 Martinez , CA 94553 27. CCC Health Services 37. Dr. Donald Goldmacher ' Richmond Outpatient Clinic Assistant Director 38th and Bissell County Hospital Richmond, CA 94805 2500 Alhambra Avenue Martinez , CA 94553 28: Audrey Detmer Friends Outside 38. Harry Cisterman , 1127 Escobar Personnel Department Martinez , CA 94553 651 Pine Street, Third. Floor Martinez , CA 94553 29. Brentwood Clinic ' 118 Oak Street 39. Ron Serviss Brentwood, CA 94513 Transit Manager WestCAT 30. Antioch Mental Health Clinic 953-B San Pablo Avenue P. 0. Box 796 Pinole, CA 94564 Antioch, CA 94590 A--4 ' MARTINEZ LINK NAILING LIST (Cont'd) ' 40. Lita Krowech 145 Park Place Point Richmond, CA 94801 41. Jane Grant Kerr Contra Costa Legal Services ' Foundation P. O. Box 1669 Richmond, CA 94801 42. Katie Lewis El Cerrito Senior Services ' 10890 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 43. Leslie Caldwell Public Defenders' Office 610 Court Martinez , CA 94553 44 . Virginia Childrers Social Service Department 1 3630 San Pablo .Dam. Road El Sobrante, CA 1 1 I ' A-5 t t i i t t ' MEMO Crain ,associates, Inc. 1 ' To: All Interested Persons Date: June 16 , 1982 From: Patricia Moix Reference: ' Subject: Public Transportation to Martinez from East and West Contra Costa County ' Our firm is researching the need for public transit from East and West County to Martinez. You were suggested as a contact ' person who is aware of this need. We are trying to answer several questions right now: 1. What group (.$)_ of persons need transportation to Martinez? 2. From what specific localities/neighborhoods? 3. What type of transit would be most used? (fixed route, ' demand response). . On what type of schedule? 4. For what purposes is transportation needed? Enclosed is our current list of purposes for which people need to travel to Martinez. Your comments and additions to the list are welcomed. We also need your help in supplying us with the number of persons you know of who need these types of trips. ' How often would they travel to Martinez for these purposes? I 've included a form to help you estimate the number of trips ' required. However, if this form does not suit your purposes, please discard it, and tell us about the need as you see it. Thanks so much for your assistance in this project. PM/isl ' B-3 r 0 U Ql t N N N N O � O w � �s U z3 N N a � r► !a � a. r � �- APPENDIX C METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING TRANSPORTATION HANDICAPPED 1 ' As part of an earlier contract with AC Transit, Crain & Associates developed a formula for estimating the percent of population in an area which is transportation handicapped. The formula produces the percent of people who, regardless of age, ' have difficulty using public transportation. It turns out that this percentin each area follows very closely two other per- cents: the percent of people age 65 or over; and the precent of families with incomes uner the poverty level. These are merely statistical correlations. Using them does not mean that ' only people age 65 or over or people in poverty are included. In fact, it is known that the transportation handicapped include ' people of all ages and all incomes. However, their geographic distribution does follow closely the distribution of persons ' age 65 and over and families under the poverty line. The precise formula is: %TH = 1. 88 + . 19 (%Age 65+)+ . 16 (% Below poverty level) . ' (Source: AC Transit Elderly and Handicapped Persons Planning Study, 1977 , by Crain & Associates, page C-8) ' C-3 � ,v MEMO Crain ,associates, Inc. 1 1 ' To: All Interested Persons Date: June 29 , 1982 From: Patricia Moix Reference: Perry Wittman ' Subject: "The Martinez Connection" - Public Transportation to Martinez from East and West County This second memo follows the first one from June 16 , 1982 and has two objectives: first is to show you the preliminary list of criteria to be used in the design of "The Martinez Connection" , and second is to remind you who have not responded to answer the ' four questions asked in the first memo. The list of criteria (attached) was developed to be a way of ' creating standards for the Martinez Connection. The idea is to meet these standards or at least to respond to the issues these points raise. Your comments on how important these criteria are would be most helpful to establishing our list of priorities and, ' if you can suggest additional points , please do so. At the same time, please answer the four questions asked in the first memo--if youhave nct .already done so. We have received a few replies but need more. These questions were : a. What groups of persons need this connection? b. From what specific localities? c. What type of transit connection (e.g. , dial-a-ride, vanpool, etc. ) and on what schedule? d. For what purposes and to what destinations? Enclosed is the preliminary list of criteria together with a ' response form. The response form should take only a few minutes to complete so please fill it in and send it right back to us. As noted above, we are developing our proposals now and to ensure your participation, we ask your prompt cooperation. Thank you. Attachment ' PM/PW/mjm 1 ` ' D-3 1 June 29 , 1982 "The Martinez Connection" ' Preliminary List of Criteria to be used in the Design of The Martinez Connection 1. The service must accommodate all passengers (including commuters, the transportation handicapped, and others) . 2. The system in all of its aspects must present no language barriers to recognized minorities. , 3. Travel time to Martinez should be no more than 45 minutes from west county and 45 minutes from east county. 4. There should be no more than one modal change (for example, bus to bus, bus to van, van to train, and so on) . 5. Fares relative to distance should be comparable to BART' s and , consistent with the BART distance-graded fare structure. 6. Service should have .a fare box recovery rate consistent with , the MTC requirement for Article 4 . 5 elderly and handicapped service (say 100 of operating costs covered by fares) . 7. Trip purposes and destinations must accommodate all judicial , ' employment, medical, and personal county government business trips. , 8. The 'scheduling of service will provide arrival and departure times in Martinez to satisfy, to the extent possible, the , trip purposes stated above in Number 7 . 9. Information about the service must have sufficient outreach to attract public attention. ' D-4 ' June 30, 1982 "The Martinez Connection" ' Response. Form: Preliminary List of Criteria Indicate below your comments about the nine criteria, using ' the appropriate number to match (e.g. , number 1 below goes with the first criterion) . Indicate whether you think the issue raised is very important or not so important. Fell free to suggest additional criteria or points you think have been overlooked. Please fill in this form as soon as possible (right now if pos- sible) and use the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope to ' mail it back to us. Thank you for your cooperation and prompt response. ' 1. ' 2. 3. 4. S. ' 6. 1 7 . 8 . 9. Additional criteria or points you would like to raise: ' From: (name, please print) organization/agency ' phone no. , address D_r; 1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF .CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on December 13, 1983 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson and Schroder NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Support of the Bishop Ranch ) Business Park Transportation ) Systems Management Program ) The Bishop Ranch Business Park has developed a Transportation Management Program unique in Contra Costa County. It uses a variety of innovative measures to reduce total vehicle trips. Innovative programs such as this will help Contra Costa County obtain maximum use of its transportation network, minimize congestion and save fuel. Creative approaches to managing our transportation system are essential if we are to meet our future transportation needs and must be encouraged. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors having received and reviewed the Bishop Ranch Business Park Transportation Systems Management Program find; The goals of this plan and the subsequent formation of the Bishop Ranch Transportation Association consistent with the goals of Contra Costa County to encourage and actively pursue commute alternatives and parking mitigation strategies with both the public and private sector; and That Transportation Systems Management is a valid approach to solving transportation problems through improving the efficiency of existing transportation systems. The Public Works Director having concurred in these findings; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors endorses the efforts made by the Bishop Ranch Business Park to plan and implement an effective Transportation Systems Management Program. 1 Noreby certify that this Is a lure and corrOct COPY 04 an action taken and entered on the minutes of tho Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: (D/a, �..J�3�1W J.R.OLSSORa,COUNTY CLERK and ex officio Clerk of the Board By Deputy tp.bo.bishopranch.tl2 (TMF:jal 12.6.83) ORIG. DEPT.: Public Works Transportation Planning cc: Director of Planning County Administrator Bishop Ranch Transportation Assoc. via PW Alex Mehran, Sunset Dev. Co. via PW I ,�Oi'1C7 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY /anchTraDnsportation December 6, 1983 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: J. Michael Walford, Public Works Direct SUBJECT: December 13, 1983 Presentation on Bisho Management Program At the October meeting of the Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (CCTAC) , Peter Oswald, Sunset Development Company, presented the Bishop Ranch Transportation Management Program. The program is designed to reduce the number of vehicle trips in the San Ramon Valley. As developed by the Bishop Ranch Transportation Association, the program is innovative and will set a high standard for future developments to meet in the field of transportation system management. This program will increase the efficiency of the transportation system in the San Ramon Valley. The presentation was extremely well received by the CCTAC and we believe your Board will find it of interest. TMF:j a 1 bos.bishop.memo.tll cc: A. A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning William R. Gray, Chief Deputy Public Works Director T. M. Finley, Asst. Public Works Dir., Transp. Ping. RECEIVED Lc_C 131883 J. R. OLSSON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONT COSTA CO. B ..-.-....-..lam. ..--•--...Deputy TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION BISHOP RANCH BUSINESS PARK Post Office Box 640 One Annabel Lane San Ramon,California 94583 415/838-0100 A TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BISHOP RANCH BUSINESS PARK i i RECEIVED 1988 J. R. oLSo;•4 CLERK BOARD Or SUPERVISORS CON R COSTA CO. 8 ............. t . ... ......De ut I Sunset DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 1951 GOALS Reduce Traffic Reduce Single Occupant Motor Vehicles BY Increasing "Vehicle. 'Ridesharing And Other TSM Measures IMPLEMENTATION Carpooling , Vanpooling Buspooling Local Tansit Express Bus Bike Programs Flex Time and Staggered Work Hours Internal Shuttle Bus System TSM EXPECTED OUTCOME Travel Choice 50% Single Occupant Vehicles 30% Carpooling 12% Vanpooling 6% Transit 2% Biking/Walking Traffic Average Daily Commute Traffic 31% Reduction Peak Hour Traffic 40% Reduction a ORGANIZATION Transportation Association Major Employer Commute Coordinators Computer Matching "Transportation Store" BISHOP RANCH BUSINESS PARK TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION STATEMENT OF POLICY The landowners and employers in Bishop Ranch Business Park desire to provide good transportation access to, in and around the Park. The use of alternate means of transportation, as opposed to the single driver car, for employees and visitors is endorsed and will be promoted. Such an effort will : • Improve traffic flow; • Reduce employee costs for getting to and from work; • Reduce employee stress due to commute driving; • Lessen future parking needs; • Provide access to expanded labor pools ; • Conserve energy; • Help maintain clean air; . • Provide a "good neighbor" image of the Park and for the Corporations within it. Ridesharing programs such as carpools, vanpools , bus- pools, . express bus; and park shuttle bus will be considered. Increased use of public transit, walking and bicycling will be encouraged. The Transportation Management Plan -and Implementation.. _ - __ Policy Plan prepared. by Ekistic Transportation Systems, Febru- ary, 1983, will be a long range goal of the Association. Members of the Association shall share information and coordinate efforts; and the Association shall represent its members in promoting improved transportation services pro- vided by public agencies . Approved 8/18/83 0 BISHOP RANCH BUSINESS PARK Posf Office Box 640 One Annabel Lane San Ramon,Califomia 94583 415/838.0100 DOCUMENT OF INTENT For planning purposes, the undersigned companies now consider it timely to set forth their general intentions respecting the creation of an association to plan for the transportation of employees and visitors to and from work sites at the Bishop Ranch Business Park. The association, expected to be called the Bishop Ranch Business Park Transportation Association, would be established as a non-profit corporation, subject to the review and approval of the undersigned companies' respective management and legal counsel. In connection with the movement of people to and from Bishop Ranch, the association would be concerned primarily with the availability of various modes of transportation and with related traffic issues, with emphasis on cost effective systems and procedures. Page 1 of 2 sunset 1951 BISHOP RANCH BUSINESS PARK Post Ottice Box 6-0 On, Lnnabel Lane San Ramon,California 9453 -151333.01CC The undersigned companies would be the founding members of the association, with additional members being invited to join in the future. It is intended that all employers with facilities at Bishop Ranch be members of the association. Until such time as any such corporation has been established, the undersigned companies will meet from time-to- time to discuss and consider the matters mentioned herein; the priority order of business shall be to arrive at mutually agreed forms of incorporation and bylaws, a statement of policy and a first year work program. Joint expenses, if any, will be shared on a mutually agreed upon basis. The association would, as a long range goal, consider the adoption- of the- proposals set forth in-the- Transportation Management Plan and. Implementation Policy Plan prepared by Ekistic Transportation Systems, February 1983. Sunset Development Company Pacific Te ephhone )Com any Beckman Instruments Staand Oil Company of California Page 2 of 2 Sunset MV ItO NTC~ 1951 1 1 ' A TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN ' FOR BISHOP RANCH BUSINESS PARK 1 -1 1 1 R- CEIVED ' /0.30 1 -tel G 13 1983 T O O 2 /. R. OLSSON I CLERIC BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 4 00 � coNTRq COSTA F- 3 i A TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BISHOP RANCH BUSINESS PARK February 1983 1 1 � � 3 ELS zU@ TPmsDD&?ftUgE S " z�(D nC`n z P. 0. Box 3567 222 South Irena Ave., Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 1 (213) 316-7638 FOREWORD This report was sponsored by the Sunset Development Company in the interest of proposing a transportation management system for Bishop Ranch Business Park that will mitigate commuting traffic to and from the Park while providing convenient access and parking facilities. The report was prepared by Don Torluemke and David Curry, with support from Jesse Glazer and Jim Lightbody. Staff .of the following agencies and firms have our thanks for providing information utilized .in the report: Contra Costa County Departments of Planning and Public Works �. Metropolitan Planning Commission, Commute Alternatives Program RIDES for Bay Area Commuters California Department of Transportation, Region 04 SmithKline, Beckman Davy McKee Kentron Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company Staefa Control Systems �. Standard Oil Company of California Sunset Development Company Comments on the report are welcomed and should be directed to Peter R. Oswald; Vice President, Transportation Services; Sunset Development Co. ; P.O. Box 640; San Ramon, CA 94583. i CONTENTS Section Page 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . 1 Transportation Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Transportation Management System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. SITE PLAN AND EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . . . 5 Site Development Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Employment Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Source of Employment. . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Residential Locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Highway Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 TransitService. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 'r Bicycle Provisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Ridesharing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Commute Transportation Potential at the Park. . . . . . 21 4. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS. . . 25 Organization and Overview. . . . . . . . . . . � . . . � . . . . . . . . . 25 Park Transportation Office Services. 28 Employer Transportation Coordinators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Ridematching Registration and Matching Services. . . 30 Parking Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Other Pooling and TransitIncentives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Vanpool Information and Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Transit Coordination•and•Buspools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Shuttle Services. 36 Special Pool, Transit, and•Bicycle�Facilities. . . . . 37 Flex-Time Promotion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 !r On-Site Car and Van Rental Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 �1 5. EXPECTED RIDESHARING OUTCOMES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Other Employer Ridesharing Programs: : : : . . . . . . . . . . 39 Ridesharing Estimate for the Park. 41 APPENDIX A PARKING STANDARDS AND NEEDS, . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . 45 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 r iii ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1 BISHOP RANCH BUSINESS PARK SITE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 BISHOP RANCH LOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 1 PROJECTED YEAR END SPACE AND EMPLOYMENT BYCOMPANY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 7 . 2 SELECTED EMPLOYMENT DENSITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3 RIDESHARING SAVINGS AT SELECTED COMMUTING DISTANCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 11 4 RESIDENTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF PARK EMPLOYMENT. . . . . . . 14 5 RIDESHARING BENEFITS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6 RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION OFFICE AND EMPLOYER RIDESHARING ACTIVITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 7 RURAL AND SUBURBAN RIDESHARING PROGRAM STATISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 8 VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION DURING PEAK PERIODS... . . . . . 42 �r r. iv 1. E X E C U T I V E SUMMARY INTRODUCTION As expected and planned for, the San Ramon Valley has become an activerowth center of the San Francisco Ba Area. In re- g Y sponse to this activity,. Sunset Development Company is creating a full-service suburban business complex there, the Bishop Ranch Business Park. Employment at the Park is scheduled to increase from the present level of about 1,000 persons to 23,000 by 1995. Efficient transportation and convenient access are increa- singly important in company site selection. As a consequence, Sunset Development Company is giving special attention to the transportation features of the park. This comprehensive trans- portation study details the facilities and programs required and expected to be available to meet the Park's objectives of efficient and convenient multimodal access. TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT The Park is well served by transportation. A six-lane freeway adjoins the site, connected via ramps at nearby Crow Canyon Road and future direct ramps at Bollinger Canyon road. Freeway distance to Oakland is 16 miles, and to San Jose or San Francisco is 35 miles. Express buses and peak-hour shuttles run to the Bay Area Rapid Transit passenger rail service 11 miles north in Walnut Creek. BART serves San Francisco and East Bay communities as well as connecting links to the Oakland and San Francisco airports. Corporate jet airports are within twenty minutes at nearby Livermore and Concord. i Transit development after 1990 may include passenger rail service along an abandoned railroad alignment through the Park. 1 A station site is included in the Park' s long-range plan, and the State legislature has appropriated $2 million toward purchase of the rail corridor. In general, transportation access is superior to what can typically be expected in a suburban setting. Nonetheless, good transportation resource management, especially active promotion of ridesharing among Park employees, will be required to maintain these conditions. Existing firms, such as Standard Oil and Davy McKee, are already recording impressive ridesharing rates among their- personnel. Parking , never free to the supplier , is one of the main resources to be managed. An adequate parking supply will consist of two stalls per three employees, which is equivalent to 2. 2 stalls per thousand gross square feet of office space at the expected occupancy density. This supply is deemed sufficient for all parking requirements normally encountered, including visitors, service vehicles, motor pools, and other special needs, assuming the transportation management program described next. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Since transportation is the third largest element of the household budget, today' s managers must be sensitive to the high cost of commute transportation for their employees. Reduction of these costs can relieve pressure on wages and increase employee disposable income. Using this natural economic incentive, a transportation plan has been developed for the Park to assure balance among the related elements of access, parking avail- ability, employee convenience, commuting costs, and surrounding air quality. The recommended approach to achieving this balance is through ridesharing and supporting facilities operated by an association of Park landowners and tenants. An g n on-sit ridesharing data base and information retrieval system is proposed, together with personalized assistance in forming carpools and vanpools. Solo auto commuters are expected to number only half of all commuters, based on recent trends and 2 on the high degree of support devoted to ridesharing. Carpool promotion, including preferential parking and related incentives, should attract nearly one-third of future Park employees to car- pooling alone.. A van financing and repurchase arrangement will help any Park personnel who wish to own and operate their own vanpools. Leased vans and company-owned vanpools are already operating and will also be encouraged. Thus, all three current vanpooling approaches will be utilized. Short distance commute cycling from nearby residential areas is expected to be a lifestyle for an important segment of the _ Park' s employment. Provisions for bike storage and air stations are proposed, as well as identification of safe bicycle commuting routes. Flexible working hours will be encouraged where they do not disrupt employer operations. Coordination of the Park' s ridesharing and parking manage- ment efforts is proposed through a Park transportation management association. The association would be headed by a manager with a professional transportation background and expertise. Park-wide guidelines, promotional programs, and shuttle services, as warranted, would be' sponsored by the collective membership of the association. The association can also represent the Park in area-wide transportation planning efforts and in related matters affecting its members. 3 2. S I T E PLAN AND EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS fThis section presents the site plan and development schedule for Bishop Ranch Business Park, together with the expected attri- butes of employment at the Park that relate to the potential for ridesharing there. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Of the Park' s 585 acres, 308 acres have been sold to five companies: Standard Oil Company of California or Chevron, U.S .A. (143 acres) ; Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company (Pac Tel, 97 acres) ; SmithKline Beckman (33 acres); Toyota Motor Sales (30 acres) ; and Staefa Control Systems, Inc. (5 acres) . Construction by these companies through 1995, the buildout year , is expected to total approximately 4.9 million gross square feet. Of this , Toyota already has 220,000 square feet in place, of which 200,000 is warehouse space. Sunset Development Company plans to construct a total of about 3.2 million gross square feet of its own space for lease, consisting of the following: • Bishop Ranch Office Plaza with 100 ,000 gross square feet, now occupied by Chevron, Kentron, Sunset, and others o Sunset Executive Center with 150,000 gross square feet, now occupied by Standard Oil, Davy McKee, and Hewlett-Packard • Bollinger Business Center: four buildings of 50 ,000 gross square feet each, with occupancy during 1983 • Other space to total about 2.75 million gross square 1 feet, for office and light industrial use including restaurants, service facilties, and a 350-room hotel; to be constructed as demand warrants during the buildout of the park. The site plan in Figure 1 identifies these properties. r 5 Norris Bollinger Canyon Canyon Road Sunset Development Company Road NORTH Sunset SmMa - Eswuo.e ' Cenlel $,StelM - - Bollinger Business enter Standard Oil Company SmithKline Pacific Telephone of California Beckman & �. Sages Sales USA Telegraph 'Co. - u 5 A tr+c ' CMfice.Piva Q I-680 FIGURE 1. BISHOP RANCH BUSINESS PARK SITE Table 1 summarizes present and prospective employment at the Park . by company and year, based on current plans.. . Present employment is about 1,000, with a prospective growth to 1,900 by the end of 1983 and an average growth of 3,400 persons per year �\ for the next four years to a total of some 15,000. by 1987. By 1995, employment of 22,860 is estimated. These plans -are still tentative and subject to change as construction and leasing proceed. . Note that Pacific Telephone employment is counted for the end of the year preceding their move, since they plan to move on January l in each case. The staging of site construction places early emphasis on the northern end of the park, around Norris Canyon Road, with the first Standard Oil buildings at the southern end and Pac Tel beginning to fill in the center in 1985. Ridesharing promotional _ efforts and designation of pickup/dropoff points for multi- company pools and buses will of course need to follow the same sequence of development. 6 ' TABLE 1. PFCOBI'ID YEAR END SPACE AMID EMPLOYMENT BY COMPANY Planned Estimated Cumulative Year and Firm Sq.Ft. (000) Employment Sq•Ft• Employment 1982 Davy McKee 75 300 Chevron: r Marketing 23 122 Ccmputer Services (10/1) 50 200 Kentron 32 123 Sunset 10 10 Toyota 220 60 Other firms 60 135 470 950 470 950 1983 Ca mitments, other firms 180 280 Bollinger Business Center 200 670 850 1,900 380 950 1984 Standard (June) 500 1000 Other Sunset prospects 400 1330 1,750 4,230 900 2330 1985 Standard 500 1200 Pac Tel (1/1/86) 900 3000 Sunset Hotel 200 300 Corporate HQ Building 300 600 3,650 9,330 1900 510 1986 Pac Tel (1/1/87) 840 3000 ' Corporate HQ Building 450 900 4,940 13,230 im -Jw 1987 Other Sunset prospects 550 1,830 5,490 15,060 After 1987 ' Toyota (1987-1992) 200 25 Standard (by 1995) 1220 3755 1 Other firms 370 1190 Other Sunset prospects 850 2830 8,130 22,860 2640 7800 Note: All numbers and dates past 1982 are estimates and subject to change. 7 Table 2 shows selected- employment densities for the Park, in gross square feet of space per employee. Total space in 1.982 was 495 gross square feet per employee, but this. figure .is abnormally high due to inclusion of the- large Toyota warehouse with few employees. . Existing Sunset Development Company space and planned Standard Oil and Pacific Telephone space all range between 281 and 353 gross square feet per .employee. The Standard and Pac Tel space per employee are believed. to .be typical of future Park .. development which will include equipment, storage, service., and other types of uses as well as office space. For this. reason, . we used a factor of 300 gross square feet per employee in estimating the occupancy of future Sunset space (identified as "Other Sunset prospects" , "Sunset Hotel" , and "Corporate HQ Building" in Table 1) , with the -following .exceptions: • A 750,000 square foot .building for corporate head- quarters, scheduled for 1985-86 and .estimated at 500 square feet per employee. • The 200,000 square foot hotel and restaurant, planned for 1985, with some 300 employees (mostly parked in extra space at the Bollinger Business Center) and about 400 guest parking spaces. The total Sunset space of 3.2 million square feet by 1990 would then sustain employment of 9,360, with 7;790 persons in the 2.75 million square feet to be built after 1983. i TABLE 2. SELECTED EMPLOYMENT DENSITIES Gross. Gross Sq. Ft./ Sq.Ft. (000) Employment Employee 1982 total space 470 950 495 1982 Sunset space 250 .. 890 281 1995 Standard oil space 2,220 6,277 353 1995 Pac Tel space 1,740 6,000 290 1995 Sunset space 3,200 9,360 342 Total Park space 8,130 22,860 356 Source: Table 1. -r 8 EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS 1 This section reports on the results of a survey of Bishop Ranch firms in J uly .1982 regarding anticipated type of employ- ment, working hours, and other transportation planning informa- tion. About 62% of reported employment will be in managerial or ' professional jobs, 35% in white collar or clerical jobs, and 3% in blue collar or manual jobs. This is a high proportion of relatively well paid employment. Future restaurant, hotel, and light industrial employment in Sunset developments will increase the blue collar proportion somewhat. Most Standard Oil and Pac Tel employees will be on flex- time, consistent with each company's operational needs. Employees on flex-time will arrive between 6:30 and 9:00 and leave between 3:30 and 6:30. There will be occasional overtime work by about a third of the total employment, but it is usually predictable. Standard and Pac Tel will each have about 100 persons on other shifts--night shifts for Standard and approxi- mately 2 to 10 PM for Pac Tel. Standard has about 0.3% (21 out of 6,000) handicapped employees confined to wheelchairs, most of whom are associated with the Center for Independent Living in Berkeley and now commute to San Francisco via BART. They could use BART in the opposite direction if properly equipped shuttle buses meet them in Lafayette or Walnut Creek. No other firm has identified a transportation problem for handicapped workers. SOURCE OF EMPLOYMENT Essentially all of the firms reported that their initial work forces would. transfer from another Bay Area location, except for replacement of any employees not choosing to transfer . The largest employers, Standard Oil and Pac Tel, are mainly trans- ferring from San Francisco except for 600 Standard employees from Concord. Other employees are transferring from Berkeley, 9 Oakland, Orinda, South San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and San Jose. Most firms expect nearly all of their professional and managerial employees to make the transfer initially. However, they expect to lose some clerical and blue collar workers who have no career stake in the .firm, to intervening employment oppor- tunities that will entail a shorter commute for them. Such workers would be replaced by others living., on the average, closer to the Park. RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONS Forecasting the future residential locations of Park employees is important in assessing the potential for ridesharing and other commute alternatives in relation to distances from the ' Park. Close commuters (up to around six miles) have a high potential for bicycling due to the easy terrain and good weather in the San Ramon Valley. The percentage of close commuters car- pooling or vanpooling tends to be low compared with longer distance commutes because the savings from ridesharing are pro- portional to distance. Indeed, the sharp increase of ridesharing savings with distance makes comuting distance the most important single incentive to ride share. Table 3 provides dollar estimates of the annual savings for commuters in two person carpools vs.' a single occupancy compact auto at different commuting distances. The annual savings range from $130 for a five mile commute to $1, 300 for a 40 mile commute. . The notes to the table give the assumptions plus factors for calculating savings to pools of different size and at different levels of gas consumption or gasoline cost. Transit patronage could be significant in the commute �\ distance categories well served by transit, but until there is significant local transit, ridesharing and bicycling will be the principal alternatives to single occupancy autos. 10 ,r TABLE 3. RIDESHARING SAVINGS AT SELECTED COMMUTING DISTANCES One-way Distance, Annual Savings Per Person for Miles Two-Person Carpool vs. Solo Auto �1 5 $ 130 10 300 20 640 30 970 40 1,300 NOTES 1. The calculations assume $.14/mile for total vehicle operating cost and variable ownership cost of compact cars (from reference ll, p. 110, up- dated to 2/83) ; one mile per person circuitry (added distance to pick up or meet fellow pooler) ; and 240 working days per year. 2. Gas consumption of 21 mpg was assumed for the compact car. Use of a subcompact car averaging 32 mpg would reduce the savings by about 14%. 3. Each $.15 increase in gasoline prices above the current level of $1.15 used in the calculations will add 5% to savings. . 4. Three to five person pools would save an added 30% to 60% per person, and vanpool savings are about equivalent to those in a five-person carpool. Figure 2 shows the location of Bishop Ranch Business Park in relation to the San Francisco Bay Area freeway network. As guides to the probable residential locations of Park employees in the next few years and by 1995, we will use the present locations of Standard Oil employees (the majority working in San Francisco and about a third in Concord) and employees of Lawrence Livermore Lab of the University of California, in Livermore, respectively. 11 101 San ao Rafael Vallejo FIGURE 2 Rode�,* BISI:OP RANCH LOCATION S Pirtle Pa lY 680 396 w Hilo 4 .78 0 . e , r r . s o v e 9 ,o 17 Richmond oir34eeieo10 Scr�in K7iomman • . E1 Cerrito 0 San Albany Pache i Francisco *Berkeley Pleasant • • Concord 0 is an 2a •. Hill 280 Orinda 0 Lafayette • Walnut Alame a t3 Creek •Moraga Alamo • Sin Danville, eanro ishop Ranch �•-« Business Park o. a _ San Mateo Lorenzo Castro alley • San Ramon Hayward Dublin • • •Union 580 To lot City P1•easanton Tracy •Fremont Newark Livermore *Palo 17 680 Alto 280 37 r San Jose 12 Lawrence Livermore Lab is the largest single employer in the area and shares several features with Bishop Ranch Business Park: a high proportion of professional employment, a suburban location, free parking, and a sizable work force of 7,200 persons. For these reasons, and because it has a settled work force and a mature, intensive ridesharing program, the Lab is used in this report for deriving estimates of both future resi- dential distribution and future ridesharing program results at the Park. The Lab does have the advantage of being a single employer, strongly committed to ridesharing; but Bishop Ranch has even higher employment (hence higher potential for matching) and includes over 12,000 employees between two firms, Pac Tel and Standard Oil, that also have strong ridesharing commitments. Initial ridesharing data for Standard Oil and Davy McKee employees at the Park (see next section) support the potential for high ridesharing percentages for Park employees when long distances are entailed. Table 4 derives estimates of the residential locations of Park employees at the end of 1986 and 1995 by distance categories from the Park. The first column of the table- lists- the sur- rounding communities by their distance in miles from Bishop Ranch. The next two columns of the table show the residential percentages of present staff 1) at Standard Oil locations in San Francisco and Concord, and 2) at the Lawrence Lab, To repeat, Standard is used as an example of employee locations before their transfer to the Park, and the Lab as an example of residential distances once everyone has moved to their permanent, preferred locations. Note that the community locations are accurate for Standard Oil and Livermore Lab employees, but the distance cate- gories apply only to the Park. For example, 51.9% of Livermore Lab employees reside in Livermore, within 10 miles of the Lab, and another 8.1% in Pleasanton, about 14 miles away from the Lab. 13 TABLE 4. RESIDENTIAL. DISTRIBUTION OF PARK EMPLOYMENT Present Location Bishop Ranch. Estimate Standard Liver End-of-Year Distance From Oil (SF , & more 1986/ Employment Bishop Ranch Concord Lab 1995 1986 1995 Within 6 miles 2.0% 5.9% 20/31% 2,650 7,080 /1 San Ramon 0.9 2.1 Danville/Dublin 1.1 3.8 6.1 to 12 miles 6.7 10.5 16/20 2,120 4,570 Alamo/Moraga 0.9 0.6 Walnut Creek 5.3 1.8 Pleasanton 0.5 8.1 12. 1 to 18 miles 4.0 56.8 16/17 2,120 3,890 Pleasant Hill 1.0 0.4 Orinda/Lafayette 1.7 0.4 Hayward/Castro Valley/ 0..9 4.1 San Lorenzo Livermore 0.4 51.9 18.1 to 24 miles 26.8 5.5 20/16 2,650 3,660 Concord/Clayton/ 15.6 2.5 Pacheco North Oakland/Berkeley/ 11. 2 3.0 San Leandro 24.1 to 30 miles 7.3 4.0 8/8 1,060 1,830 Antioch Pittsbur 4.7 0.2 / 9 Albany/El Cerrito 1.1 ; Alameda/So. Oakland 0.7 1.1 Fremont/Union City/ 0.8 2.7 Newark 30.1 to 40 miles 38.3 8.6 19/7 2,500 1,600 Rodeo/Hercules/San 2.4 Pablo/Pinole Richmond 3.6 San Francisco 24.5 S.F. Peninsula 7.8 Tracy/Manteca 8. 6 , Other 14.9 8.7 1/1 130 230 TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100/100% 13,230 22,860 Source: Reference 7 for first column; Ekistics for others (employ- ment totals based on Table 1) . 14 jSome other observations on the Lawrence Lab and Standard Oil residential distributions are: • The proportion .of Lab employees living in nearby Livermore and Pleasanton is probably high because housing was plentiful and reasonably priced there in the past. e The Lab has about a third more employees residing in Tracy and Manteca, 15 to 20 miles away, than in equally distant San Ramon, Danville, Dublin, Alamo, and Moraga (8.68 vs. 6.58) , even though the latter communities are closer to the .East Bay and San Francisco metropolitan centers. Probably this is due to the availability of lower cost housing in the Tracy/Manteca area, typically averaging $70,000 compared with $120,000 in the San Ramon Valley. ® A relatively high percentage of Standard Oil employees live in San Francisco (24. 58) and in places even more distant from San Ramon (San Francisco Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties, etc. , included in "other") . However , Standard will aid their San Francisco, Marin, and more remote employees financially if they wish to move closer to San, Ramon when transferred. This will help to shrink some initially long commutes. Given these conditions, we have estimated in the next column of Table 4 the percentage of total Bishop Ranch Business Park employment in 1986 and 1995 that will reside at the various distance categories from San Ramon. The largest differences between the two years are 1) an increase in the employment within 12 miles, from 368 to 518, as housing construction in the San Ramon area catches up with demand, and 2) a decrease in the 30.1 to 40 mile category from 198 to 78, for the same reason. The slowness of the expected move to the San Ramon Valley is also influenced by the high proportion of present Standard employees residing in the Oakland/Berkeley and Concord areas (26.8$) , which are a relatively easy commute by auto. The 30 to 40 mile category will be slow to decline in the near term due both to the availability of lower cost housing in Tracy and to the resistance of transferees to changing jobs in periods of high unemployment. The last two columns of Table 4 show the resulting estimates for the residential distribution of Park employment at the end of 15 1986 and 1995. The numbers suggest a large ridesharin9 potential by 1986 due to the relatively .large proportion of long distance commuters by that time. Additional employment by 1995 tends to fill in the closer locations as 'new housing .becomes available and employees have a chance to move or are replaced from closer resi- dents. The dynamic character of the Park' s employment growth and themany residential or .job location changes ,.associated with that growth also argue for a good ridesharing market among Park employees. " 16 3 . TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONNENT Next we look at the transportation environment of the Park, because that environment also affects the design of a Park trans- portation management system and the potential for different commuting modes. We consider in turn highway access, . transit service, bicycle provisions, and ridesharing, followed by a further appraisal of the present and future ridesharing market. 1 - HIGHWAY ACCESS The principal access to Bishop Ranch Business Park by com- muters will be on the adjoining six-lane State freeway, I-680 , via present or future ramps at Crow Canyon Road and Bollinger Canyon Road. Concerns about the adequacy of freeway access have led to agreement by developers in the area to finance interchange improvements in these three roads: for widening and realigning the Crow Canyon Road ramps, widening and adding ramps to Bollinger Canyon Road, and widening the Norris Canyon Road over- crossing of I-680. The local road network in San Ramon Valley is planned for improvement by Contra Costa County, including some new or extended roads, in view of pending residential and commer- cial developments. TRANSIT SERVICE . Current transit service in San Ramon Valley consists solely of local stops by BART-financed AC Transit express buses from Martinez to Dublin, the D line, at about half-hour intervals between the hours of 5: 30 AM and 12 midnight on weekdays. The closest stop is Crow Canyon and San Ramon Valley roads, with a scheduled time of 36 minutes to or from the Walnut Creek BART 17 station 12 miles away. BART is unwilling to add to its deficit by improving this low level of service, though they might consider a bus stop closer to the current development at the Park. Central Contra Costa County Transit will take over the service within a few years, which may -provide more local control of the service but probably . little or nothing in added .financial ability. Standard Oil offered an experimental free shuttle bus service to its employees between October 1982 and February 1983. . It provided direct connections to the Walnut Creek BART station during the morning and afternoon commuting period. . The service was discontinued due to low patronage, and it seems un- likely to be a viable venture until Park employment grows to a substantial level, perhaps 5,000 persons. Prospective uses of the abandoned SP right of way that runs through the Park have been considered at some length by Contra Costa County (see reference 4, for example) . At present, the route is zoned and designated 'for trail use, including biking., jogging, and walking, but no funding has been made available to facilitate such uses. The long-run hope is to acquire it for a transit corridor as the density of development increases in the San Ramon Valley and beyond. The state has appropriated $2 million 'toward this purpose. A station site is included in the long-range plan for Bishop Ranch, though the highcost per trip for rail facilities without extremely high patronage probably places their serious consideration beyond 1990 . MTC has identified the absence of local transit and inade- quate trunk bus service in the I-680 corridor of Contra Costa County as an issue in their regional.. transportation plan along with the issue of growth impacts on air quality, open space, and recreational resources. However, MTC does not plan any action to address these issues, arguing that they are the responsibility of the county and local communities. The Public Works Department of Contra Costa County has designated a staff member to follow, coordinate, and encourage transportation system management acti- vities in growth areas of the county. In addition, Contra Costa 18 County is currently organizing a countywide transportation committee with membership from other transportation agencies. This group would work to facilitate transportation planning of all types to handle the rapid recent and- projected growth of county population. BICYCLE PROVISIONS Bicycle lanes are contemplated on major arterials, utilizing the eight foot paved shoulders and restriction of parking on the shoulders, as visualized in the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan (reference 3) . However, there is no overall county plan for development and connection of bikeways or promotion of their use. MTC may have Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding available for such a purpose, but Contra Costa County' s attitude is that special bike paths are generally not cost effective and that use of arterial shoulders is sufficient provision for bi- cyclists. Considering the good weather and gentle slopes of the San Ramon Valley, and the close proximity of several residential areas to the Park, more attention could certainly be given to provisions for bicycling. Ridesharing is less attractive to commuters for short trips, since cost savings are less and pickup time is a higher proportion of total trip time. But bicycling on safe facilities can attract a significant number of nearby com- muters. Someone trained and certified by the League of American Wheelmen is recommended to help identify safe routes and train bicycle commuters in their use. 19 RIDESHARING Other types of public services facilitating access to the Park are carpool matching, vanpool leasing, and park and ride lots, the first two provided by .RIDES for.. Bay Area::Commuters and the third by Caltrans with RIDES participation. RIDES is a private non-profit corporation that promotes .ridesharing in the . ten-county San Francisco Bay Area. They have already worked successfully with nearly all Park employers.. RIDES is also sup- porting meetings of employer transportation coordinators .in Central Contra Costa County (reference 10) . RIDES would be interested in discussing a cooperative venture for developing ridesharing activities at the Park, including possible location of a staff member and/or a computer terminal for matching appli- cants at the Park. Interviews with employers presently located at the Park reveal- that most firms considered and. promoted ridesharing , arrangements in the process of moving to the Park. Notable examples are l) Davy McKee, which has arranged .f.or <subsidized RIDES vanpools that transport about 65% of their 200 staff members who reside in San Mateo County; 2) Kentron, which moved to the Park from San Francisco and has aided the formation of two vanpools utilizing company-owned vehicles that meet BART trains in Walnut Creek at 7:30 and 7:40 AM, returning at 5 and 5:30 PM; i and 3) Standard Oil, which worked with RIDES to survey some 200 employees who recently transferred to the Park from San Francisco as to their mode of commuting, encouraging both ridesharing and BART use in the process. The Standard survey showed the following distribution of employee commuting .modes in the fall of 1982: Solo auto 34.1% Carpools 50.0 Vanpools 9.3 Shuttle bus to� BART 4.2 Transit 0.5 Cycle, walk, other 1.9 Total 100 .0% 20 The high percentage of Standard employees commuting by modes other than solo auto (65.9%) is due in part to the focus of their present residential locations on commuting to San Francisco. Many presently commute 35 to 45. miles one way from Marin or San 1 Mateo counties or from San Francisco. At those distances, there are sizable savings from pooling. However, the high ridesharing proportion must also result from the advance planning and emphasis on ridesharing. Standard has an excellent owner-operated vanpool assistance arrangement that provides 100% financing of employee vanpools through its credit union. Only a few such vans are now on the road, but more may form as the move to the Park proceeds. COMMUTE TRANSPORTATION POTENTIAL AT THE PARK The significant levels of vanpooling or carpooling achieved already by Davy McKee and Standard Oil employees highlight the commute situation of the Park: with good highway access and limited transit service, the most economical commuting option to the Park for most employees for many years will be pooling rides with others. Table 3 in Section 2 showed the substantial savings that accrue to individuals participating in ridesharing, and such savings constitute the largest single benefit of carpools, van- pools, and buspools. The cost of transportation in family budgets is exceeded only by food and housing, and commuting to work is the major element of family transportation. To save half or more of the family commuting budget is therefore a significant contribution to employee finances. Beyond their economic advantages to participants, many bene- fits have been demonstrated for ridesharing programs. Table 5 sums up the principal benefits by three groups, commuters, the employers, and the community. Commuter benefits should be stressed in marketing ridesharing to employees, but the economic benefits to employers, and the less tangible benefits to the community, are also sizable. 21 TABLE 5. RIDESHARING BENEFITS To Ccmuters Reduced frustration and fatigue from driving, especially in congested traffic Reduced ccmmuting cost (fuel, maintenance, insurance, parking, and a portion of vehicle. ownership costs) Reduced vehicle maintenance difficulties and responsibilities Reduced susceptibility to fuel shortages and,associated difficulties such as gas lines and higher fuel costs Increased reliability of eannute, particularly in vanpools and buspools Socializing opportunities with ridesharing acquaintances Opportunity for riders to spend ecmmuting time reading, sleeping, relaxing Enjoyment of ridesharing incentives, e.g., preferential parking arra freeway access Reduced dependence on a personal automobile, and possible elimination of commute vehicle or availability for alternative uses Reduced need to find parking or anxiety about parking To Employers (chiefly realized as reduced costs) Access to expanded labor pools Reduced employee tardiness and fatigue, and improved morale Greater certainty about getting employees to work during a fuel shortage Alleviation of local traffic congestion and reduced need for traffic control Lower taxes for road building, traffic management,. public parking, etc. _ Public relations boost for reducing cc munity traffic, energy use; air pollu- tion, and noise pollution Fringe benefits for employees (such as better parking for pools) Reduced parking demand, resulting in fewer parking spaces,. more usable space, less capital expended for parking areas, and less need for local parking control Reduced need for relocation of remote employees after a move To the Ccamunity (Including State and National Benefits) Reduced peak period traffic congestion Reduced energy use Reduced air pollution Reduced accident costs Reduced parking demand Reduced need for additionalhighway capacity Source: reference 11, page 5, and Ekistics 22 1The prospect of such widely shared and significant benefits, together with the potential for ridesharing at the Park, argue convincingly for focusing the Park' s transportation management system on promoting and facilitating ridesharing. This is espe- cially true because of the demonstrated need for personalized assistance in attracting commuters to ridesharing and forming pools, if more than a token level of ridesharing is to be obtained. Speaking more broadly, commuters can be divided into five categories based on their behavior- and attitudes (reference 11, page 13) : Two types of poolers-- ' 1. Dedicated ridesharers actively interested in advancing that mode 2. Marginal ridesharers who may drive solo if their pool terminates or for other minor reasons Three types .of solo drivers-- 3. Misinformed or passive potential ridesharers with strong to mild interest in pooling F 4. Marginal antipoolers who will become involved only if highly appropriate incentives are provided or particular disincentives are removed 5. Dedicated solo drivers who refuse to consider ride- sharing due to their need for a personal vehicle or their attitude. i The general challange for a ridesharing program is to make the best use of the first group's interest; to stimulate and increase the interest of the second group; and to concentrate its promotional efforts on group 3 first and then on 4. The size of the first two groups is about 20% of the usual commuting popula- tion, and groups 3 and 4 probably add another 60% that consti- tutes the ridesharing, transit, and bicycling market, while the remaining 20% or so in group 5 can be ignored, once identified. The challange for personalization of the ridesharing approach is to reach past group 3, the easy converts, well into the more difficult members of group 4. 23 i 4 . TRANSPORTATION NANAGENENT SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS In this section, we describe first the proposed organization of a transportation management system at Bishop Ranch Business Park and then the several components of the system. As indicated rat the end of Section 3, the purpose is to develop a high quali- ty, personalized approach to ridesharing promotion and facilita- tion, where ridesharing is defined broadly to include all non- solo-auto modes. The measure of the program' s success will be in the proportion of ridesharing that is achieved, an issue that is considered in Section 5. ORGANIZATION AND OVERVIEW There are three conceivable alternatives for sponsorship of a ridesharing program at Bishop Ranch Business Park: 4 RIDES for Bay Area Commuters s Sunset Development Company • An association of landowners and tenants at the Park. RIDES should provide matching services and assist individual companies with ridesharing programs. Their participation in these ways. at Bishop is vital. However , RIDES has a regional perspective and commitment that prevents it from providing a personalized level of assistance to every employer. Such a pro- gram, locally operated and based on cooperation between employers, is needed to assure high ridesharing rates. Sunset Development Co. could sponsor such a program by hiring a central transportation management staff , but they would need a formal mechanism for communication with and feedback by landowners and tenants at the Park. Better still would be a 25 1 mechanism for Participation in ridesharing program decisions by landowners and tenants. And best of all, in our opinion, would be sponsorship of the program by the landowners and tenants, because it would provide these advantages: e Clear commitment to the program ,by landowners and tenants, together with their control of both its beginnings and its evolution • Assurance of the continuation of the program: if the developer' s role at the park ever changes. Fortunately, a well-tested organizational framework of -land owner and tenant sponsorship now exists ,in other business complex settings (references 12 and 13) . This framework. is throughan employers' transportation association, or simply. transportation association, formed .for the purpose of coordinating employer transportation planning for an area. , The association can also review performance and take corrective measures to assure. compli- ance with ridesharing and parking objectives. Moreover ,' it can work directly.:with government transportation planning agencies on matters of common interest. The essential features of the proposed, association are its - corporate form; placement of actual implementation in the hands , of a professional, a park- transportation manager in this case; support of the manager' s role with annual contributions from each firm based on the level of employment and the intensity of services desired; and provision of access by the manager to senior management of _ the .firms, who also staff the . executive positions. of . the .association- (vice .president for finance, etc. ) on a loan basis. Next is the question of the prospective activities of the transportation office that will be maintained by the transporta- tion association, assuming for the moment that this .general form is acceptable to Bishop ,Ranch employers. The recommended activities of the association are summarized in. Table 6, along with corresponding or complementary activities -that are .recommended for individual employers. 26 TABLE 6. RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION OFFICE AND EMPLOYER RIDESHARING ACTIVITIES Provider Asso- Em- Scope or Emphasis Activity ciation ployers By 1983 At Buildout 1. Park transpor- X Transportation Staff of 3 + any tation office manager + sec- shared transpor- services retary/office . . tation coordina- manager tors 2. Employee trans- X Minimum of 1 coordinator per 4000 portation coor- employees is recommended, either dinator in-house or shared 3. Ridematching X X Emphasize new Emphasize new registration firms employees and services 4. Parking X X Designate Monitor performance;, management preferential maintain system parking 5. Other pooling X Suggest at least flex-time, shared and transit use of company vehicles, and transit incentives pass subsidies 6. Vanpool infor- X X Encourage RIDES and company van- mation and pool programs; add facilitation support of owner operated vans when feasible 7. Transit coor X Begin with transit coordination; dination and add buspools when economically buspools justified 8 . Shuttle X Consider shuttle service to BART services when warranted by demand 9 . Special HOV, X Include in : Monitor performance, transit, and Park roadway maintain system bicycle plans facilities 10 . Flex-time X Two major firms are already on promotion flex-time; others will be encouraged 11. Consider on- X A novel service; needs study site car and before implementation rental service 27 1 o t The sec nd and third columns of Table 6 indicate whether the transportation association or individual employers provide the activity. Checks in both columns identify shared activities. Activities 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 will be responsibilities of the park transportation office; activities 2 and. 5 ,will be responsi- bilities of individual employers. (though they may be contracted for through the park :transportation .office) , and activities 3,. 4, and 6 entail shared responsibilities. Members of the transporta- tion association can choose from these (or other) .activities the set necessary to reach their ridesharing objectives, with the support and guidance of the Park transportation office. The remainder of this section describes the activities listed in Table 6 in more detail. t PARK TRANSPORTATION OFFICE SERVICES The Park transportation manager would supervise implementa- tion of the plans outlined in Table 6. He would report to the Board of -the Bishop Ranch Transportation Association periodically cn' attainment of the plan's objectives',' and would :propose needed updates.'to the plan. In conjunction with RIDES for Bay Area commuters, : the office would maintain contact. with, employers and provide on-site matching services for Park employees. The transportation office. would also offer shared-time use t of a ridesharing specialist to association members on an hourly or other periodic basis: • Preparation of a company-specific ridesharing analysis with a proposed work program and . support budget • Provision of on-site ridesharing assistance to employees, including identification of potential carpool and vanpool groups (also done by RIDES •=_ Orientation of new employees to commute alternatives At Bishop Ranch o Promotion and supervision of other employer ride- sharing incentives and activities associated with items _2 through 7 . in Table .4. i 28 In short, the transportation offices' s ridesharing specialists in cooperation with RIDES will offer to participating firms any and all of the ridesharing activities identified in this section. This will enable a personal quality of ridesharing services to be provided even to small firms who cannot afford the cost of a full-time transportation coordinator. EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION COORDINATORS Experience at Lawrence Livermore Lab and Silver Spring Rideshare (Maryland) has shown that. a successful, personalized ridesharing program requires at least one full-time transporta- tion coordinator per 4,000 employees. Thus the combined ride- sharing staff in the Park transportation office and among employers would number about six professionals, plus secretarial assistance, by buildout. Variously referred to as employee transportation coor- dinators, ETCs, commute coordinators, or commuter service representatives, transportation coordinators are the on-site representatives of management in publicizing ridesharing to new and old employees. The remainder of the employer ridesharing responsibilities described here would be carried out by transpor- tation coordinators, either working directly for Bishop Ranch employers or "leased" from the Park transportation office. An illustrative position description follows. Position Summary A full or part-time position respon- sible for planning, organizing, and directing employee commuting services with the assistance of the park transportation office and RIDES for Bay Area Commuters. The primary tasks include: s Providing ridesharing information, assistance, and incentives to employees s Preparing commuting program assessments for company management e. Serving as staff liaison to other agencies who con- tribute to or are affected by commuter transporta- tion. 29 1 Qualifications. A candidate .for this position should be: • A well-organized self-starter , . able both to work independently and to keep track of details • Skilled in problem solving, analyzing commuting information, and making written and oral presenta- tions • Able to gain the cooperation of management, other organizations, and fellow employees in achieving ridesharing objectives. RIDEMATCHING REGISTRATION AND MATCHING SERVICES A computer terminal at the Park transportation office could I connect directly with the RIDES computer in San Francisco for immediate .processing of ridesharing applications and provision of a match list of Park employees who are seeking or . offering ridesharing arrangements. This would . generally be the most con- venient way for matching arrangements to begin. Registr.ants with RIDES can list only their business phone numbers if they do not wish to be called at home. The match list identifies where applicants work, so users of- the list will . be able to exercise preferences for pools or persons from their own or nearby employers if they wish. Transit alternatives and routes to the Park. should be ex- plained at the time employee participation ridesharing is invited. Community bicycle paths and Park facilities for bicycles should also be explained for nearby residents. , Employers should seriously consider registering all pools that involve vehicles operated by. their employees. This is desirable for several. reasons. First, matches can often be made even .without consulting the computer through the transportation coordinator' s knowledge of pools or individuals who are looking for persons interested in ridesharing. Registration with the transportation coordinator provides a personal touch and oppor-, tunity for personalized follow-up of ridesharing applicants to 30 see if they have found matches or given up the search, in which case the coordinator' s help and encouragement may restore the person' s interest. Individuals looking for riders would simply register as a poolt1 of one person, looking for one or more others. The second reason for registering pools is to keep track of ' the vehicles eligible for use of preferential parking. Third, it is helpful for monitoring the ridesharing program to know the number of pools and persons waiting for placement at any given time. And fourth, it enables the transportation coordinator to target his or her promotional efforts much better. For example, expansion of successful small pools. by adding members is the most effective way to place new poolers (it adds no new vehicles) ; and there is no use urging persons who are already ridesharing to join pools. There are many ways of promoting ridesharing registration. Among the best and lowest in cost are: • Orientation and follow-up of new employees, and marketing employees who move • Provision of ridematch bulletin boards and a trans- portation information center • Arranging meetings among employees from the same area or zip code, which may be supplemented by zip code mailings • Surveys of employee commute patterns and interest in ridesharing • On-site or mail order sale or transit tickets or passes • Conduct of a periodic transportation fair • Company newsletter articles. While most of these efforts would be conducted by or for indivi- dual firms, the periodic transportation fair could well be a Park-wide event coordinated by the transportation office. Infor- mation on these and other promotional techniques is available through MTC' s Commute Alternatives Program; ask for their excel- lent handbook, "Commute Alternatives." 31 Registration, matching, and follow-up of persons interested in pooling arrangements are the most basic and productive steps for ridesharing promotion. . The activities that follow are all complementary to this basic process. They will be much less effective without vigorous registration efforts. , PARKING MANAGEMENT Parking management should be a continuing .function of Sunset Development Company (or, the Park transportation office) for buildings under lease, with the twin objectives of matching parking supply to demand for parking and encouraging ride- sharing. Preferential parking will be designated for carpools and vanpools close to building entrances. These spaces will be . monitored periodically to keep supply close to demand— Too many empty preferential spaces invite violations, and may lead to resentment by employees who must park and walk further . Monitoring of preferential parking spaces would also serve the purpose of ensuring their use only by registered pools.. A standard method of identifying registered pools will be developed, and other landowners at the Park will be . encouraged to t register pools and designate preferential parking for them. Employers would also be encouraged to consider adoption of a , parking policy that encourages ridesharing rather than solo driving. The following example is in current use by a large Bay �. Area employer: Our company is cooperating with local communities to reduce vehicle travel, in the interest of clean air and conserving fuel. Before you plan to drive alone, you are- invited to check with our ridesharing coordinator on available commuting alternatives from your residen- tial area. Company parking is inadequate to provide space for each employee' s private automobile, which would be an expensive subsidy -to . solo driving, and preference in parking location is given to carpools and vanpools. However , limited parking is available to accommodate those who may be unable because of working hours to take advantage of ridesharing alternatives. 32 OTHER POOLING AND TRANSIT INCENTIVES Beyond preferential parking, there are many ways that employers can offer positive encouragement to ridesharing and transit use. We list below the most popular of these, in approx- imate order of increasing cost. �i • Flex-time (from flexible working hours to allowing poolers to make schedule adjustments for matching with other riders) • Occasional use of company vehicles (for essential trips during the day or to return home after missing a pool) • Fleet ridesharing (employee use of company vehicles at cost for regular ridesharing) • Subsidy of transit passes or vanpool fares • Subsidy: of carpools. Flex-time is listed first because it is commonly regarded as increasing productivity of employees more than enough to offset its implementation and operating costs. Flex-time has been shown 1 to facilitate and encourage the formation of both pools and transit use by enabling commuters to make ridesharing and transit arrangements with less regard to precise or rigid arrival and departure times (references 8 and 11) . Occasional use of company vehicles and fleet ridesharing are listed next, because their cost can be recovered by mileage charges of the users. The 3M Company is among those permitting emergency use of company vehicles, and the Bellevue city government in Washington is among the organizations involved in fleet ridesharing (allowing groups of employees to use city vehicles for carpooling before and after working hours on a cost-reimbursement basis) . Subsidies of transit users are often justified by the argu- ment that it is equivalent to the free parking benefit provided to automobile users. Moreover, every person who chooses transit rather than driving saves the::. company parking space. The argu- ment for subsidizing vanpools is similar , and may have the added 33 . objective of retaining or attracting remote employees. Instead , 7 g 9 of direct .subsidies to vanpoolers, some companies choose 'to absorb the administrative or financing costs of a company vanpool program, or simply .quote a rate for space on company-owned vehicles that-does not recover their total cost. Cash subsidy of carpools is generally of low cost-effective- ness. As we saw in Table 3, many poolers are already saving $300 to. $1,3.00 per year in vehicle operating costs vs.. solo driving. , Since their savings are already in the .hundreds of' dollars . annually, relatively large cash subsidies are needed to induce further pooling--e.g. , on the ,order of $l to $2 per day. More- over, equity suggests that this subsidy be provided to all poolers , transit riders, and bicyclists, which would add up , rapidly. If. a carpool subsidy policy is adopted, probably a free , annual tuneup or other driving-related award would be the most effective per dollar of cost. We do not recommend: carpool subsi- dies, however , in the belief that the. other lower-cos.t incentives . Should be tried first and will prove more than adequate to achieve ridesharing and transit` ridership objectives. As basic incentives in all 'firms whose operations permit them, we recommend considering -flex-time, limited use of company , vehicles,. fleet rideshar.ing,. and subsidies of transit passes up to about $1 per day per person (or equivalent contributions to , shuttle bus costs) . In addition, ridesharing awards, prizes, and drawings may be .desirable for administration by the Park trans- portation office in connection with annual transportation fairs or other events. VANPOOL INFORMATION AND SUPPORT , The Park transportation office would provide information to employers on the three basic options in vanpooling: use of RIDES leased vans, assisting in arrangements for financing owner operated vans, and offering company-owned vans for employee use. Each of these options has its own advantages, and at least the .first two options should, be offered at the Park in order. to .34 i robtain the maximum feasible market for vanpooling. In fact, each option is already in use, with Chevron's owner-operated program and with other firms using their own or RIDES van. In addition to providing vanpool information, the Park transportation office would facilitate vanpool financing and initial advice for employees in setting up their own vanpools. This would extend the owner-operated option to employees of companies that do .not have such a program available. The Park program should emphasize 100% financing and a provision to make the loans assumable by other eligible referrals provided the vehicle is still intended for vanpooling use. RIDES now provides some owner-operator services, including contacts for 100% bank financing and a list of van suppliers, so this function will require advance coordination with RIDES. A final central vanpool service that should be explored is creation of (or contracting for) . van maintenance and repair services at or near the Park. This facility might also handle daytime van refueling, an attractive and self-financing vanpool incentive, and it could be a candidate for providing a central backup van service for the Park. Lastly, its use for servicing carpool vehicles could be considered, since there would probably be convenient shuttle service (or loan vehicles) at the site for Par.k employees. The last five ridesharing activities, discussed next, are recommended for execution by the Park transportation office. TRANSIT COORDINATION AND BUSPOOLS An important role of the Park transportation office should be working with local. public transit agencies to seek good service schedules and routes serving the Park. An associated role should be to consider providing or contracting for buspool service when that would be the best alternative for serving con- centrations of Park employees. It will be several years before employment will grow to where such concentrations are likely, since they presume some 40 to 50 persons interested in regular 35 4 a P oolin from fairlyconfined area or corridor at a distance of 20 miles or more. This will be a natural centralized role, in order to serve the entire Park and thereby obtain larger aggrega tions of riders than could a single employer . .SHUTTLE SERVICES The Park transportation office should consider sponsoring or contracting for shuttle service to the Walnut Creek BART station when warranted by employment levels at the Park. They should also consider the need for similar service to the Hayward BART station; for periodic or demand service from the Park to Oakland Airport; and for daytime service,. either connecting to BART or serving downtown San Francisco. One low-cost option for shuttle t service, which individual firms might also consider , is utilizing leased RIDES vans or regular , operating vanpools to make morning and evening stops at a BART station for prearranged. pickups. Later provision of internal bus or van circulation service around the Park and to. nearby retail or commercial services would also be a natural function for the Park transportation office. Park circulation service would have both a direct traffic mitiga tion effect, by reducing use of personal autos for short trips , and an indirect effect, by enabling commuters to do without their , cars during the day and hence commute by transit .or .pools. How- ever, such service is costly, especially at the frequent inter- vals necessary to attract riders for short trips. Also, the timing and scale of the service will need to be carefully tailored to expanded employment at the Park and. to. demand for such service, or the buses will,'run empty. The cost of the service may be reduced by use of Park shuttle vehicles that would be free between the morning and evening peak period. Detailed studies of the demand for and cost of both shuttle service and circulation service should precede firm commitments to. provide them. The cost of Park shuttle and circulation service in excess of fare revenues should be recovered from members of the 36 transportation association in proportion to their expected use. Probably a standard allocation per employee would be preferable, which would help induce firms to encourage use of the services by their employees to gain the benefits for which they are paying. The experience with Standard Oil's current shuttle can be evalu- ated to set future service levels and fares. SPECIAL POOL, TRANSIT, AND BICYCLE FACILITIES The Park transportation manager should meet with site planners for the Park to cooperatively designate needed carpool, vanpool, transit, and bicycle facilities. These plans will be based on the number of such vehicles estimated to be using the ' Park by buildout, and will cover HOV entrances, HOV lanes, transit stops and shelters, bicycle paths or lanes, bicycle locks and shelters, and a bicycle repair facility. (The term high occupancy vehicle, or HOV for short, refers to carpools, van- pools, and buses) . Consultation with the larger employers will be included in this planning process. FLEX-TIME PROMOTION Flex-time would be promoted among employers at the Park by the transportation office, both because of its peak period traffic mitigation effects and the encouragement to ridesharing that it provides. i ON-SITE CAR AND VAN RENTAL SERVICE An additional ridesharing feature that should be explored ' for the Park is a multi-purpose vehicle leasing and rental agency that we have nicknamed "Executive Pool" . This service would resemble a, conventional automobile rental agency, with the added ridesharing features of short-term day use rentals and overnight rental to anyone missing their pool due to overtime work or 37 inadvertance. in addition the service could perform these ► functions: • Leasing vehicles to companies for fleet use • Provision of backup vehicles for short-term expansion of company fleets • Leasing vans, station wagons, and smaller vehicles , to employees for ridesharing use. The Executive Pool service would be an innovative addition to ridesharing activities and incentives for a multi-client ' business park setting. As such, it will require a careful feasi- bility and market study to demonstrate its potential profit- ability and to explore organizational alternatives. The principal alternatives would probably be operation by one of the , large automobile rental agencies or operation by the ridesharing organization for the Park. It could either be based at the hotel or have an office there, with parking and service facilities. located elsewhere. �t 1� sr sr it 38 5 . EXPECTED RIDESHARING OUTCOMES This section presents data on the levels of ridesharing and parking utilization rates achieved by selected employer programs, and then estimates a future ridesharing level for Bishop Ranch Business Park. In these programs, ridesharing refers broadly to all alternatives to solo driving, including carpools, vanpools, buspools, transit, bicycles, and walking. ' OTHER EMPLOYER RIDESHARING PROGRAMS Table 7 shows the ridesharing rates achieved by six exem- plary rural or suburban organizations with employment between 3,400 and 35,000. The ridesharing rates range from a high of 70% ' to a low of 36%. All six firms include ridematch services and preferential parking in their programs, and two have shuttles to nearby transit stations. Three either sell or subsidize transit passes, and five of the six maintain the vans in their vanpool programs. None of the six provide cash subsidies for ride- sharing, though several (not shown on the table) subsidize the vanpool program indirectly. None of the firms have ridesharing award or prize programs, which are often avoided by companies due to problems of inequity or incompatibility with the company' s style of operation. The source of most of these data, reference 7, also listed many urban firms with ridesharing rates over 50%, but those firms were usually well served by urban transit systems and had expen- sive or restricted parking, so they are not comparable to the ' Bishop Ranch setting. The only local firm in the table, Lawrence Livermore Lab with a ridesharing rate of 59%, has had a vigorous ridesharing program for several years. There are several other suburban Bay Area firms with ridesharing rates of around 30%, 39 TABLE 7. RURAL AND SUBURBAN RIDESHARING PROGRAM STATISTICS Selected Program Features 4 4J 04 U) A G U a a ro ++ a� a) a+ W +J ro c Rural/ � - N y 41 Sub- Employ- $ Ride- n ami W a ro � a H Firm (and Type of. Business) urban ment sharing a voi a w m F uroi > X Rockwell Intl, Golden, Colo. �. (mfg.) R 3.,400 70% _ X X X Sales X Lawrence Livermore Lab, Livermore, Cal. (research) S 7,200 59 X X X 3M Company, St. Paul, Minn. , (mfg.) S 11,700 40 X X Sub. X McDonnell-Douglas Aircraft, St. Louis, Mo. (mfg.) S 35,000 38 X X Sales X Aerospace Corporation, E1 Segundo, Cal. (consulting) ' 'S 3,600 38 X X X Tektronix, Inc. , Beaverton, Or. (electronics) R 11,000 36 X X X �t Sources: reference 7 Aerospace Corporation, and Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. I' iM 40 '1 i though none are known to be as high as the Lawrence Lab. However , no other Bay Area firms emphasize personalized ride- sharing as the Lab does and as we propose for the Park. For these reasons, we believe that the Lawrence Lab experience is approachable, given the proper ridesharing commitment and activi- ties. RIDESHARING ESTIMATE FOR THE PARK Given this background, it is .possible to estimate future ' ridesharing modal shares for the Park. Accordingly, Table 8 shows three illustrative modal distributions of commute traffic. The first is a standard distribution sometimes used for ' traffic projection purposes in Contra Costa County when no ride- sharing or transit incentives are offered. It shows 86. 4% of commuters traveling by solo auto, with 9.6% in carpools of two persons each and 4% traveling by transit. This distribution produces an average auto occupancy of 1.1 persons, and results (as shown in the fourth column) in 165.5 daily commute trips per 100 employees if 10% is deducted from solo auto trips for absen- teeism. It is a low but not unusual level of ridesharing for a suburban site. The second distribution is our expectation for the Bishop transportation management .system, based on the combined program of employer transportation coordinators, personalized ridesharing services, and incentives for ridesharing and transit use des- cribed in Chapter 4. It projects 1) a 30% share of commuters using carpools with an average occupancy of 2.6 persons; 2) 12% in vanpools averaging 12 persons; 3) 6% in transit buses, shut- tles, or buspools; and 4) 2% by bicycle, walking, or other (this should increase to 7% in good weather) . The result of these modal shares would be to reduce solo auto use to 50% and to reduce average daily vehicle commute trips to 115.6. This is a reduction of 31% in average daily vehicle commute trips compared with the standard modal distribution. 41 i r TABLE 8. VEHICLE TRIP GIINERATION DURING PEAK PERIODS , Associated , Daily Vehicle Commute Modal Distribution Trips per 100 Employeesl Bishop y Bishop Mode Standard Estimate LLL 2 Standard Estimate LLL 2 Solo auto 86.4% 50% 41.5$. 155.5 90.0 74.7 Carpools3 9.6 30 37.9 9.6 23.0 23.7 Vanpools, 12 0 12 11.5 2.0 1.6 occupants (14 for LLL) Buses (including 4.0 6 7.1 .4 0.6 0.7 shuttle and buspools) , 20 occupants Bike, walking, , other 0 2 2 100% 100% 100% 165.5 115.6 100.7 'Daily commute trips per 100 employees = modal percentage/vehicle occupancy x ' 2 trips/day. Solo auto trips are then reduced by 10% due to average daily absenteeism, which tends not to affect other trip modes. , 2Lawrence Livermore Lab. 'Average carpool occupancy = 2.0 for standard, 2.6 for Bishop target, and 3.2 , for LLL. r The third distribution shows the . 1982 commuting modes at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. The Livermore Lab carpooling is , about eight percentage points above the Bishop estimate; average carpool occupancy (footnote 3) is 23% higher at the Lab; the Lab ' vanpool: and transit shares are about the same; and the Lab bike and walking share is the same as the Bishop estimate. (The 2% biking and walking share for the Lab increases to 8% during .good weather. ) The resulting daily commute trips per 100 employees _is , 100.7, or 39% below the standard assumption of 165.5. For com- parison, the total of 50 solo auto drivers out of 100 commuters predicted for the Park is 20% above the present Livermore Lab , figure and nearly 40% above. the level attained by the Bishop group of Standard Oil employees last fall. 42 i The expected Bishop modal distribution is of course just an estimate at this time, and the actual mix or emphasis by mode may vary. However, the indicated reduction in solo driving should be quite achievable for a destination with over 20,000 employees and a serious ridesharing program. The associated effects of ride- sharing on parking needs are described in Appendix A. i 1 43 i 1 Appendix A PARKING STANDARDS A N D N E E D S Existing county parking standards sometimes require the provision of more parking space than needed for new office build- ings. Under conditions of a serious ridesharing program, the county standards can be even more excessive. This appendix looks at present county parking standards, at existing parking utiliza- tion rates in the Park, and at the relation between ridesharing rates and parking utilization rates, then estimates future parking needs in the Park under the proposed ridesharing program. COUNTY PARKING STANDARDS ' Contra Costa County off-street parking requirements for the types of uses contemplated on Sunset property are summarized in Table A-1 (from reference 2) . TABLE A-1. COUNTY PARKING STANDARDS Use Required Parking Stalls Office space 5 per 1,000 gross sq. ft. Retail stores and shops 4 per 1,000 gross sq. ft. Commercial service, repair 2 per 1,000 gross sq. ft. shops, and wholesale ' establishments Warehouses, other storage 1 per 1,000 gross sq. ft. Hotels and motels 1 per sleeping unit Controlled manufacturing 2 for each 3 employees on major shift ( .67 per employee County and city parking standards are often expressed as a number of stalls per square feet of building space rather than a number per employee for two reasons. First, it is not always certain in. advance how much space will be allocated per employee when the building is occupied. Second, the number of employees may be increased beyond the initial number without adding parking 45 stalls if an occupant of the building is trying to economize, resulting in parking shortages and overflows of vehicles. to . neighboring property. Nevertheless, Contra Costa County in common with most jurisdictions is willing to consider the .actual uses. and employment intended for new construction when approving parking provisions, as illustrated by the county standard of .67 stalls per employee for controlled manufacturing areas.. ' EXISTING AND PROSPECTIVE PARKING RATES AT BISHOP RANCH The first two Sunset developments, Bishop. Ranch Office Plaza and Sunset Executive Center, provided five parking stalls per 1,000 gross square feet. This has proven to be far in excess of , needs--about half of the present parking goes unused even with the buildings fully leased and virtually fully occupied. , Table A-2 shows the building size, parking stalls, and employment at those sites, plus parking utilization rates from , the results of surveys conducted in early December 1982, at .10 AM and 2 PM daily for two weeks. The peak parking stall utilization rate (line f) ranges from 52% to 45%. The parking stall utili- zation per employee (line g) is . 80 at Bishop Ranch Office Plaza .and only .59 at Sunset 'Executive Center, with an average of .67. , The unusually low parking stall utilization per employee of .59 at Sunset Executive Center is due to the high ridesharing ' rates among two of the three major employers there, Davy McKee and Standard Oil, as already documented in Section 3. The . 80 parking stall utilization per employee at Bishop Ranch Office Plaza may also indicate higher than average ridesharing rates, even without a central ridesharing program. These two existing , rates provide strong evidence that a rate of .67 stalls per employee can be attained or surpassed with a good ridesharing program. 46 i ' TABLE A-2. PARKING SUPPLY AND UTILIZATION AT EXISTING SITES ' Site Sunset Bishop Ranch Executive Item Office Plaza Center Total a. Gross square feet of facility 100,000 150,000 250,000 b. Parking spaces 504 743 1,247 c. Present employment 330 560 890 d. Peak parking stall use 263 333 596 e. Gross square feet per employee (a/c) 303 268 281 f. Parking stall utilization rate (d/b x 100) 52$. 45% 48% g. Parking stall utilization per employee (d/c) .80 .59 .67 ' h. Peak parking stall need per 1,000 gross square feet (d/a x 1,000) 2.6 2.2 2.4 The resulting parking stall needs per 1,000 gross square feet (line h) are 2.6 at the Office Plaza and 2.2 at the Execu- tive Center , or 2.4 overall. Bollinger Business Center, scheduled for completion in 1983, is provided with four parking stalls per 1,000 gross square feet. Based on the results at the two sites in Table A-2, and especially if high ridesharing rates are achieved, the 800 stalls ' to be provided will be several hundred in excess of needs. The remainder of the Park is zoned for "controlled ' manufacturing," the last use category listed in Table A-1, which would require .67 stall per employee on the major shift. This figure was also the basis of county approval for parking at the Standard Oil development at the Park, and is equivalent to the .67 average for the two existing sites in Table A-2 even without ' an intensive ridesharing program at the Park. A standard of .67 stall per employee is equivalent to 2.2 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of office space, assuming an average of 300 gross square feet of space per employee ( . 67 x 1,000/300 = 2'.2) . 47 i i It is worth noting that some communities consider .67 spaces or less per employee to be a maximum, . rather than a minimum, , level of parking. For example, Bellevue, Washington, east of Seattle, permits no more than three parking stalls per" 1`,000 net , square feet, with ratios down to two stalls permitted if .the developer proposes policies that will result in sufficient addi- tional ridesharing and transit, use (net square feet is- about 15% ' smaller, on. the average, than .gross square feet) .. Ratios of two to three parking stalls per. .1,000 net square feet are equivalent '. to .4 to .6 spaces per employee at 200 net square feet per employee. CORRELATION BETWEEN RIDESHARING AND PARKING UTILIZATION RATES , Table: A-3 shows the ridesharing and associated parking utilization rates for 14 suburban office complexes. Thirteen of the office complexes were the subject of a recent study. by Seattle/King County Commuter Pool (reference 1) , the: only known r source of recent data associating ridesharing efforts. and. parking utilization, and we have added data for. the Aerospace Corpora- tion. orpora tion. The sites are listed in the order- of decreasing percentage ' of employees ridesharing, from a high of 50% to a low of 18%, with average data for the six sites without ridesharing grouped as thelast entry. The top five employers, with ridesharing , rates of 25% to 50% , each retained an in-house transportation coordinator , and four of the first five subsidized transit fares , up to $10 per month, while none of the other firms retained transportation coordinators or subsidized transit fares. ENI , ' the firm with 50% ridesharing, also charged for parking. ($35 per month) with the exception of carpools and vanpools. ENI has achieved a 12% "transit and other" share (which includes walking, biking, and drop-offs) , while the other sites range from 3 to 5% in the "transit and other" category. ' As could be expected, the parking utilization rates in Table A-3 show a high degree of negative correlation with the 48 ' i ridesharing rates: the higher the ridesharing rate, the lower the parking utilization rate. When a least-squares regression ' 'line (the straight line best fitting the data) is drawn through the points, the correlation is a very high -.87 for the stalls per employee and -.89 for the stalls per 1,000 gross square feet, where -1.0 would be a perfect correlation. TABLE A-3. SUBURBAN PARKING UTILIZATION RATES Parking Utilization Employ- % Ride Per 1,000 Per em- Facility ment sharing gross sq. ft. 1p oyee ' ENI 588 50% 2. 0 . 49 Unigard 530 40 2. 4 . 57 Aerospace Corporation 3, 600 38 2. 4 . 46 Honeywell 930 33 2. 8 .66 Bellevue City Hall 465 25 3. 4 . 64 ' Grody Way Plaza 431 22 4.2 . 81 Collins/IBM 806 21 4 . 6 .71 One Renton Square 690 20 3. 6 . 62 Valley Office Park 1, 161 18 4 .2 . 73 Average for six non- -- ridesharing sites 466 4. 4 . 88 Sources: reference 1 and Aerospace Corporation ' 49 'Figure A-1 shows lots of these points and the resulting ' P P 9 regression lines, bounded by dashed lines one standard error from , the regression line. The regression line represents the average or most likely relationship between ridesharing percentages and parking utilization rates, and the standard error lines bound. the range that can be expected .with about 68%, confidence, or in 68% of the observations, assuming a normal distribution. ' The top chart, Figure A-la, can be interpreted as follows: • The regression line intersects the horizontal axis ' at .88 stall per employee, which is at the data . point for the six non=ridesharing sites. This demonstrates the fact that typically there is less than one space per employee needed even without ridesharing, due to absenteeism. • The present Bishop Ranch Business Park parking , guideline of .67 stall per employee is identified by a vertical line on Figure A-la. The .67 line inter- sects the regression line at a 25% ridesharing rate, and the top standard error line at 41% . This suggests that on the average, a 25% ridesharing rate will achieve a .67 stall per employee parking utili- zation rate, and that a 41% ridesharing rate will do so most of the time. Differences in the ratio of parking utilization to ride- ' sharing may arise from several causes that help .to' explain the dispersion of points from the regression lines in Figure A-1.. These causes are: differences in absentee rates (due for example to differences in the amount of travel away from the work site) ; ' differences in visitor and service parking needs; and differences in the distribution of commuting modes. For example, transit commuting and walking or bicycling make the least demand on parking, followed by vanpools, large- carpools, small carpools, and solo autos. ' 50 FIGURE A-1. RELATIONSHIP OF SUBURBAN RIDESHARING AND PARKING UTILIZATION RATES Percent ' Ridesharing 70 \ \ 60 \ \ 50 \ • \ 40 \ • . � One Standard'\ • 30 - Error \ 20- 10 - 0 10 V 1 \ 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 . . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 .9 1. 0 a , Spaces Per Employee ' 70 60- 50- 40- 30- 20- 10- A erage 05040 3010Average Space Per Employee 0 \ 0 1 2 3 4 5 200 ft 0 1 2 3 300 ft2 b. Spaces Per 1, 000 Gross Square Feet Source: Table A-3 51 i Figure A-lb shows the relation of suburban ridesharing levels and parking utilization rates at two different employee ' densities (on the horizontal.. scale) . The first horizontal scale is based on 200 gross square feet per person, the average at the , facilities in Table A-3. The second scale is a translation of the first scale to 300 gross .square feet per .person, closer to the employee density at Bishop Ranch Business Park. A vertical line is drawn. through 2. 2 spaces per. 1,000 gross ' square feet on the second scale (or 3.3 on the first scale) . It intersects the regression line at about 28% ridesharing and the top standard error line at about 45% ridesharing. This illus- , urates the fact that a parking requirement of 2.2 stalls per 1,000 gross square feet would probably be adequate for facilities , with ridesharing rates of 28% to 45% and building space of 300 gross square feet or more per employee. The vertical line also illustrates the problem with basing parking requirements on building area rather than on expected employment. In particular , the same 28% to 46% ridesharing level would require a parking ' supply of 3. 3 stalls per 1,000 gross square feet, or 50% more, at a density of one employee per 20 square feet. ' ESTIMATED PARKING NEEDS The foregoing background provides the information needed to make estimates of parking needs for the remaining 2.75 million square feet of Sunset construction, following 1983 construction of the Bollinger Business .Center. • First, we believe that a standard of .67 stall per ' employee will be both acceptable to the county and readily achievable with the proposed ridesharing and transit incentive program. If further stalls turn out to be needed due either to unexpectedly high employment densities or to lower than expected ride- sharing levels, they can be provided by use of land- scaped parking reserves or through above or below ground parking structures. 52 i 1 • Second, we assume the employment levels and construction plans shown earlier in Table 1, which ' provide an easy conversion to parking stall require- ments: a. Hotel employment (much of which may use excess parking at Bollinger Business Center) 300 persons ib. Other post-1983 employment in Sunset space 7,490 persons 1 c. Subtotal, employees 7,790 persons d. Times: .67 stalls per 1 employee 5,220 stalls i e. Parking for hotel and 1 restaurant guests 500 stalls f . Maximum total parking (to be reduced by any joint use of 1 Bollinger Business Center spaces by hotel employees) 5,720 stalls • Third, we assume that a variance from the present 1 standard of 25% compact vehicle stalls to a level of 30% will be acceptable to the county, as it has in the past, with possible acceptance of 40% (as is 1 being approved in some other jurisdictions) if enough evidence can be marshalled. 1 • Fourth, we assume the ridesharing and modal split estimates for Bishop Ranch that are derived in Section 5 (Table 8) , which translate to the parking stall needs shown in Table A-4. The total of . 61 stall per employee in Table A-4 is comfortably within the .67 stall per employee proposed as a general parking target for the Sunset property in 1 the Park. Moreover, even fewer stalls per person will be needed in good weather if the bicycling expectations are realized. As indicated earlier, the parking standard of . 67 stall per employee converts to a requirement of 2.2 stalls per 1,000 gross 1 square feet with building occupancy at 300 gross square feet per employee. If further reserve stalls are provided, each addi- tional .1 stall per 1,000 gross square feet will provide 4. 55% additional stalls. For example, an added .8 stall per 1,000 gross square feet would provide 8 x 4.55% or 36. 4% additional 1 53 stalls. This would be enough for an increase in building. occupancy from 3.3 to 4.5 persons per 1,000 gross square feet. Detailed planning for individual Sunset developments will continue to require tailoring .of' parking needs to intended uses. However, these general estimates should provide guidelines ' for the individual plans. TABLE A-4. PARKING SPACE NEEDS BASED ON EXPECTED BISHOP MODAL SPLIT Expected Parking Stalls Mode Share Per Employee ' Solo auto .50 .45* Carpools. (2:6 average occupancy) .30 .12 Vanpools,. 12 occupants .12 .01 ' Buses .06 -- Bike, walking, other .02 Subtotal 1.00 58. Added 'parking for visitors, ' service vehicles, and fleet cars @ 5% of subtotal .03 Total .61 ' Reduced by 10% due to average daily absenteeism from trips, sick leave, vacations, etc. ' Source: Table 8 54 REFERENCES ' 1. Aarts, Jan A. , and Jeffery T. Hamm, EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVE- NESS OF SUBURBAN RIDESHARING PROGRAMS IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, Seattle/King County Commuter _Pool, preliminary draft, 1982. 2. . Contra Costa County, OFF-STREET PARKING, Chapter. 82-16 of County ordinances._ 3. Contra Costa County Planning Department, with San Ramon Valley General Plan Citizen's Committee, SAN RAMON VALLEY AREA GENERAL ' PLAN,. approved by County Board of Supervisors, May 24 , 1977. 4. Contra Costa County Planning Department, SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAIL- ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY REPORT, October 1, 1980. I 5. , SAN RAMON VALLEY AREA GENERAL PLAN ADDENDUM, �. December 1982. ' 6. Clayton, Joan, BISHOP RANCH TRAFFIC MITIGATION STUDY, CE261 paper for the Institute for Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, June 1982. 7. Dingle Associates, Inc. , RIDESHARING PROGRAMS OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY, prepared for Federal Highway Administration, 1982. ' 8. °; Jones, David W. , et al. , OFF WORK EARLY, the final report of the San Francisco Flex-Time Demonstration Project, Institute of ' Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, August 1982. 9. Menkin-Lucero & Associates, COLAB HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS, AB 2853 Housing need assessment for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties for Coalition of Labor & Business for Alameda & Contra Costa Counties (COLAB) , March 1982. ' .10. Metropolitan Planning Commission, COORDINATOR CONNECTION, a newsletter for Bay Area transportation coordinators, September 1982. 11. Misch, M. R. , J. B. Margolin, and others, GUIDELINES FOR USING VANPOOLS AND CARPOOLS AS A TSM TECHNIQUE, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 241, Washington, D.C. , December , 1981. ' 12. Schreffler , Eric Nissen, THE FUTURE ROLE OF EMPLOYER ASSOCIA- TIONS IN URBAN TRANSPORTATION, Massachusetts Institute of Tech nology, Cambridge, MA, January 1983. ' 13. Torluemke, Donald A. , TRANSPORTATION: A PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP' BEYOND RIDESHARING, Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA, August 1982. 55 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.' Adopted this Order on September 13, 1983 by the following vote: I i AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson, Schroder i NOES: None ABSENT: , None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Authorizing Participation in the Bay Area Coalition for Transportation (0676-6131982) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board of,`Supervisors authorize continued participation by Contra Costa County in the Bay.Area Coalition for Transportation and authorize the Auditor-Controller to draw a warrant to the Bay Area Coalition for Transportation, 348 World Trade Center, San Francisco, CA 94111, in the amount of $5,000 and forward it to the Chief Deputy Public Works director for Transmittal. BACKGROUND INFOR14ATION Contra Costa County has been a very active member of the Bay.Area Coalition for Transportation--a coalition of business, labor and public. sector representatives with the objective of gaining popular and political support for increased revenue for local street and road maintenance -and construction needs. Supervisor Schroder and Bill Gray, Chief Deputy Public Works'Director-, are on the steering committee which has been meeting regularly with an attempt to accomplish the objectives of the Coalition. The focus of the Bay Area Coalition for Transportation has been to work with the State Legislature toward introduction of a bill in the 1983 legislative session to provide additional revenue to cities and counties/for local street and road maintenance and construction needs (ideally in the.form of a five cent gas tax). The current situation in Sacramento, along with the attitude of the administration relative to "new taxes" has, for all intensive purposes, delayed introduction of legislation necessary to provide relief to local governments in the area of local street and road maintenance and construction needs. Senate Constitutional Amendment 37 (Foran) which proposes to protect all motor vehicle fuel taxes (including locally imposed taxes) by applying the protections of Article 19 of the State Constitution, has been introduced and is currently being discussed. The Bay Area Coalition is watching this legislation closely and supports, in principle, the basic objectives of SCA 37. The current crisis in the funding of local street and road maintenance and construction needs must be addressed. Contra Costa County currently has over $6 million in unfunded storm damage as a result of the severe winters of 1981-82 and 1982-83. With routine maintenance activities funded at only 50 percent of need and preventative maintenance programs being funded at approximately 30 percent of need, Contra Costa County's road system.1s in grave danger. The Board's Transportation Committee (Supervisor Schroder and Supervisor Powers) met on August 15 and discussed the issue of County participation in the Bay Area Coalition for Transportation. The Committee supports the issue and'recommends Contra Costa County's participation in the Coalition. r , 1 hereby certify that this is a true and coned copyof an action taken and entered on the minutesbf.the Orig, Dept. Public Works Administrative Services Board of supervisors on the date shown. cc: County Auditor Controller Bay Area Coal ition for Transportation (via a/ATTESTED:- 73l�9 Ste. Alameda County (via P/W) J.P.OLSS ON,COUNTY CLERK Attn: County Supervisors and ex cMicio Clerk of the Board San Mateo County (via P/w) Attn: County Supervisors my,�¢,2"'� Deputy THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on September 13, 1983by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson and Schroder NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Promotion of new bus service between West County and Martinez (Z Line) i As recommended by Supervisor Powers, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the County Administrator is REQUESTED to provide a status report on j the efforts being made to publicize and promote the new bus service between West County and Martinez (Z Line). I tereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: _ 3 y S3 J.R.OLSSON,CouWrY CLERK and ex offfe:o Clerk of the Board i f Ely ,Dept:ty Orig. Dept.: Clerk CC: County Administrator Public Works Director THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 83 Adopted this Order on May 17, 19 ,by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None, ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Publicizing the Martinez Link Bus Service i Supervisor Tom Powers having noted that the Martinez Link, providing bus service between Martinez and the West county area, is scheduled to begin operations on July 5, 1983, and that heavy usage of the service will be necessary to make it self-supporting and ensure continuance of the service; and Supervisor Powers having recommendedthat the County Administrator, working with the Public Information Officer, investi- gate and take implementing action to publicize and promote ridership on the line; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of Supervisor Powers is APPROVED. I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of.the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: ' 8 J.R.OLS50N,COUNTY CLERK and ix xx-Jofficio Clerk of the Board By '"" ? Deputy Orig. Dept.: Clerk of the Board Cc: County Administrator Public Information Officer Supervisor Powers Public Works Director v LAW OFFICES OF CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION MAIN OFFICE 1017 MACDONALD AVENUE. P.O. BOX 2289 RICHMOND. CALIFORNIA 94802 MARK GOLDOWITZ L TELEPHONE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR May 16, 1983 (415)233.9954 EF �I ) Tom Powers MAY Board of Supervisors ^0� �' District 1 ' TOM FU�•4 -._ I-•� 100-37th Street SUPERVISOR,O.RTr^^•: Ihl n00 CONTRA COS"i A COUNTY O U, Q ►.-- Richmond. CA 94805 ftICHMONOOFFICF, vZ s7 Dear Tom. o As you know. the Martinez Link bus service will � gin on July 5, 1983 . The need for heavy use of the service great since funding past the first year will depend on use. BART has come up with a number of strategies for publicizing the service which will require county participation. They include: (1) County mail stuffers: BART can provide Contra Costa County with 3" x 5" stuffers describing the service and containing a schedule. The County would use the stuffers in all county mailings to members- of the public. Each County Department would be given a supply. BART considers the stuffers an excellent way of obtaining publicity at a minimal cost. (2) Messages on paycheck stubs; brief messages, with a phone number could be incorporated onto county paycheck .stubs with little cost to the county. An example of the type of message used in Alameda County are enclosed. (3) Pressure sensitive snipes on jury notices and other mailings. Jury notices for Superior Court which are computerized have already been printed for the year. They will already contain a transit phone number. A message could be attached by a pressure sensitive snipe on the outside of the jury card. Municipal court jury notices are dealt with by hand and they too could contain a snipe. (4) Posters in all county buildings (5) Flyers with the schedule and a message to be distributed to the public from county offices and agencies. In order to make the mail stuffers and snipes available by July 5, 1983 , Sy Mouber, BART' s public information manager O, �/ Tom Powers May 16, 1983 Page 2 will have to know of your decision by June 13, 1983 . The quantity of posters printed will also be affected by your decision. I encourage the county to take advantage of this opportunity_, which will inform people from West County that they can now get to Martinez. It will not cost the county any money. A directive from the Board would be of great assistance in assuring that the people who live in west county are aware of the service. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, LITA KROWECH LK:vh PAYROLL CHECK MESSAGES All county employees at Alameda County Government Center, Hayward, CA A - USE THE EL BARTITO FREE SHUTTLE SERVICE FROM THE HAYWARD BART STATION WHEN COMING TO WORK - SAVE' GAS. BEAT THE PARKING LOT HASSLE. SAVE YOUR CAR AND SAVE MONEY, T00. B - WHEN COMING TO WORK .- USE BART AND TAKE THE EL BARTITO FREE SHUTTLE" FROM THE HAYWARD BART STATION. SAVE MONEY, YOUR CAR AND GAS. C - IF YOU USE BART, THEN TAKE THE EL BARTITO FREE SHUTTLE FROM THE HAYWARD BART STATION, WHEN COMING 'TO WORK - SAVE MONEY. SAVE GAS. BEAT THE PARKING LOT HASSLE. D - NOW YOU CAN SAVE ON GAS. USE THE EL BARTITO FREE SHUTTLE FROM THE HAYWARD BART STATION WHEN COMING TO WORK ---- BEAT THE PARKING LOT HASSLE. I!=SSAGES FOR SUPERIOR COURT JUROR. NOTICES A - USE THE EL BARTITO FREE SHUTTLE SERVICE FROM THE HAYWARD BART STATION WHEN COMING TO COURT. SAVE GAS. BEAT THE PARKING LOT HASSLE. SAVE YOUR CAR AND SAVE MONEY, TOO. B - WHEN COMING TO COURT, USE BART AND TAKE THE EL BARTITO FREE SHUTTLE FROM THE HAYWARD BART STATION. SAVE MONEY, .YOUR CAR AND GAS. C - IF YOU USE BART, THEN TAKE THE EL BARTITO FREE SHUTTLE FROM THE HAYWARD BART STATION, WHEN COMING TO YOUR COURT. SAVE MONEY. . SAVE GAS. BEAT THE PARKING LOT HASSLE. f D - NOW YOU CAN SAVE ON GAS. USE THE EL BARTITO FREE SHUTTLE FROM THE HAYWARD BART STATION WHEN COMING TO YOUR COURT. BEAT THE PARKING LOT HASSLE. I R • • :: ' • -I111!111CiPAL COURT "IOTICES "SNIPS" on envelops hen coming to Court, use the FREE When coming to Court, use the FREE When coming to Court, use the FREE ,BARTito shuttle from the Hayward EL BARTito shuttle from the Hayward EL BARTito shuttle from the Hayward LRT Station. Save money, your car BART Station. Save money, your. car BART Station. Save money, your car d gas. Use EL BARTito. It's FREE. and gas. Use EL BARTito. It's FREE. and gas. Use EL BARTito. It's FREE. ens every 7 minutes. Runs every 7 minutes. Runs every 7 minutes.. SUPERIOR COURT NOITICES' = Location of message on envelope RETURN IN TEN DAYS TO: 111� 2uplaijar Tourt Office of the Jury Commissioner COURT HOUSE, ROOM 209 `OJAI A14,,e 1225 FALLON STREET y OAKLAND,CALIFORNIA 94612 CD Cr C. ? LIF O P 1 NA �i4. 1979, ENCLOSED -- OFFICIAL REQUEST 0767285 USE BART SHUTTLE BUS TO COURT IN HAYWARD XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX PlS INGER D BROOKS XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ► 1235 — 62ND AV XXXXXXxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX OAKLAND CA 94621 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA i i Adopted this Order on May 10, 1983 ,by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson and Schroder NOES. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUBJECT: Light Rail System from Central Contra Costa County to the Pleasanton area in Alameda County As recommended by Supervisor R. I. Schroder, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that its Chairman is AUTHORIZED to request the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to include in its corridor study of State Highway 24 and I-680 the feasibility of a light rail system from Central Contra Costa County to the Pleasanton area in Alameda County, utilizing the Southern Pacific right-of-way which the County is acquiring. 1 hereby certify that this N a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: MAY 17.1983 J.R.OLSSC?4.COUNTY CLERK and ex officio Clare of the Board By Deputy Orig. Dept.: Clerk cc: Chairman Schroder Public Works Director Director of Planning County Administrator 0 RESOLUTION NO. 82-131 RESOL r4GN-QF THE CITY OOLNCIL OF SUPPORT FOR ANTIOCH-MARTINZ- RICHMOND �SPORTAION"'LINK WHEREAS, At the present time, there exists no .direct and effective cross- . County connection between.the County Seat and the eastern and western parts. of the County; WHEREAS, Martinez is the County Seat and is the source of employment for East County residents; WHEREAS, Trips to Martinez are necessary for judicial, medical and business appointments; WHEREAS, the total number of riders estimated to use the proposed service is between 650 and 850 riders per day; ` WHEREAS, The Martinez Link bus line is designed to provide fast service to Martinez by use of the freeways wherever possible; WHEREAS, a bus stop could be established in the City of San Pablo providing local residents the use of this service; and WHEREAS, Service will be accessible to handicapped persons; i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Pablo that the City Council supports the concept of a Martinez Link service and requests that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission consider funding such a service. R CEIVED 0 E C 21 1980 J. R. OUSSON AERIC BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OOMRA OONA CO. FOR YOUR M CITY OF F�RMAT�ON iAN P one alvarado square san pablo, California 94806 ADOPTED this. 6th day of December, 1982, by the following vote to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Gomes, Daniels, Armstrong, Koepke, Carmib ani NOES: COUNCILMEME ERS: None ABSENT: COT.INCITMEMBERS: None APPROVED: I Kathryn L. Carmignani, Mayor ATTEST: Charlotte Maggard, City Clerk I . I I cd-1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on September 21, 1982 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RESOLUTION NO. 82/1130 0l SUBJECT: Support for Funding of the "Martinez Link" Supervisor Tom Powers advised the Board that a recent study, called the "Martinez Link", has been done to review the proposed Transit System to be established between West County and Martinez and East County , and Martinez. Supervisor Powers pointed out that the study states that these two parts of the County contain approximately 45 percent of the County population, and that the Superior Court has endorsed the study. Supervisor Schroder stated that there is limited funding for transportation facilities in the County and will report back to the Board as to the particulars of the funding for this link and how it will affect other areas in the County. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board supports the funding of the Martinez Link Transit System and RECOMMENDS that MTC approve such funding. 1 hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ' ATTESTED: J.R.OLSSON,COUNTY CLERK and ex officio Clerk of the Board By ,Deputy ORIG. DEPT.: Clerk of the Board cc: Public Works Department Supervisor T. Powers MTC via Supervisor T. Powers Resolution No. 82/1130 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO Mike Wal ford Di reor Of DATE Public Works FROM_ G. RuS$f 1l , CIPr Of SUBJECT ThP asMartinaz l�� W' oc o sra ca.. ... the Board tProposal to Establish Trans- By '4v-2y portati on Lin& to Martinez from east and caest County.) Attached are notes pertalining to the subject matter for use in preparation of a resolution which we have assigned flo. 82/1130. Also attached is a copy of the background which Super- visor Powers distributed: to the Board. SIGNED /"}'" an PLEASE REPLY HERE f" TO DATE SIGNED INSTRUCTIONS-FILL IN TOP PORTION, REMOVE DUPLICATE(YELLOW)AND FORWARD REMAINING PARTS WITH CARBONS- TO REPLY, FILL IN LOWER PORTION AND SNAP OUT CARBONS, RETAIN TRIPLICATE iPINKI AND RETURN ORIGINAL. FORM AA 103 EXTRA ITEM (C-7) brought up by Tom Powers at the Sept. 21 , 1982 Board meeting: POWERS: Committee and Board members have been working on the Transit System which would be established between west county and Martinez, and east county and Martinez, hopefully. A recent study has come to my attention -- a study called "Martinez Link" -- a consultant study of bus service between those areas. It points out that there is, in fact, these two parts of the County which contain about 45 percent of the county population. Superior Court has endorsed the study. I am asking this Board to endorse, no later than October 5,a resolution indicating to MTC our support for the funding of this Martinez link transportation. I am submitting that for your consideration. We can act today if you like. Motion by Fanden, seconded by Torlakson, to adopt such a resolution. Schroder: Concur with the recommendation, of course. Do want to point out, how- ever, there are many areas in the County not served by transportation facilities, also you should understand that there are no new dollars promoted by this study. There is a limited amount of funds for transportation facilities in the County. Service, therefore, might have to be reduced in some other area in order to provide this particular link. Will report back to you as to particulars of the funding for this particular link and how it will affect other areas in the County. Vote on Motion: Unanimous. mn SU;9� .F.6-nds For' .".' Ut . --The.,-Contra Costa.?County Board . of Supervisors'.:voted unanimously.' Tuesday to urge allocation. - of funds 'for .establishment,of public transit linking Martinez to points in east and west Contra.Costa. The board approved a resolu- tion .asking''the -Metropolitan Transportation .Commission; which- allocates -public transit funds in the,-Bay Area, to''ap- prove funds fora new Martinez service. The board's action- was pro- mpted by a recent report, com- missioned by,the Western'Con- tyra..Costa %Tran sit Authority, which cited the.'difficultiesex- perieneed -by'-,,east and west county -residents'.in - reaching Martinez, where many. county services are located. The report =proposes':a bus service. running from Rich, --mond to Aatibch-.through:A ar. tinez with 12'round trips daily Supervisor Tom Powers saic tike study concluded that 650 ti riders would,make.use o; the`service; vhich,,would cosi $275,000 annually. :•,, .4; Powers said fares woul( ,recoup about 40-percent of the operating cost initially,_and i larger portion once the service becomes established. Though the need-for such s service has been cited in the -past, new attention was-draws `Ao the .problem by a recent 'Court of Appeals ruling-.over turning a murder conviction o3 the grounds that the jury wa not racially balanced. . The new proposal has bees endorsed by :Presidin! u Superior Court Judge Willian Channel. F� "CE VI ED 5 F P a, 1982 J. R. OLSSON CLERK BOARD Oi= SUPERVISORS ONIRA COST CO, MARTINEZ LINK.. CONSULTANT'S PROPOSAL FOR A NEFDFD 8110 LINE Final Report August 1982 Prepared by: Peretz Wittman, John Crain and Patricia Moix Crain & Associates, Inc. Los Altos, California Prepared .For: West Contra Costa Transit Authority EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The Martinez Link is a response to the urgent need to provide in Contra Costa County a public transit service to Martinez from east and west county. This need exists because there is at present no direct and effective cross--county connection. between the county seat and the eastern and western parts of the county, des- pite the fact that these. tiac Tarts of the cou��ty contain 450 of the county' s population. . • The existing transit services do not currently provide the Martinez Link despite the large number of operators : two are national carriers (AMTRAK and Greyhound) , one is regional (BART) , two are county transit authorities, one is a paratransit service only for -medical trips, others are smaller paratransit services at the municipal level, and last is the informal .-net- work nformal net-work of paying a friend for a lift. • Trip purposes as identified by the consultants relying on community input include four cate- gories: judicial, other personal business at . government offices, medical, and commute to work. • The Martinez Link will provide direct and im- mediate benefits to two specific groups of people within the general population. First are those who have special needs because their mobility is restricted by a. handicap, by poverty, or by age; second are those who need to commute to work on a daily basis. • The total number of riders estimated by consul- tants as likely to use the service is between 650 and 350 riders per day. Given the trends for increasing urbanization in' and around Martinez and the developing local interest in ridesharing, . it is anticipated that this number will increase as travel behavior adapts to the new service and its benefits. iii • b • The design criteria for -the Martinez . Link . include nine items : one of the three general considerations is that the service must accommodate all passengers; one of the six technical considerations is that the service must provide satisfactory arrival and depar- ture times to and from Martinez. • Seven different alternatives were considered to be possible ways of providing the Martinez Link. Two were not suitable, four were con- _1e_t•a s,,; + =r1 A as si.,.pplementary carriers - and arr.iersand one--the fixed-route bus line--was adopted as the principal carrier. • The Martinez Link bus line runs on a fixed route through the areas of greatest need in order to maximize access and has a limited number of stops in each location to maximize travel speed. The location of the stops allows transfers to other local transit operations. • The Martinez Link bus line provides fast service to Martinez by use of the freeways wherever Possible. • The service will be accessible to handicapped persons. One of the 4 . 5 carriers, the elderly and handicapped dial-a-ride systems, will provide service from the handicapped rider ' s home to one of the accessible bus stops. There he/she will board the bus, using a lift if necessary, and ride to an accessible stop in Martinez. 0 The two service schedules include a base run throughout the day with yb minute headways and a commuter run for morning and afternoon trips to and from work. • It is anticipated that the Martinez Link will act as a starter service for new employees who later may develop other ridesharing arrangements like car- or vanpooling. • Two supporting transportn.tion services are iden- tified the ridesharing program of car-- and van- pooling administered by RIDES for the Bay Area, Inc. and the AMTRAK service from downtown Richmond to downtown Martinez. We propose a user-side subsidy discount mechanism to provide. low cost rail trips from Richmond. A i`, 1 t' • It is recommended that any one of. the three existing county transit authorities (WestCAT, CCTA, or Tri- Delta) be the transit agency responsible for pro- vision of service and that a private carrier be con- tracted to run the daily service. Any of the existing operators currently involved in providing medical, school, or general public transportation trips could be considered as a possible operator of the Martinez Link. • The promotional plan includes three elements : ' the information which would be available to the public, suggestion of a brochure to explain about I. the Martinez Link service, and a proposal .for a, campaign to max ,.mi ze the autrea^h, to attra'ch public attention. • The estimated maximum annual subsidy cost of the Martinez Link is $273 , 500 (1982 dollars) . This includes the cost of .operating the vehicles, hiring the drivers, providing a user-side subsidy for the .supporting program, and a. modest' amount for the promotional plan. The proposed fare structure is an adult one-way fare of 75G. The fare for seniors and handicapped is 500 of the adult fare. • It is estimated that the farebox recovery will be higher than the loo now obtained on the special E&H services but less than the BART and AC Transit levels. • This consultant's report is a basis for final decision making by the Metropolitan Transporta- tion Commission, the county transit authorities , and agencies about the speedy implementation of the MartinezLink proposal. It is anticipated - that. +•1:. .pse ajA.Y�^j - munity groups and other interested persons to ensure close cooperation between the suppliers of the Martinez Link and its potential users. A final agreement about funding sources and other ' details mentioned in this report is needed quickly. •I . v q1' vai 11 .tz - e , ► >•• r. s.�_��;�� - is V r 'v . �• n. � � :�� > tom' � _ k '� n. ort o � d•°,a. � '`' � x �� �.' • :ti ^-' 1, i f 1� _ao+ I' _� I Gs . O '� ; � '.o. htl .deg- 8 :J e ., ;; J •v,.� `- (:'- y /♦'+ / ' CrJ l'Jl � ' I _f;+�+: ;I=e l• q A FA n I� A �a�eu�r.un � •.* e �. L r d TABLE 5-1 LIST OF STOP LOCATIONS i i East County i 1. Antioch - City Hall, Community Center -Tri Delta 380, 381, Bart Bus P2X 2. County East Medical Center (Kaiser Tri Delta 380, 381, 382, Bart Bus Medical) P, PX j 3. Los Medanos Community Hospital Tri Delta 380, 381, Bart Bus P, PX 4. Pittsburg - County Medical Clinic Tri Delta 380, 381, Bart Bus P2X 5. City Hall (Pittsburg) - County offices Tri Delta 380, Bart Bus P2X i Highway 4 i 6. Ambrose Nutrition Site (West Pittsburg) Tri Delta 380, Bart Bus P, PX, P2X Highway 4 i Martinez i 7. Juvenile Hall BART M Bus 8. Kaiser -Hospital - VA Hospital BART M Bus, 3CTA 110 line 9. CountyAdministration Building 3CTA 110, BART M, D, AMTRAK . 10. County-Hospital ,(Berrellesa) BART M Bus _ . . 11. John Muir Home BART M Bus I Highway 4 and I-80 j( West County 12. Pinole - Gate 13 WestCAT dial-a-ride, AC Transit Highway I-80 13. Hilltop Mall WestCAT dial-a-ride, AC Transit 14. San Pablo City Hall AC Transit basic route services, paratransit feeder 15. Richmond - Civic Ce itzr :.0 '. =_. ._ =C:j_ic 16. Richmond - BART/AMTRAK station Both rail services, paratransit feeder,. AC Transit i i i I f 1 s , i 45 &It-fornt-a Tkaegilstature `P 1 , I ROBERT ASSEMBLY MEMBERS ��Rt11# �R3ttfttt�'}EP SENATALIA NIOR CONSULTANT C.FRAZEE ANT tJi�ll� liil�il�laa CARLSBAD LOUIS J.PAPAN on ROBIN COOK WHEELER MILLBRAE COMMITTEE SECRETARY BRUCE IT YOUNG Mas's �-m-ttait CERRITOS l� w+i 161 1100 J STREET CHET WRAP SUITE 515 SENATE MEMBERS SACRAMENTO.CALIFORNIA ALFRED E.ALQUIST CHAIRMAN 95814 SAN JOSE (916)323.5746 PAULB.CARPENTER CYPRESS JOHN F.FORAN SAN FRANCISCO/SAN MATEO RAY E.JOHNSON CHICO RECEIVED JUL 16 1982 ... J. R. OLSSON NOTICE OF HEARING CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WT COSTACO. THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON MASS TRANSIT HAS SCHEDULED THE FOLLOWING HEARING: DATE: AUGUST 6, 1982 TIME: 9:30 A.M. LOCATION: STATE BUILDING ,qUDITORIUM 35O MCALLISTER STREET SAN FRANCISCO SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF THE PENINSULA COMMUTE SERVICE PLEASE CONTACT NATALIA ORFANOS, COMMITTEE CONSULTANT, PRIOR ! TO THE HEARING DATE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT TESTIMONY. IT WILL BE APPRECIATED. IF YOU WILL FURNISH THE COMMITTEE WITH AT LEAST 10 COPIES OF YOUR TESTIMONY AT THE TIME OF YOUR APPEARANCE. cell� FOR, ,YOUR INF ORMATPON n In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, .State of California March 9 19 82 In the Matter of Richmond to Martinez Bus Service. Supervisor T. Powers presented the following announcement to the Board this day: RICHMOND TO MARTINEZ BUS SERVICE PROPOSED Bus service from the County Seat in Martinez to Richmond may soon become a reality as a result of cooperative efforts of four transit districts, local citizens and First District Supervisor Tom Powers. Local citizens, led by Lita Rrowech, an employee of the District Attorney's Office, have long sought public transit between the outlying areas of Contra Costa County and the county seat. With the County office complex and the County hospital both located in Martinez, the need for such service has long been noted by many citizens and by transit officials. Supervisor Powers reported today that agreement had been reached on March 4, 1982 between Central County Transit, AC Transit, Westcat and Tri-Delta Transit to promote bus service not only between Richmond and Martinez, but between Martinez and parts of the East County area as well. Working in conjunction with Supervisor Tom Torlakson, representing east county, Supervisor Powers announced that an application for federal funds will be made to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. If approved, funds made available through; this grant would ultimately lead to regular bus service between Richmond and Martinez. "With four transit districts working together on these routes, favorable review of the grant appliation is expected from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission," Powers stated. "This is one of the first joint efforts ever made by the various bus companies and it is expected that such coordination will produce a favorable outcome for the rider." In the interim, the West County Transit District will be extending its temporary service from the Martinez-Pinole run into Richmond to provide temporary service pending the outcome of the grant application to the MTC. Supervisor Powers has requested that the Public Works Department work with the various transit districts to provide information on work hours and times of arrival in both the county office complex and the county hospital to aid in developing schedules and timetables for the proposed Richmond service. Chairman S. W. McPeak requested the Public Works Director to work with the transit districts as indicated. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Matter of Record entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board cc: Public Works Director of Supervisors County Administrator affixed this 9th day of March, 1982 B< �J*�R1111�11, Cle�rl Clerk TOM POWERS 231-3231 March 9, 1982 RICHMOND TO MARTINEZ BUS SERVICE PROPOSED Bus service from the County Seat in Martinez to Richmond may soon become a reality as a result of cooperative efforts of four transit districts, local citizens and First District Supervisor Tom Powers. Local citizens, led by Lita Krowech, an employee of the District Attorney's Office, have long sought public transit between the outlying areas of Contra Costa County and the county seat. With the County office complex and the County hospital both located in Martinez, the need for such service has long been noted by many citizens and by transit officials. Supervisor Powers reported today that agreement had been reached on March 4, 1982 between Central County Transit, AC Transit, Westcat and Tri-Delta Transit to promote bus service not only between Richmond and Martinez, but between Martinez and parts of the East County area as well. Working in conjunction with Supervisor Tom Torlakson, representing east county, Supervisor Powers announced that an application for federal funds will be made to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. If approved, funds made available through this grant would ultimately lead to regular bus service between Richmond and Martinez. "With four transit districts working together on these routes, favorable review of the grant appliation is expected from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission," Powers stated. "This is one of the first joint efforts ever made by the various bus companies and it is expected that such coordination will produce a favorable outcome for the rider." In the interim, the West County Transit District will be extending its temporary service from the Martinez-Pinole run into Richmond to provide temporary service pending the outcome of .the grant application to the MTC. Supervisor Powers has requested that the Public Works Department work with the various transit districts to provide information on work hours and times of arrival in both the county office complex and the county hospital to aid in developing schedules and timetables for the proposed Richmond service. ECEIV D 1982 CLEOA' SUPERVISORS ' OCO 57 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on November 10, 1981 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak; Torlakson, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None i i SUBJECT: Transportation for Handicapped People to Travel from Concord to Walnut Creek i The Board having received a November 2, 1981 letter from Betty Dick, 1500 Ellis Street #37, Concord, California 94520, enclosing a copy of her letter to the Concord City Council requesting that trans- portation be provided for severely handicapped people to travel from Concord to Walnut Creek and soliciting the Board's assistance in the matter; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid request is REFERRED to the Public Works Director for reply. I ft"by certf y that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date sho-- ATTESTED: L° '�`e r del'M/ J.R.OLSSOW, COUNTY CLERK .and ex officio Clerk of the Board By ,oepudr Orig. Dept.: Clerk of the Board CC: Betty Dick Public Works Director County Administrator RECEIVE57 November 2, 1981 N 0 V 1781 1500 Ellis Street, 4/37 J. R. OLSSON Concord, Ca. 94520 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ONT S CO. By.... ................ .................De 'Mr. Tom Powers, Chairman Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street. Martinez, Ca. 94553 Enclosed is a copy of my letter to the Council i,iembers of the City of Concord, which is self—explanatory. I would appreciate your help and any comments you wish to make in this very important matter, which affects so many of the disabled persons in our community. Yours very truly, Betty Dick Enclosure o- OOP November 2, 1981 1500 Ellis Street, #37 Concord, Ca. 94520 . City Council At Large (tel. ) 676-0147 or 687-2123' 1950 Parkside Drive Concord, Ca. 94519 Dear Council Members: � Aq a resident of Concord, I would like to see transportation provided for severely handicapped people to travel from Concord to Walnut Creek. There is an important hdaptive Physical Exercise program beginning on November 4th at the Civic Center in Walnut Creek, and I have no way-of getting my wheel-chair oonfined, visually and physically handicapped grandson to this program. IIe desperately needs it: Is there anyway you can help us? Walnut Creek has thein- own transportation serving the handicapped. Martinez, Pleasant Hill and Pacheco have Dial-A-Ride, but Concord does not. I would strongly urge that Concord become a part of the Dial-A-Ride system for handicapped persons, so that they can go out of the Concord area into Walnut Creek. There is a tremendous need for this servicQ in Concord. I would like to know why the City of Concord, being; the largest city in Central Contra Costa, and with the largest population of disabled persons, has not provided Dial-A-Ride, along with Martinez, Pacheco and Pleasant Hill. Please put me on the City Agenda, so that I may cover this item. Yours very truly, R - i- Betty Dick C.C. to: Sunne Uright McPeak, Supvr. of Concord Congressman George Miller Judge Robert Cooney Mayor James Hazard of Walnut Creek City Council of Walnut Creek. Bob Schroeder, Dee Glasser and Elaine Randall, CAPH Diane Katofsl;y, Para-Transil Coordinator, Dept. Public Works Tom Powers, Chairman, Contra. Costa Co. Board of Supervisors Aiiller Center East Concord Transcript Contra Costa Times Richard La Pointe, Supt. of Schools In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California October 20 19 81 In the Matter of Legislative Hearing by the Assembly Select Committee on Mass Transit. The Board having received a memorandum from Assemblyman Chet Wray, Chairman of the Assembly Select Committee on Mass Transit, giving notice of a legislative hearing to be held in San Diego on October 30, 1981, to review selected mass transporta- tion programs, and inviting county participation therein; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that said memorandum is REFERRED to the Public Works Director. PASSED on October 20, 1981, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Powers. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. c.c. Public Works Director Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of County Administrator Supervisors affixed this 20thday of October 19 81 R. OLSSON, Clerk By Geraldine Russell Deputy Clerk H-24 4/77 15m • 1116 NINTH STREET w SUITE 33 t �f O f n t a It'gi5taturr TELE HONE:E(916 323, ` 5748 STAFF GREG THOMPSON MEMBERS �pmjpjpx# (l� t##pp LEAD SENIOR CONSULTANT VICTOR CALVO on KOUYOUMDJIAN WADIE DEDDEH SENIOR CONSULTANT ROBERT FIVERS Mas's v rattsi# WILLIAM (VERS �;y a` JEAN MOORHEAD LOU PAPAN CHET. WRAY MIKE ROOS CHAIRMAN RECEIVED ECEI4 TT 0u Y 1981 October 7 , 1981 J. R. OLSSON LCLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ONT A CO. B ................... ....Depuiy MEMORANDUM TO: All State and Local Transportation .Organizations FROM: Assemblyman Chet Wray, Chairman SUBJECT: Legislative Hearing by the Assembly Select Committee on Mass Transit ---------------------- ------- ----------------- ------------------- The Assembly Select Committee on Mass Transit will review selected mass transportation programs , in a hearing to be held in San Diego on October 30, 1981. These programs are: the Inter- modal Facilities Program, the Transportation Planning and Develop- ment Account Guideway Program, and the Article XIX Guideway Program. Attached is a short discussion paper which summarizes program characteristics followed by a set of questions . We invite all of you to review this paper and respond to the listed questions. We would also appreciate additional comments and issues related to these three programs which you feel' are important and necessary to be addressed and considered by this hearing and the Legislature . The hearing date and location information.. is as follows : DATE: 30 October 1981 TIME: 9: 30 . a.m. - 5: 00 p.m. PLACE: State Building, Auditorium (B-109) 1350 Front Street, San Diego SUBJECT: Review of State Mass Transportation Programs ` 'Page 2 • Trans . Organizatio• October 7 , 1981 I look forward to your participation. Please contact Natalia Orfanos or Chuck Dargan at (916) 323-5748 if you. would like to present written testimony or if you have any questions regarding the hearing. A. INTERMODAL FACILITIES PROGRAM The Intermodal Facilities Program received its first approp- riation- under SB 1879 (Chapter 1349, statutes of 1976) . Subse- quently, in 1978, Chapter 460 , made direct appropriations to the Department of Transportation for allocation to specified projects . Chapter 161 , statutes of 1979 , formalized the program first by creating a review and evaluation process for intermodal transfer projects and, secondly by providing that the Transportation Planning and Development Account will subsidize program needs . (There are , however, projects such as the Los Angeles Union Station, which may also receive funding from Article XIX sources . ) Since its inception, the program has been primarily adminis- tered and evaluated by the Department of Transportation. The following points identify the Departments ' main responsibilities in this program: (1) Develops and adopts criteria for the evaluation of pro- posed projects . (2) Prepares a priority list of projects applying for funds . (3) Submits to the Legislature annually a report on the status of the program and the priority list of projects for fund- ing purposes . (4) Under the 580 Review Process (Sections 14085-14089 of the Government Code) evaluates statutory compliance and development progress of projects funded. (5) May contract with local entities to design and construct such projects . QUESTIONS (1) Existing law grants the Department authority to construct , acquire, lease , improve and operate intermodal transfer facilities . Under this provision the Department has applied and received funds for certain intermodal facilities . • Should the Department be in a position to review, evaluate , and advocate its own projects as well as projects submitted by local entities? • If not, who should do the evaluation and review of all pro- ject applications? (2) Under existing law, the Department may contract with a local entity to construct an intermodal facility. Do you think there is a conflict of interest in the Depart- ment' s role to build such facilities and evaluate applica- tions to fund the construction of these facilities? (3) According to existing law, the California Transportation Commission allocates funds appropriated by the Legislature to inter- moda.l' facilities ; yet, it does not have any responsibility in either developing or adopting criteria which evaluate the priority of projects. Similarly the CTC does not have any role in preparing the priority list , other than the indirect role of deciding the level of funds allocated for projects on the Department' s priority lista 0 Should there be a requirement that the CTC have a role in the development and adoption of criteria used 'to evaluate project priority? • Should the CTC formally adopt the priority list before it is submitted to Legislature? (4) According to some experts , the Department should be responsible for the project development of all intermodal transfer , facilities , in the same manner the highway system.was developed. At the minimum, the Department should be responsible for the pro- ject development of all intermodal facilities connected with com- . .muter and intercity (AMTRAK) rail passenger routes . • If you agree , please provide justification. • If you disagree, please state your reasons . (5) Under past legislative action, direct appropriations have been made to the Department for allocation to specified pro- jects. • Do you think this practice should continue? 6 If not, should the Legislature make only lump sum approp- riations to the Intermodal Transfer Facilities Program? 0 If you disagree , please state your reasons. 2 - B. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND EVELOPMENT ACCOUNT TP D IDEWAY PROGRAM Senate Bill 620 (Chapter 161 , Statutes of 1979) made 3 sig- nificant modifications in the exclusive mass transit guideway program. It provided that: 1. Counties which have approved a proposition pursuant to Article XIX, can also apply for TP&D Account funds besides Article XIX funds. 2. The Department may apply for TP&D account funds for such projects . (Although this point is unclear under existing law (section 99316) the Department has applied and received funds for the Southern Pacific Commute Service. ) 3. TP&D account funds can be used for fixed and non-fixed guideway projects . Under the administrative procedures of this program: 1. The CTC adopts criteria for the evaluation of project applications . 2 . The Department evaluates the applications based on the CTC criteria and prepares a recommended list for project priorities which is then submitted to the CTC. 3. After a public hearing, the CTC adopts the priority list for allocation purposes . QUESTIONS (1) Should the Department evaluate local applications for funds while at the same time it is an applicant itself? (2) Should the Department have a policy role in the planning and development of a local light rail project? (3) Should the Department have a role in the selection of alternatives studied by a local agency? C. EXCLUSIVE PUBLIC MASS TRANSIT GUIDEWAYS ( ARTICLE XIX PROGRAM) Proposition 5 (1972) authorized the use of the state' s tax on motor vehicle fuels to finance exclusive public mass transit guideways and their related fixed facilities , "including the mitigations of their environmental effects , the payment for prop- erty taken or damaged for such purposes , the administrative costs necessarily incurred in the foregoing purposes , and the mainten- ance of the structures and the immediate right-of-way for the public mass transit guideways, but excluding the maintenance and operating costs for mass transit power systems and mass transit passenger facilities , vehicles , equipment and services . " This constitutional mandate was the genesis of the state ' s support for an exclusive mass transit guideway program. Subsequent statutory provisions defined the level and measure of support for .the construction of such facilities . Key elements of this support are: 1. Each Proposition 5 county may receive annually up to 250 of its state highway cash expenditures . 2 . San Diego and Los Angeles counties are guaranteed an annual allocation equal to the maximum amount allowable. 3. San Diego county is also allowed to receive an advance on its guaranteed amount equal to the maximum amount allowable. 4. Los Angeles may hold its share of funds in a reserve account. The California Transportation Commission , citing severe pres- sures from the Legislature and new federal policies , is urging reform of the Article XIX program. As currently structured, the program allows banking of large amounts of monies , and guarantees funds to specific counties to the detriment of projects located in other counties . Consequently, on the one hand inflation erodes money held in reserve and on the other hand, projects which may be ready to go remain unfunded because they lack guaranteed funding. QUESTIONS (1) In the past, the Legislature has criticized and opposed banking of any funds , particularly transportation funds . / In view of the Legislature' s reduced appropriation for Proposition 5 purposes , for this fiscal year, what justi- fication would you have to maintain existing banking pro- visions in the law? 1 Since Article XIX assures that all Propositions S counties are eligible for funds , why should certain counties be guaranteed a share of the funds and not others? 1 In the event you oppose banking, please elaborate on your position. (2) One of the reasons cited by certain transportation experts for maintaining banking provisions has been the need to satisfy federal requirements which specify that for federal matching pur- poses a state -commitment- of funds to a project must be guaranteed. 1 If banking is eliminated, what solutions do you have which would meet federal requirements while at the same time main- tain flexibility of Article XIX funds? (3) According to the allocation formula for Article- XIX monies , a Proposition 5 county, other than San Diego and Los Angeles , may receive annually up to 2So of its state highway cash expenditures for .the year. A county, such as San Frnacisco, with small highway needs but significant transit commitment, receives a small amount of monies for its transit program. 1 What measure of equity would you consider for the program, so that all eligible counties receive funds based on their transit needs? 1 Should any form of assurance for financial support, whether it is credits , guarantees or advances, be based only on applications which identify a specific project? (4) A return to source guarantee also harbors elements of inequity for counties such as San Francisco, but at the same time follows an accepted method of assuring that those who contribute the most , receive greater benefits . 1 Do you think that a return .to source over a period of years may be more equitable than a return to source on an annual basis? / Should the CTC, for allocation purposes , consider a list of criteria, such as return to source, identifiable county transit needs , project readiness , etc. ? 2 - 1116 NINTH STREET f }� SUITE 33 SACRAM TELEPHONE:E(916 323-5748 STAFF Assruthty �PIP.tI (nnmtuttttPP GREG THOS ON MEMBERS LEAD SENIOR CONSULTANT TANT VICTOR CALVO NATALIA KOUYOUMDJIAN WADIE DEDDEH un SENIOR CONSULTANT' ROBERT FRAZEE ��,�Mmy�yNqt}��yyH WILLIAM IVERS Malin 0ranli f. JEAN MOORHEAD LOU PAPAN CHET WRAY MIKE ROOS CHAIRMAN RECEIVED OCT ;7 1981 J. R. OLSSON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONT STA C0-__ Deputy NOTICE OF HEARING THE ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON MASS TRANSIT HAS SCHEDULED THE FOLLOWING HEARING : DATE: OCTOBER 30, 1981 TIME 9:30 A.M. LOCATION: STATE BUILDINIG AUDITORIUM (B-109) 1350 FRONT STREET SAN DIEGO SUBJECT: REVIEW OF STATE MASS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS PLEASE CONTACT COMMITTEE CONSULTANTS, N4TALIA ORFANOS OR CHUCK DARGAN IF YOU PLAN TO APPEAR AND/OR PRESENT TESTIMONY, fT WILL BE APPRECIATED IF YOU WILL FURNISH THE COMMITTEE AT LEAST 10 COPIES OF YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT IN ADVANCE OF YOUR APPEARANCE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE 13 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Clerk of the Board . Date: February 6, 1981 To: Acting Public Works Director I From•_ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors by: Dorothy C. Gass, Deputy Clerk Subject: Attached report "Scope and State Role in California Passenger' Railroad Development - Final Report" dated 12-31-80 , from State Assembly Select Committee on Mass. Transit. Pursuant to established Board policy, the attached communica- tion is being referred to your department for disposition. Please furnish this office with a copy of your response if no Board action is required. In the event action is required by the- Board, please submit your report and recommendation to the County Administrator• for listing on the calendar. A copy. of .your transmittal memorandum should be sent to this office. Attachment cc: Board Members County Administrator • II i i Form No. 8.4 1116 NINTH STREET SUITE 33 SACRAENTO 95014 TELEPHO EM(916) 323-5 0 STAFF rntbi P�Prt ( �rntmtftrPCONGREG THCONS ON LEAD SENIOR CONSULTANT MEMBERS NATALIA KOUYOUMDJIAIN VICTOR CALVO OII SENIOR CONSULTANTI WADIE CEDDEH ROBERT FRAZEE AI}�}ww ^,raftli�� � ::AJJM44M« ,V'� r WILLIAM IVERS JEAN MOORHEAD LOU PAPAN CHET WRAP - . --_ ✓ n. .. MIKE Roos CHAIRMAN R CEJ 1981 J. R. OLSSON 27 January 1981 CLERK BOARD OF COSUPERVISOCORS STA . B ..De U ..... We are pleased to announce completion of our final report titled Scope and State Role in California Passenger Rail Development. The report examines the feasibility of expanding existing rail passenger services . It addresses potential and exist- ing energy and financial efficiencies , existing transporta= tion mobility options , existing passenger trends basen on avaialble trnasportation modes , and the state' s past per- formance in the administration of rail passenger services . Furthermore, the report proposes expansion of the existing passenger rail network, and reorganization of the state ' s administrative structure and functions in order to better serve California' s transportation needs . Thelcommittee will continue to monitor passenger rail de- velopment in California, in addition to the investigation of other mass transit issues . Part of the committee' s follow- up to this report will be the introduction of legislation based on the report' s recommendations . A future memorandum will outline this committee' s projected . work plan to study all modes of mass transportation. If you have any questions please contact Natalia Orfanos , committee consultant, at 3-5748 . Sincerely, I i j Chet Wray Chairman 13 . _ ts• i In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California November 25 , 19 80 In the Matter of Notice of Hearing on Scope and State-Role in `California`Rail Passenger Service. Development The Board received a November 14, 1980 memorandum from Chet Wray, Chairman, State Assembly Select Committee on Mass Transit, transmitting a summary of a draft report entitled "Scope and State Role in, California Rail Passenger Service Development" and giving notice of hearing thereon to be held in Garden Grove on December 8, 1980. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid communication is REFERRED to the Acting Public Works Director. PASSED by the Board on November 25, 1980. I i I� I E i i I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc: Acting Public Works Direct orSupervisors County Administrator affixed this 25thday of November , 1980 J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By ,( Qe.,_l�rd�� . Deputy Clerk Helen H. Kent H-24 3/79 15M 1116 NINTH STRE SUITE 33 SACR t California Legislature TELEPHONEEN016)T0 95814 323578 STAFF "� yy� �} ��•(�� }y� }} GREG THOMPSON MEMBERS As.firmbig �PIPLt �'1•II11t1�ttffPP LEAD SENIOR CONSULTANT VICTOR CALVO IIn NATALIA KOUYOUMDJIAN WADIE DEDDEH SENIOR CONSULTANT ROBERT FRAZEE l IVERS WILLIAM IVERS JEAN MOORHEAD LOU PAPAN CHET WRAY JZy MIKE Roos CHAIRMAN �! NOV /,P, 1980 MEMORANDUM '. r:. Vi:;ovi. CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISnki R COSTA CO. DATE: November 14, 1980 ...• De j TO: Interested Parties FROM: Assemblyman Chet Wray SUBJECT: Scope and State Role in California Rail Passenger Service Development -Summary On June 9, 1980, the Assembly Select Committee on Mass Transit voted to study the possible impact of .California' s common carrier railroad system on managing passenger transportation problems . The committee was interested in whether useful passenger development of the common carrier railroad system could be accomplished, and what role the state should paly in this area. A summary of the draft report addressing these questions is attached for your review. We will hold a hearing in Garden Grove on' Monday, December 8 , 1980 , to obtain your viewpoints on this report.. If you desire to offer testi- mony, or •.if you desire a complete copy of the report, please contact my consultants. ' �'='� • • 1116 NINTH STREET SUITE'33 California Legislature SACRAMENTO 95814 � Bio TELEPH6NE:11316)323-5748 f STAFF [� / tom{ �(�•� t*} GREG THOMPSON 1 MEMBERS ,�sspmhlL� FIPrt `Yi• `11pP LEAD SENIOR CONSULTANT VICTOR CALVO nn NATALIA KOUYOUMDJIAN WADE DEDDEH , SENIOR CONSULTANT ROBERT FRAZEE WILLIAM IVERS JEAN MOORHEAD E LOU PAPAN CHET WRAY MIKE ROOS CHAIRMAN t I November 14 , 1980 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Comments on Report : Scope and State Role in California Rail Passenger Service Development DAY: Monday DATE: December 8 , 1980 TIME: 10: 00 a.m. LOCATION: Orange County Transit District Board Room 11222 Acacia Parkway Garden Grove, California M. i + f r i 'r * • 1116 NINTH STREET SUITE 33S California Legislature SACRAMENTO 4 rY„, TELEPHONE 323-5 1916)323-5748 STAFF GREG THOMPSON MEMBERS Awir mhty #PIPr# CnIIUtrittffPP LEAD SENIOR CONSULTANT NATALIA KOUYOUMDJIAN WADIE DEDDEH bn VICTOR SENIOR CONSULTANT DDEH ROBERT FRAZEEtt�.� C�.rttttSif WILLIAM NEES JW TJ7F�r V L lLi►T.�la JEAN MOORHEAD LOU PAPAN CHET WRAY MIKE ROOS CHAIRMAN Summary -to- DRAFT REPORT Scope and State Role in California Rail Passenger Service Development November 15, 1980 13 SUMMARY i INTRODUCTION Since 1970, the Senate and Assembly have passed resolu- tions and legislation concerning the development of commuter and intercity rail service in California. These actions have led Caltrans to augment certain Amtrak services, contract for direct operation. of commuter rail service and publish a Rail Passenger Development Plan for the state. These actions have also prompted the federal government to show greater interest in the development of passenger rail service in ' California. While the current level of passenger rail development and planning becomes increasingly cohesive, such progress has evolved incrementally. At the same time, California appears to be on the threshold of a transportation crisis, which supports an examination of the rail alternative and its role toward management of this crisis. The purpose of this report is to examine the existing common-carrier railroads in California and whether use of their facilities for passenger movement merits consideration during the re-examination of transportation priorities that certainly lies in the near future. The California common carrier railroad system offers opportunity for three types of passenger use: 1) Use of existing mainlines for intercity passenger movement. ii i 2) Use of existing mainlines for urban or regional commuter movement. 3) Reconstruction of existing marginal branch lines for �j joint freight and light rail or joint freight and commuter rail use. This report examines primarily the first two types of opportunities, although, it is acknowledged that considerable promise lies in the third area, particularly .in the Los Angeles basin. The report addresses two issues : hit 1. The extent which California should develop passenger fi rail service through the use of carrier railroads. 2. The state' s role in such development. We conclude that the common carrier railroad system can 1 significantly contribute toward managing California' s trans- portation problems. However, this potential can be achieved Honly if professionals experienced in rail operations are employed to overcome the significant operational and institu- tional problems that lie in the way of effective utilization. The Legislature can create a sound and efficient rail system by adopting certain policies , the most important of which is the creation of an effective administrative agency that is capable of carrying out state goals in rail development matters. iii CAPABILITY OF RAILROAD SYSTEM TO ACCOMMODATE. USEFUL PASSENGER SERVICE Performance of Existing Service Currently, passenger movement on .common carrier railroads in California represents an insignificant proportion of travel in the state. Intercity rail' s 388,000 annual passenger miles accounts for only 1. 5 percent of total statewide intercity passenger movement, while commuter rail' s 131,000 annual .passenger miles accounts for only 0. 1 percent of urban move- ment. However, to the limited extent rail services have been developed, they have proven to be effective in attracting motorists from automobiles. We evaluated the three common carrier rail services that the state currently supports (in different proportions) . The limited available data leads us to the following conclusions, elaborated in Chapter 2 : 1. Two of the three state-supported services are competi- tive with the automobile and have proven effective in diverting motorists to trains. For example, patronage on the trains between Los Angeles and San Diego has increased from 330,000 passengers in 1975, the year before additional service was added to the route, to over 1,100,000 passengers in 1979. Apparently, 63 percent of the new riders have come from auto- mobiles. In general, it appears that trains attract persons having' socio-economic characteristics similar to those of automobile iv users. The policy implication of this finding is that improve- ment of rail service may, at least in some instances, be an effective strategy for preserving California' s mobility as increasing pressures are placed on automobile use. However, speed, frequency and, reliability are features which rail transportation must have before it becomes effective in this regard. Luxury is not important. 2 . Energy savings of about 3 ,000,000 gallons of gas per year result from two of the three state-supported services. Only negligible savings result from the third service. More effective management of the services could achieve much greater savings. The policy implications are that: a) Strong managerial control and equipment design can enhance energy efficiency. b) Long distance trains (such as Sacramento to Los Angeles) can be very energy-efficient if they use cars having 84 seats and keep non-revenue cars to a minimum. c) Commuter trains require cars of 150 seats in order to be more energy efficient. d) All trains require long-term load fuctors of at least 30 percent to be effective in saving energy. v e) Technological improvements in trains can be expected to enhance their energy efficiency just as they are doing for automobiles, but more research and develop- ment must be authorized and undertaken. 3. Farebox recovery rates, based on avoidable costs, are significantly higher for all three of the services when compared to California's transit industry. State subsidy per passenger mile is significantly less (Table 11) . Again, there appears to be considerable potential for efficiency improvements through stronger managerial control. Policy implications are that: a) Strong managerial control can enhance the state' s financial contribution toward rail service. b) Public investment in rail service is at least as efficiently utilized as in urban transit service. 4. Impact of rail support on the intercity bus industry cannot be determined because of the bus industry' s reluctance to make meaningful passenger statistics available for public analysis. Indirect evidence, such as the fact that intercity bus ridership declined during the 1950' s and 1960 ' s while rail passenger service was largely phased out, surveys conducted by Caltrans on the San Diegans and others elsewhere in the country and Canada, and studies conducted by the U. S. Department of Transportation suggest little substitutability between the two modes: (Anywhere from 10% to 25% of Amtrak's passengers might vi use intercity buses if the trains did not run. ) Also, surveys that show socio-economic characteristics of bus passengers to be unlike those of either train passengers or auto users sug- gest limited substitutability between the two modes and supports the contention that most passengers on new train services come from autos rather than buses. Furthermore, bus patronage is now rising statewide, and is apparently doing so on routes parallel to passenger train services. Policy implications are that: a) Contentions of the intercity bus industry that public investment in rail is damaging the industry cannot be acted upon until such time as the companies supply public bodies with detailed and accurate statistics supporting their position. b) With the availability of meaningful statistical infor- mation from bus companies, public bodies may be able to prepare compensatory measures, if such measures are indeed warranted. c) Generally, public investment in rail, even in corridors already having very good intercity bus service, has resulted in significant shifts from private to public modes that would not have occurred if the investment had not been made. For example, public investment in Los Angeles to San Diego train service has resulted in a doubling of ground public transportation usage in Vii that corridor since 1975. Prior to. 1975, public trans- portation usage in the corridor had been declining. Expansion Potential Our analysis of California' s common carrier railroad system indicates that with selective capital improvements, it can accommodate a significant increase of passenger train services of the type already operating between San Diego and Los Angeles and between San Jose and San Francisco. Approximately a four- fold increase is possible to the state's current 2. 0 million annual train miles in intercity service and a six fold increase is possible in the 0•.7 million annual train miles currently operating in commuter service. We have found, as discussed in Chapter 3, that: 1) Significant expansion of passenger service in the Los Angeles basin is demanded, but cannot be accomplished without capacity improvements that to date have not been addressed. Route consolidation could be the solution, for opening up a high-capacity passenger artery that would make rail a significant component of the basin' s regional transpor- tation system. Capital expenditures would be relatively low, but significant railroad compensation questions would need to be addressed. 2) Significant expansion of passenger service can occur in the San Francisco to Sacramento areas without major viii f expenditures for capacity additions. This is made possible ( because of major shifts in long,-stable rail freight patterns. Speed improvement, though, would be required. Significant expansion of frequency of the San Jose to San Francisco service (such as service everyhalf-hour) will require complete re-signaling. ii 3) The existing railroad system can accommodate a modest expansion of longer-distance passenger service (such as Bay Area to Southern California) with little or no capital improve- ments. Also, it can accommodate limited peak hour commuter service and corridor service in most areas where there is a demand to operate such service. { 4) Large shifts in freight traffic away from most Southern (. Pacific routes could result from Southern Pacific losing its competitive war with the Santa Fe and Union Pacific, which it currently appears to 'be doing. Because Southern Pacific has -the most favorable routes between most population centers in the state, this eventuality could allow for much larger expan- sion of passenger service in the future than described in 1, f 2, and 3 above. 5) The public has a right to use private railroad tracks I� so long as the private companies suffer no financial burden I from such use. l ix i IMPACTS Rail service increases of this magnitude could have a significant impact on California' s transportation system at relatively low cost. In Chapter 4, the impact of expanded service from the viewpoint of two assumptions is examined: 1) On an average statewide basis, trains are somewhat shorter than the Los Angeles-San Diego or Peninsula commuter trains. However, their occupancy levels and passenger compositions are about the same (i.e. , about 40 percent) . 2) Due to an emergency situation, such as a 25 percent shortfall in fuel supplies, trains double in length, and their average occupancy goes up to 60 percent. The increased passengers are all former motorists. Given these assumptions, our findings are: 1) This magnitude of rail service would: a. Under the first assumption increase intercity rail' s proportion of California travel from 1. 5 percent to 4. 5 -percent. Commuter rail' s share would go from 0. 1 percent to 0. 8 percent (or about 170 of all transit usage) . b. Under the second assumption increase intercity rail' s proportion of intercity travel from 1. 5 percent now to' ll.3 percent, and commuter rail'.s x t Ij �I share .from 0. 1 percent to 3..0 percent (or jabout one quarter of all urban transit usage) . I �I j 2) Energy savings would be in the range of 21,000,000 gallons per year during normal times and 105, 000, 000 gallons 1 per year during emergency times. 3) The annual operating costs to the state would be about $31 million per year during normal times. Costs to local and regional governments would be in the range of $9 million. Ij This level of investment would bring in over $40 million per j year in federal revenues. I� During emergency times, fare revenues would, cover operating I costs and return some funds to various governmental levels. 4) The state would be required to own approximately 188 cars for intercity service ice and 206 cars for commuter service, as well as 79 locomotives (assuming efficient equipment utiliza- tion) . If the state wished to be prepared for an emergency �j situation, it should own approximately double this number of cars. The capital cost of this rolling stock would be approxi- II � mately $298 million for normal times, or $596 million if the I state wished to be prepared for an emergency. I` 5) The magnitude of capital costs for selective track E and signal improvements, in the Northern Corridor and in the I 1 �I �I 'I xi j it Los Angeles basin could probably be in the range of $200 million to $300 million. 6) Indications from the federal government are that California could obtain $89 million for track and signal work and $63 million for cars and locomotives, but a definitive program has not been defied. Amtrak has indicated that Congress is sympathetic to programs that increase capacity of transpor- tation systems. More definitive programs outlining a definite state/federal partnership could soon be forthcoming from Congress. STATE ROLE The potential of California' s railroad system to contribute to the management of the state' s transportation problems will not be reached under existing state administrative structure. Revisions are needed that take into account the specialized railroad operational, financial analysis and legal skills required for development of an effective state rail program, as well as the need to work with regional and local governments. The state' s traditional arm in rail matters, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) , has been tremendously weakened over the past decade, and the Legislature' s currently designated agency, Caltrans, has proven incapable of filling the void. Amtrak is proving to be an increasingly valuable resource for rail development. However, state or regional leadership will be required in utilizing this resource if rail development in xii q ICalifornia is to exceed largely rurally-oriented national norms. jThese points are discussed in Chapter. 5. I� I PUC Decline 11 j The creation of Amtrak and its takeover of rail passenger I service in 1971, relieved the PUC of its authority over intercity II passenger service within the state. This reduction of PUC i !� authority considerably lessened the requirement for the PUC to �I be involved in railroad affairs. The one commuter rail opera- tion in the state, the Southern Pacific service between San Jose ,I and San Francisco, was not sufficient to keep the PUC' s railroad �i section fully staffed. This trend has been accelerated through II legislative budget cuts and legislative actions which placed I responsibility for rail passenger development in the hands of Caltrans. II These combined pressures prompted the PUC to dismiss or I transfer virtually all of its once-competent group of railroad ii operational and financial analysts into other areas; in par- ticular, PUC' s energy regulation division. These reductions and transfers have tremendously weakened the PUC' s ability to it represent the state in railroad matters. 1r These weaknesses first became apparent in the Peninsula commuter service. The Southern Pacific' s contention for aban- donment of the commute service was that it was not needed by j the public convenience and necessity and that it constituted a ii xiii financial burden upon the company. Because of the PUC' s weakness vis-a-vis Caltrans and Caltrans ' inexperience, the State of California was not capable of disputing Soutern Pacific' s cost arguments. The aftermath was that the state, unable to effectively defend its costing methodology, lost the cost arguments to the Southern Pacific, even though the Inter- state Commerce Commission (ICC) attorney, Daniel Linhardt, believed the state' s methodology to be superior to that of the Southern Pacific. However, under Southern Pacific' s competent cross examination the PUC cost defense crumbled. The other agency representing the state, Caltrans, did not even attempt to develop cost arguments in the hearing. The unfortunate implication is that, currently, the state is not in a position to defend itself in railroad proceedings involving the technical substantive issues that need to be addressed in expansion of rail services. Caltrans Caltrans is now the Legislature' s agency for rail develop- ment. Since 1976, the Legislature has given Caltrans progres- sively more funding and power to carry out legislative objec� tives for rail development. By June of 1980, the funding amounted to $47.7 million. Department policy statements fully reflect legislative will, as pronounced in various pieces of legislation, and indicate a strong commitment towards developing a useful rail network for intrastate travel. xiv i r Unfortunately, Caltrans has been unable to spend more than $19. 8 million of these funds and blames obstructionism from Jj railroads as the reason. Caltrans ' relations with Amtrak have also progressively deteriorated. jWe believe the problem is not so much the railroads as it �I is Caltrans. While Caltrans ' policy statements regarding the a� +i rail program are excellent, its organization for achieving these Ij policies is not commensurate to its goals. Caltrans' organi- zational structure suffers from lack of centralized control, and an absence of personnel proficient in rail matters and in nego- q tiotions with private railroad companies. Owing to these ar jdeficiencies, Caltrans has been unable to adequately address some of the most basic issues confronting the state rail program. i' �i In Chapter 6, we analyze these problems in detail. Here I� we will just note a couple of points. it i Caltrans has stated repeatedly that the largest obstacle in the implementation of the rail program in California is +I the railroads' refusal to allow their tracks to be utilized for passenger movement. It is generally recognized that this is the foremost issue facing the state, but it appears that Cal I trans has failed to address this issue in a systematic manner that would lead to a solution. i� l Any railroad unwilling to allow use of its tracks for passenger services, invariably resorts to any of several li xv q it pretexts. Often it is claimed that the tracks lack sufficient capacity to operate passenger as well as freight trains, or even that railroads are no longer required to operate such service for public convenience and necessity, even if there is available track capacity. Other times a railroad will allow the operation of a service, but at speeds so slow as to make the service clearly noncompetitive for local traffic, as the case is with the San Joaquin or the Starlight between San Jose and Oakland; and, still other times, track use will be allowed at competitive speeds, but the requested reimbursement will be disproportionate to the actual cost of operating the service, as the case is now on the Peninsula commute service. In any of these instances, the public agency involved must be able to counter the railroads' technical arguments and legal strategies. Caltrans cannot hope to achieve success in any of these areas unless it employs--in the very highest levels of responsibility for the rail program--persons with years of experience in actual railroad operations and finance, and experience in legal confron- tations before the PUC and ICC. Caltrans revealed, in its testimony before the Select Committee, that it did not have anyone with any of these qualifications in its staff; it has only a few employees with limited railroad-related experience who are at entry or near-entry levels of responsibility. The process of gaining access to rail tracks is one of hardnosed but realistic negotiations with the railroads. There are many examples in Caltrans' performance record which xvi i - I C indicate a lack of familiarity with .such necessary knowhow. i l One such example, is Caltransproposal for service between +I San Jose, Oakland Sacramento. In 1977, Caltrans requested i� , Southern Pacific, through Amtrak, to operate three trains ii a day in this corridor. The Southern Pacific agreed to start 4 only one roundtrip a day on a slow schedule. Instead of defending its original proposal, Caltrans re-approached Amtrak with another proposal, to run an overnight train between Sacramento and Los Angeles. Southern Pacific again refused, �! and this time, Caltrans requested that Amtrak bring the matter to arbitration. According to departmental testimony, Caltrans I� counsel indicated that the San Jose-Sacramento service should Jawait the outcome of the overnight arbitration proceedings, I j which have consumed almost three years. If Caltrans has meanwhile missed significant opportunities to force Southern Pacific acceptance of intercity trains. It was recognized even by Caltrans staff in 1977 that state takeover I� of the Peninsula service could be used as a lever to obtain intercity trains. Mr. Harry L. Parrish, then Assistan Director I for Mass Transportation, indicated in a June 30, 1977 memo to Lawrence D. Dahms, then Deputy Director, that: I The two (services) must be considered together from a viewpoint of state strategy. . kl This strategy was evidently forgotten, as Caltrans signed agreements with Southern Pacific to reimburse the railroad for �j xvii it I millions of dollars of costs. Without obtaining any agreement for new Amtrak services over the Southern Pacific. As discussed, Caltrans after three years is still unaware of what issues have to be addressed for establishing the nor- thern corridor service. Caltrans uses the excuse of needing a decision on the overnight train arbitration case before it can pursue the northern corridor development. However, according to Bob Patterson, who is the Amtrak' s attorney for the overnight train arbitration case, the two matters are unrelated. His case would not have been endangered if, for example, Caltrans had approached either Southern Pacific or Amrak regarding speed improvements between San Jose and Oakland. It now seems that leadership for developing the corridor will come from Amtrak itself, which appears to have a more accurate perception of the requirements for providing competitive service, than Caltrans. Lack of progress in Southern California rail development (except for Amtrak' s increasing ability to find solutions) offers another example. Any program for expanding rail service in the Los Angeles basin beyond a most minimal level will be thwarted unless problems of track capacity are adequately addressed. Although many possibilities exi6t for addressing this problem (one of which we describe in Chapter 3) , Caltrans has ignored the problem. As a consequence of this and the preceding discussion, we believe their program submitted to xviii the Legislature in January 1980 , on passenger train development contains hollow proposals for both the Northern Corridor and the Los Angeles basin. There is some speculation this intent I is deliberate in order to pay for their Peninsula commuter i service contract, which Caltrans so poorly negotiated (and is continuing to poorly administer) . P These examples suggest that Caltrans is highly weak in ?i operational areas, such as negotiations, determination of operational improvements and railroad costing. These are it all areas crucial to the development of a rail program in California, and Caltrans' deficiencies in these areas are a I +i detriment to the potential development of rail services. However, Caltrans does appear capable of administering long-term development strategies. Caltrans may be the logical iagency to actually own railroads and rolling stock, as currently authorized. This role would be analogous to the. one it has discharged in highway development. i {j Thus, there appears to be a reason for the state to distinguish between operation and long range development. . If t such a distinction is made, it ought to be reflected in state' s institutional arrangements. a OPTIONS FOR REVITALIZING STATE ROLE I �i Legislative revitalization of the administrative structure i, is, therefore, a necessary prerequisite for a beneficial rail q I+ xix program. Our analysis of weaknesses of the .current administra- tive structure suggests to us a need for dividing rail adminis- tration into three functional areas which are elaborated upon in Chapter 7 : 1) Enforcement, responsible for gaining access to tracks, directing capacity and speed improvements, or directing what- ever other measures are required for achieving competitive passenger service at a fair cost. 2) Rail development, responsible for purchase and improve- ments to tracks and rolling stock, development of intermodal terminals of statewide interest, and preparation of long-range rail development programs, including necessary planning analysis. 3) Rail operations, responsible for negotiating and administering rail service contracts with Amtrak or directly with railroads, including ongoing evaluation of services for efficiency and effectiveness improvements. There -are different options open to the Legislature for dividing these three functional areas among the administration. In Chapter 7, we describe three options, all of which place the role of Enforcement in a greatly strengthened PUC. In the first option.,. Caltrans would retain significant authority in the rail program area. The existing program would be restructured as follows: xx i� I� a; 1) Enforcement would be turned over to the PUC, streng- thened with strong rail operations and cost analysts I l and rail legal capability. The PUC would be directed PI to work with Amtrak to open up the state' s rail facilities to passenger use. jl { 2) Rail development would be placed in a new Caltrans I� I j unit, the Division of Rail Development. This division' s railroad-related costing would be performed by the PUC, and all plans and specifications would be approved I Ij by the PUC. I� 3) Operations and evaluation would be placed in a new q Caltrans unit, the Division of Rail Operations. II Ij ll In the second option, the state would place maximum reli- ance upon Amtrak to provide the necessary management while Jr NI under contract to the state. The three functional areas would be organized thusly: I I 1) The PUC would still be the primary agency for enforcement and N development of standards. t 2) and 3) Rail development and operations would be contracted to Amtrak. An Amtrak contract administra- tion unit would be established within the PUC. This I �I unit would have the responsibility of preparing annual t and five-year budgets to be submitted to the Legisla- ture through the California Transportation Commission. tl I� xxi II I In the third option, the state would create a new rail authority outside of Caltrans, but with budgetary control through the CTC. Rail enforcement would still be the primary responsibility of the PUC, but a new department or authority would be created to take over rail development and rail operations responsibilities. The new authority would be directed by a board of directors appointed by the governor, with annual budgetary authority approved by the Legislature through the CTC. RECOMMENDATIONS It is our recommendation that legislation be drafted that would codify the three program areas required for state leadership in developing rail services in California, and specify the administration of those re-programmed areas according to one of the three options, or variations of them presented in Table 27. In our opinion, options b) or c) are preferable to option a) , because they allow much more latitude in the employment of qualified personnel to carry out a rail program. However, there may be strong reasons for considering variations to option b) that would include leaving long-range rail develop- ment with a new division within Caltrans, while contracting with Amtrak or creating a new agency for short range development and operations. In addition, we recommend that the Legislature codify evaluation standards which shall be utilized by the short- range development and operations program area in evaluating xxii i, �r services. Measures similar to those which .we used in our l evaluation of existing services should be used. ry In absence of an initial rail program, we would recommend that the state adopt a basic rail system as an expression of 11 state policy concerning the role of rail development in the j state. This network would be based upon the Caltrans report i submitted to the Legislature earlier, but with modifications discussed in our earlier sections to take into account the {� need for capacity improvements and car and locomotive purchases, overlooked in the Caltrans report. The recommended program II shown in Figure 13 should be modified on an annual basis through the annual and five-year program submitted by the short- range development and operational program .area, once it is II y made operational. �I The Legislature should. also adopt standards pertaining to the staffing of trains and related services, with the spirit of the regulations to specify that, in those places where II passenger train services are expanding, and where it is the I II Legislature' s intent that they continue to expand, such expanded j services employ streamlined work rules where compensation is I based on time rather than mileage, and where excess number of I employees are not employed, but where in no circumstances the Jj total number of passenger train employees would be reduced I below their existing level without attrition. j Ir xxiii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY i LIST OF TABLES xxvi LIST ,OF FIGURES xxviii INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND 7 PART 1 - POTENTIAL FOR CALIFORNIA RAIL DEVELOPMENT 17 CHAPTER 1. FACTORS AFFECTING RAIL POTENTIAL 18 CHAPTER 2. EVALUATION OF EXISTING SERVICE 24 Effectiveness of Routes with State-supported Trains 28 Energy Savings 49 Efficiency 64 CHAPTER 3. POTENTIAL OF EXISTING RAIL FACILITIES FOR 78 PASSENGER TRAIN EXPANSION Right to Use Rails for Passenger Service 81 Capacity, of Rail Routes 86' Changing Freight Patterns 90 Studies on Expanding California Passenger Service 95 Potential of Individual Routes for Service Expansion 102 CHAPTER 4. IMPACTS OF RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE EXPANSION122 Impact on State Travel 127 Energy Impacts 138 Operating Costs and Subsidies 141 Capital Requirements 146 PART II - STATE ROLE 154 xxiv Y �I TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page CHAPTER 5. NECESSITY FOR STATE LEADERSHIP 155 Federal Role 156 JCalifornia Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 167 California Department of Transportation _ Caltrans) 186 Local and Regional Participation 193 CHAPTER 6. AN ASSESSMENT OF CALTRANS' ACTIVITIES 198 I Use of Track 198 q { Development of Competitive Service 202 Cost and Financial Analysis of Service 203 it Caltrans Organization 206 Efficiency and Effectiveness 208 Ir n Construction 211 II Services Implemented and Money Spent 212 �I Services Not Implemented and Money Not Spent 212 NI Caltrans ' Legislative Suggestions 216 ll Caltrans ' Intermodal Function 218 The California Corridor Concept 220 Peninsula Local Rail Service 222 Summary 227 CHAPTER 7. OPTIONS FOR REVITALIZING STATE ROLE 228 IElaboration on Three Functional Areas 229 q Importance of Good Management 234 Administrative Options 237 h �E Elaboration Upon Rail Authority 239 V 1 1 I xxv u l I� TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page BIBLIOGRAPHY 241-a APPENDICIES 242 xxv - 2 ii LIST OF TABLES Page �i Table 1 1979 California Intercity Travel 14 Table 2 1979 California Urban Travel 15 i' r Table 3 1980 California Common Carrier Rail Passenger 27 Service Table 4 Effectiveness of California Intercity Rail 30 C and Transit Services, FY 1979 it Table 5 Effectiveness in Terms of Car Miles 32 4 Table 6 Los Angeles - San Diego Public Ground Trans- 45 portation Patronage i� Table 7 Fuel Saved by Los. Angeles - San Diego Trains. 52 Table 8 Fuel Saved by San Joaquin Trains 54 Table 9 Fuel Saved by SP Commute Trains 55 `i Table 10 Efficiency of Routes Having State-supported 65 Trains ' Table 11 Financial Indicators 70 Table 12 Oakland - Bakersfield Rail Passenger Service 73 ii Solely-related Costs I Table 13 Illustrative Listing of Expanded Passenger 123 { Services i Table 14 Capacity and Usage of Expanded Train Service 129 Characteristic of Today's Habits i i Table 15 Impact of Expanded Intercity Rail on 130 California Travel (Today's Habits) l II I� I xxvi I LIST OF TABLES (continued) Page Table 16 Impact of Expanded Commuter Rail on Califor- 131 nia Urban Travel (Today's Habits) Table 17 Capacity and Usage of Expanded Train Service 135 Characteristic of Emergency Conditions Table 18 Impact of Expanded Intercity Rail on Cali- 136 fornia Intercity Travel (Emergency Conditions) Table 19 Impact of Expanded Commuter Rail on California 137 Urban Travel (Emergency Conditions) Table 20 Annual Energy Savings from Expanded Rail 139 (Today's Habits) Table 21 Annual Energy Savings from Expanded Rail 142 Service (Emergency Conditions) Table 22 Annual Operating Costs and Revenues from 144 from Expanded Rail Service Table 23 Annual Federal, State and Local Support 145 Required for Expanded Rail Service Table 24 Annual Operating Costs and Revenues from 147 Expanded Rail Service (Emergency Conditions) Table 25 Capital Requirements 149 Table 26 Rail Passenger Program, Funding Summary 215 Table 27 Options for Rail Development Management 237-a xxvii LIST OF FIGURES Pa e Figure 1 Locations of State-supported Rail Services 26 1ff l Figure 2 Rail Passenger Volume, San Diegans 34 Figure 3 Rail Passenger Volume, San Joaquins 35 Figume 4 LA - San Diego Train Route, Magnitude of 36 Travel Between Station Pairs iFigure 5 Fuel Consumption as Function of Train Weight 57 ( Figure 6 Variations of Fuel Consumption Among Routes 58 iFigure 7 Fuel Efficiency as a Function of Occupancy 60 iFigure 8 FY 1979 San Diegan Breakdown of Fully- 67 allocated costs 68 Figure 9 FY 1979 San Diegan Costs and Revenues jIiFiguke 10 Los Angeles - San Diego State Expenditures 72 iFigure 11 Higher Capacity Rail Routes in California 82 Y Figure 11A Detail of High Capacity Routes in Los 84 Angeles Basin Figure 12 Los Angeles Basin Metropolitan Rail Develop- 110 ment Possibility Figure 13 Illustrative Example of Passenger Services 124 That Can be Provided on common carrier it Railroads C Figure 14 Amtrak Organization 160 Figure 15 Caltrans Rail Organization 207 III xxviii �j I. _ eel In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California October 21 . 19 Ha. In the Matter of Authorizing the Acting Public Works Director to Execute Agreement with TJKM. W.O. 4249 The Acting Public Works Director having recommended that he be authorized to execute an agreement with TJKM, Transportation Consultants of Walnut Creek, for a traffic report relative to the Sycamore Valley Road interchange with Interstate 680;and The Acting-Public Works Director having further advised that, although there are many traffic reports available that discuss road and circulation problems in the vicinity of the Sycamore Valley Road interchange with Interstate 680, none of the reports provide detailed information relative to the interchange itself;and This Board recognizing the necessity of having current, up to date traffic information relative to the interchange available in order to properly evaluate development proposals in the area and provide data to CALTRANS and the FHWA relative to the traffic problems in the area,desires to proceed with preparation of the report. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Acting Public Works Director is AUTHORIZED to execute an agreement with TJKM for a traffic report. The maximum amount payable under the agreement is limited to $5,000 without further authorization from the Acting Public Works Director. PASSED by the Board on October 21, 1980. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Orig.: Public Works Dept.(LD) Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc TJKM Supervisors 675 Ygnacio Valley Rd., Ste. 211 affixed this 21st day of October 1980 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Planning J. R. OLSSON, Clerk CALTRANS,Dist.IV ,/ Attn.: Dick Pence By �-r "�� LY` t-� . Deputy Clerk PO Box 3366, Rincon Annex Helen H. Kent San Francisco,CA 94119 Accounting y�.� e l , H-24 3/79 15M ? "� Ajo ` 131 1116 NINTH STREET SUITE Y � - 4 California Legislature TELEPHONE:E 9160)339514 385748 ! STAFF GREG THOMPSON MEMBERS �A+VPmhIL� Flprf `Yiiil�la►`ilLEAD SENIOR CONSULTANT NATALIA KOUYOUMDJIAN WADIE DEDDEH Lin VICTOR SENIOR CONSULTANT DDEH !.� ROBERT FRAZEE MSS Ill rattUji WILLIAM IVERS li VV li. i► ` . JEAN MOO` AD CHET WRAY LOU PAPAN APAN , MIKE ROOS CHAIRMAN RE E �TED OCT/5, 1Q CLERK BOARD OFSUPERVISORS C T OSTA B _ �......De u NOTICE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON MASS TRANSIT HAS POSTPONED THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON OCTOBER 27, 1980, IN ORANGE COUNTY, A NOTICE WILL BE MAILED INFORMING YOU OF A NEW HEARING DATE, Y�4 /01 13 ` M 1116 NINTH STREET w W'.. JA SUITE 33 SACRAMENTO 95814 5 614 Ho TELE (916) 323-5 746 California �-qielafurp, , 4N, STAFF ON AL>t�-i bIg OMprf gummiftPF GREGTHCONSUL . IfV�1 1 lVl� a1 LEAD SENIOR CONSULTANT MEMBERS NATALIA KOUYOUMDJIAN VICTOR CALVO nn SENIOR CONSULTANT WA DEDDEH ROSERT FRAZEE Mtt,iii Orawif WILLIAM �J IVERS ''� .JEAN MOORHEAD / v LOU PAPAN CHET WRAY � MIKE Roos CHAIRMAN E�' FD 0 C T 1980 C RK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS B . C TA CO. DL U NOTICE OF HEARING THE ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON MASS TRANSIT HAS SCHEDULED THE FOLLOWING HEARING : DATE: OCTOBER 271 1980 TIME: 9:30 A.M. LOCATION : ORANGE COUNTY' TRANSIT DISTRICT QAR ROOM QZ2 ACACIA PARKWAY GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA SUBJECT: TESTIMONY ON DRAFT REPORT ON STATE RAIL PROGRAM PLEASE CONTACT COMMITTEE CONSULTANTS, GREG THOMPSON OR NATALIA KOUYOUMDJIAN, IF YOU PLAN TO APPEAR AND/OR PRESENT TESTIMONY, IT WILL BE APPRECIATED IF YOU WILL FURNISF! THE COMMITTEE AT LEAST 10 COPIES OF YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT IN ADVANCE OF YOUR APPEARANCE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, 1® kol p %'4 T/p . L, PURLJC WORa 6EPART101T r I CONTRA COSTA COUNTY i Date: September tember 10, 1 0 To: Melvyrn Wingett, County Administrator From: J. Michael Walford, Acting Public Works Director Subject: Senate Bill 512 Please note the attached copy of Mark Kermit 's memo to me, which I believe is self-explanatory. MLK:fd Atachment cc: Clerk of the Board RECEIVED SEP /-5)- 1980 CL K BOAP,D OF SUPE'RVISORRS O�F'j A STA CO. B 'F• L'= - :-..D=puha i i I PUBt1C Wma bePARTMEPff CONTRA COSTA COUNTY i Date: September 11, 1980 To: J. Michael Walford, Acting Public Works D' rec From: Mark L. Kermit, Deputy Public Works Director, Transpbrtation Subject: Senate Bill 512 Please note the attached Board referral concerning SB 512 . I read the bill and agree with San Bernardino and Riverside Counties that it is a bad law. MTC informed me that the bill was dead; however, (1) miraculously it was resurrected the last day the Legislature met and was passed; however, (2) the bill was amended so that it only per- tains to District VII and does not, therefore, affect the Northern California allocation. As of now, the subject is moot. I suggest we so inform the County Administrator and the Clerk. MLK:fd Attachments I I , 1 1 i In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California August 19 , 19 80 In the Matter of Senate Bill 512 (Briggs) State Highway Funding The Board received an August 5, 1980 letter from Barry Beck, Executive Director, Riverside County Transportation Commission, and Wes McDaniel, Executive Director, San Bernardino Associated Governments, transmitting a copy of their detailed analysis of SB 512 (Briggs), a bill which would modify the State highway funding allocution formulae, and urging opposition to same. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid communication is REFERRED to the County Administrator and the Acting Public Works Director for RECOMMENDATION. PASSED by the Board on August 19, 1980. I I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of on order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc: County Administrator Supervisors County Counsel Acting Public Works Directoflfaxed this 19thday of August 19 80 Riverside County Transp. Comm. Attn: Larry Beck, Exec. Dir. J. R. OLSSON, Clerk San Bernardino Assoc. Gov. Attn: Wes McDaniel BDeputy Clerk Exec. Dir. Helen H. Kent H-24 3/79 15M August 5, 1980 Oq RECEIVED ', San Bernardino Associated of Governments 334 W. Third Street, Suite 401 ��Ci 1980 San Bernardino, California 92401 (714) 884-8276 J. R- OLSSUi,i CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS � Riverside County Transportation Commission T OSTA F 3616 Main Street, Suite 402 B........._... ...A---D-put} Riverside, California 92501 (714) 787-7141 Administrative Officers California County Boards of Supervisors Dear Sir: This letter is to bring to your attention SB 512 (Briggs) . This bill, -presently scheduled for conference committee and. vote by each House after the State Legislature reconvenes on August 18, 1980, impacts State highway funding for all counties in Southern California. Because of the importance that fund-type (Federal-Aid Interstate, Federal-Aid Primary, etc.) plays in the selection of State highway projects, SB 512 may also effect State highway funding in Northern California Counties. SB 51.2 would be the first major modification to California's long standing State highway allocation formulae (Callier_-Burns Act of 1947 as amended by SB 1412 in 1961) . Many of us in the transportation profession have felt for some time that these formulae need to be re-examined, however, this effort should be discussed and debated statewide before a legislative proposal moves forward. SB 512 is a piecemeal attempt to solve the State highway problems of Orange County at the expense, and without discussion, of the State highway needs in all other California counties. A detailed copy of our analysis of SB 512 is attached. Please consider opposing SB 512 and transmitting your position to your legislative representatives. If you have further questions regarding SB 512, contact your area's regional transportation planning agency. If we can be of further help, please call Gary Van Buskirk at (714) 787-7141. Sincerely yours, , WES MCDANIEL, Executive Director . San Bernardino Associated Governments BARRY BDCK,/ecutive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission • The San Boma* County Transportation Commission UI!h, SAM BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS A PLANNING COUNCIL OF COOPERATING INTERACTIVE GOVERNMENTS Suite 401, Wells Fargo Building, 334 W. Third Street San Bernardino, California 92401 (714) 884-8276 'California Transportation Commission California Department of Transportation Regional Transportation Planning Agencies County Transportation Commissions Dear Sir: SB 512 (Briggs) is presently scheduled for conference committee and vote by each House alter the State Legislature reconvenes on August 18, 1980. This bill affects State highway funding for all Southern California Counties as well as the AB 402/State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process recognized statewide. Amendments adopted in Ways and Means on July 8, 1980 purported to confine SB 512's fiscal impact to Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Our analysis of these amendments show this not to be the case and that SB 512 as amen wi ve a e- terious effecton all Southern Ca i ornia counties exception Orange County)and may effect Northern California counties as we A copy of SB 512, a copy of the July 8th amendments, and our analysis are attached. I am recommending that each of you join with the Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino County Transportation Commissions in opposing SB 512 and communicate this opposition to your state legislative representatives . Discussion: SB 512 will (by creating State Transportation District 12 for Orange County) require between $50 million (under current State highway funding assumptions) and $80 million (assuming increased State highway funding) more,than other- wise would be available for Orange County, to be spent in Orange County for State highway projects. Under current funding assumptions, this will re- quire projects from other Southern California counties to be deleted from the State Transportation Improvement Program adopted by the California Transportation Commission. With increased revenues, SB 512 will reduce funding opportunities and limit expenditures for other Southern California counties. Presently SB 5.12, in an attempt to lessen its fiscal impact, is tied to the passage of ACA 74 (Ingalls) . This language, however, is subject to amend- ment. It should be noted that increased revenues for State highway capital outlay projects, sufficient to mitigate the deleterious effects of SB 512, are by no means a certainty if ACA 74 is approved. First, the trailer bill to ACA 74 (AB 2678) which will determine the split of funds and the amount of additional revenues to, the State highway account is subject to further negotiations. Secondly, additional revenues due to ACA 74 are conditioned upon the assumption of rising gasoline prices. Thirdly, the existing State program faces a fixed-cost (operations, maintenance, and administration) deficit of over $180 million in FY 1984-85. As a result of this growing deficit few new funds for capital outlay projects, even with the passage of ACA 74, can be expected. Nevertheless, under each of these circum- stances, the full fiscal impact of SB 512 will be felt by all Southern California counties if SB 512 is enacted. Under any revenue scenario, SB 512 affects the AB 402/STIP process in that it will further restrict the California Transportation Commission from selecting projects for Southern California based on merit. In addi- tion, because of the importance that the type of highway fund (Federal- Aid Primary, Interstate, State only) plays in the project selection pro- cess, Northern California projects may possibly be affected as the California Transportation Ccnmission carries out its duties under SB 512. July 8th Amendments: The July 8th amendments clarify how district minimums are to be computed for District 7 and District 12 (Orange County) , but they are neither written nor listed in the proper code section to provide guidance as to where reduced or limited expenditures should occur. This can be. seen as follows: I. Only 700 of the State highway funds in each of the North and South county groups is expended according to the district minimums (Sec. 188.8 Streets and Highways Code) . The ranaining 300 of funds is expended by discretion of the California Transportation Commission. All funds are represented in the annually adopted State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) . II. SB 512 by requiring a district minimum for Orange County, which is greater than projected expenditures for Orange County,will require the California Transportation Com- mission to reduce or limit expenditures in other Southern California counties. SB 512 does not provide guidance where such reductions or limitations should occur. Increased expenditures can occur, however, in Orange County without SB 512 under the project merit selection process created by AB 402. In fact, Orange County has been successful in the past in achieving substantially increased expenditures through the AB 402/STIP process. Conclusion: SB 512 is a legislative piecemeal attemptto solve complaints over State highway funding formulae. Its fiscal impacts have not been sufficiently nor honestly debated. Please consider opposing SB 512 and transmitting notice of your actions to your State legislative representatives as soon as possible. i Sincerely yours r LANIEL BW Executive Director Ixecutive Director SAN BEWAlMNIO ASSOCIATED GOVIIMffNTS RI=IDF COUNTY TRANSPORTATION (714) 884-8276 COMMISSION (714) 787-7141 f i cc: Senate and Assembly Consultants League of California Cities County Supervisors Association of California County Board of Supervisors i ANALYSIS OF SB 512 (BRIGGS) (As amended July .8, 1980) SB 512 would create State Transportation District 12 for Orange County. The significance of this is that such districts are used to determine minimum levels for State highway expenditures based on the percentages contained in the State Highway "Now Needs Study" compiled quadrennially by Caltrans, (Section 188 .8 Streets and Highway Code) . Currently, there are no single county state Transportation Districts and the California Trans- portation Commission recently eliminated county minimums due to their interference with the project selection process, based on merit, set up by AB 402. The attached chart shows the mathematical relationship between district minimums and total state highway expenditures during a typical four-year period. Basic information was taken from Caltrans ' calculations of district minimums prepared for the 1980 PSTIP. Although the CTC has altered the 1980 PSTIP fund- ing levels, in the capital outlay arena such changes were not of sufficient magnitude to significantly change the results of this analysis . This analysis also assumes needs percentages similar to those contained in the 1977 Now Needs Study. The update of the Needs Study, now underway by Caltrans, will of course result in new percentages being developed. Three cases are presented: Case I - The Current Program Based on Caltrans data, showing minimum and total expenditures. Case II - The Impact of SB 512On The Current Program Even should ACA 74 pass, additional state highway revenues may be lower than projected or be used for non-capital outlay thus resulting in a "current. program" . Case III - The Impact of SB 512 and an Expanded Program We have assumed $178 million a year from ACA 74 as additional revenues, split 60/40 for capital outlay. N 'FJ ,� � � 0 (D ° m � ' 12 � • O O ri O to tR O((D N ((D C W vLzrn � Hrf Lil No m u) o U) (D (D rt- bo "c P. Ln F 0 0�0 o�o � � O 5 FAN H � In �3 m to to z v 't X H O O U) o 'T1 in O N• a Cl'o rt (D n o IC, 85fta Fo G7 H O I m Fes-' O �l oFt.� '17 R O n H (D (a/) (CD � Fi, Z O Fl ' :J 6 cn Fl (p N to o (D R N• F ' L rn ON oo Alct 'd �+ I i O �i ►i W U7 ON ON N lP. H0 Sv I••�• iiF11-�'' H In F°•h (D N Ul cn 'I, UNl (Rp. � w0 Ntn � v 0 En En0 � �i O G� Oo a oo to � O r�ti �t �. � I h N tJ O O 10, �1 O (D ((D ((D K•�C rt toH Ln n~i rS I a hj cn I o ►n X _ I� N Fl o ,a y (Kp m (� (pN H•LQ (D o FII O J O 11J 61 H n -OH � R N A� 2 O W Q, O OO 2 H 1-i i Fl 10 0 w N t� w F. I F,1 Fl U' to (� O v- o N {n � ct- oma i � N� Enw x �h n $ 8 °,� 8nm ro Q1 N F.,. {p O r co �o p� Fes-N 't5 Fw rt �- H L4 a m rF P M A. N u. C Ul �. r H O Z oll Un rt (n a m � � �Inh m (D ('1' � N O �•.' SNI' � � � �N+ � url, CIrt- Al i I (D H dP n W rf (n (Drt 1-3 N Fi F�• F-' (�Ji I to M f (] U1 8 rf � n ro n I--h p 000 Nzo � m � cn H am � E• R ,wm LQ 8 0 OD i Id 10 F' o O �� � a rt n P4 R R p 0\0 C m v� N N N W F' rt Ul fai H 0� ORIamAL COPT ,. OL 0 81980 _ 80190 9:10 PAGE NO 1 RECORD 0 20 BF: RN 80 014167 SUbStantivh AMENDMENTS TO SENATE BILL NO. . 512 L� AS AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 9, 1980 Amendment 1 On page 4 of the printed bill, as amended in Assembly June 9, 1960, strike out lines 30 to 32, inclusive, and insert: After the creation of State Transportation District 12, the minimum expenditure for former State Transportation District 7 shall continue to be determined under Section 188.8 in the same manner. However# after the determination has been made under Section 188. 8 for the former State Transportation District 7, the minimum expenditure shall be divided between State Transportation District 7 and State Transportation District 12. : The minimum expenditure for State Transportation District 12 under this section shall be determined by the needs of Orange County which are included in determining the needs of forcer District 7 under Section 188. 8. The minimum expenditure for District 7 shall then be reduced by the minimum expenditure for District 12. On and after July 1, 1983, out of the money expended pursuant to Section 188. 8, the commission shall allocate and the department shall expend, or cause to be expended, moneys in Districts97 and 12 in accordance with this section. 0 CS 1�J f� AMENDED IN•ASSEMBLY JUNE 9, 1980 AMENDED IN SENATE JUTE 14, 1979 AMENDED I.N SENATE MAY 9, 1979 SENATE BILL, No. 512 Introduced by Sens BA-6.-s-, GffFfen+ei-, aim Ste' Senator Briggs (Principal coauthor: Assemblyman Pfray) (Coauthors. Senators Carpenter and Schmitz) (Coauthors: Assemblymen Bergeson, Johnson, Mangers, Nestande, R 7"j Wi ay and Robinson ) March 6, 1979 ( ' ' An act to ad--A geet-iee 18941e amend Section 1888 of, and to .add Section. 189.1 to, the Streets and Highways Code, relating to transportation: LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 512, as amended, Briggs. Transportation: State Transportation District 12: County of Orange. •{1•}- The Department of Transportation has administratively established 11 state transportation districts. State Transportation District 7 includes Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura Counties. This bill, on July 1, 1989 1983, would 'create State Transportation District 12 consisting of Orange County for the purpose of determining the minimum expenditure of state highway and exclusive public mass transit guideway construction funds. The hill would become operative only if ACA 74 is approved at the Aloi-ember 4, 1980, states ide election. (2) i1l�cler e istii�g l t�;69%of die Rinds ti-v ftb4e�stere hey ecii xetieft is i��ired to be olleea" fef et j3etidi-uit e it3 Get not C -ei}p a'e:2;f13e setAi-ft eetr�8f _. 96 a0 SB 512 —2—. that pereent-age; 701�' it} recT&i-ped to be aimed to the st-a-te trt}tiypsrt&t3E�ii di-4yt4i in t13f2t ee,,+n-tt gfett 3 en Oto busts of � e..4 g shite hi�b 32ee4 -. Of the is 1F t1�i to be trll -ted fet e,13,LI 4itui� e in l 44Het 7&M�tftg ` Oi7e 413sea-C per--i-ed eii4ir J�dne 84, 198,3- The bill -,wo rld i eegiiii-e t43a-t .dire frejeeted i�i"i� r e ;pei iEu e iii Past t 4r2 � 4l e f&arlyef peTied free 1; to J'd4y 4; �&< -, l;e 18i-ej- .pei_eei4 of the peeted " fi-Itn+ rn e I lits e�PFA+44 7 tip it el-iste4 i-Hiii3ed:c1tely, pry to the effe4dale of DiH-Y-iet 42- The prejeeted ir�iiriuei ex >� awe i-i3 the ttr--e-a in P'i-str f_4 7 mild be Y-ed ieed by the pi-ejeeted minimum e-xvenAitii-re in DtsrfMet 4-2-Atty e- ct- e-,13eft4i-ttrres for G4Lat3 Getan�iit t-4e _ 4480 &tate T r3obznn wei ild be _ dn�teEl€reit the tettd pr=ejeeted ekl3eiidituY:es fer Pist 7- Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as folloivs• 1 SECTION 1. Section 188.8 of the Streets and High ways 2 Code is amended to read .- 3 188.8. Out of the money expended pursuant to 4 Section 188, the commission shall allocate and the 5 department shall expend, or cause to be expended, in 6 each state transportation district of County Group No. 1 7 and in each state transportation district of County Group 8 No. 2 during the period commencing July .1, 1971, and 9 ending,June 30, 1975, and for each period of four years, 10 thereafter, not less than an amount computed as follows: 11 (a) The commission shall compote for each period of 12 four years an amount equal to 70 percent of the moneys 13 to be expended in County Groups Nos. 1 and 2, 14 'respectively, as provided in Section 188. . 15 (b) From the amount computed for County Group 16 No. 1 in subdivision (a) for the period ending.June 30, 17 1979, the commission shall determine the minimum 18 expenditure for each transportation district in the group 19 by applying the percentages specified on page 13798 of. 20 the Assembly Daily Journal for June 5, 1974. 96 52 mtHo!istx-"v*+Te;'-.ra�v..e.-+!.,C.•.......,.,.yr.+^tn+�!rtie!rve�,.^^,.**.+r.^�rn�n.x. -.,^..,..-^.'�^,^..""+"^.r•.�•^r-'i^"'r-;--+r�:�!;+...+^,:�!:;«r.n?:a.**+�.,.!�+�n�ra+r..�7?1'1 ,.."^""�"'•^'4''. -3— SB 512 . 1 (c) From the amount computed for County Group No. 2 2 in subdivision (a) for the period ending June 30, 1979) 3 -the commission' shall determine the minimum 4 expenditure for each transportation district in the group 5 by applying the percentages specified on page 13798 of 6 the Assembly Daily Journal for June 5, 1974. 7 For purposes of this section, state transportation ` 8 .districts shall be identical to those state highway districts 9 established by the department for administrative 10 purposes as of June 30, 1960, ei-cept as provided in 11 Section 189.1. 12 For each four-year period subsequent to June 30, 1983, 13 a percentage for each state transportation district as 14 listed in subdivisions (b) and (c) shall be computed on, 15 the .basis of an estimate of existing state highway and 16 exclusive public mass transit guideway construction 17 needs to be funded from the State Highway Account in 18 the State Transportation Fund. The revised percentages 19 shall be used in computing minimum expenditures for s 20 each district. The first such estimate of construction 21 needs shall be filed with the Legislature and be published 22 in the respective Journals of the Senate and the Assembly 23 not later than January 15, 1981, and shall govern 24 minimum expenditure computations for the period 25. -commencing July 1, 1983, and ending June 30, 1987. Not . 26 later than January 15, 1985, and each four years 27 thereafter, a new estimate shall be filed and published .28 and 'shall govern the minimum expenditure 29 computations for the four-year period commencing July 30 1, 1987, and for each succeeding four-year period. 31 Excepj as provided in this paragraph, the entire 32 obligation under a contract awarded or a day labor 33 project commenced during any of the periods shall be 34 .deemed an expenditure within the period in which such 35 contract was awarded or day labor project commenced. 36 Obligations under contracts which have been awarded or 37 day labor projects,which have been commenced but 38 which are to be budgeted over more than one fiscal year 39 pursuant to Section 170, shall be deemed expenditures in 40 each of the fiscal years in which the work is to be SB 512 —4— 1 performed ,i ti an amount equal to the final amount ' 2 budgeted for each such fiscal year for such work. . 3 SEC. 2. Section 189.1 is added to the Streets 'and 4 Highways Code, to read: 5 189.1. any other provision of law, 6 State Transportation District 12,consisting of the County „ 7 of Orange, is hereby created on July 1, 1-9� 1983. 8 Fer pui ues 4 See6eft 4-88-8; dtntli-g O:he 9 pe-ried eefn-ei}einig ji:4 I; PW-9, aiid e b jui3e 38; 10 4DSB; the p e ee#ed n3ifieutft eNpei ittit:e ift FA-fi+e .11 � nsjtil�n �i-sttrit 1-2- &hA be 48 peter3t ofe 12 prejee-ea vinH c1etennined b-y 13 the �pe6ed en lob=e -141-0 4 eke 14 Senate J-ert-r-n-ftl dam_ A13t-4 29; 197-7-, fer-. .State 15 T fl.-�i ien Pist 7 as i# ekisted eft jftffu r-y � A- 16 The prejee-ted .ne��3eiIn State 17 TA Ser t4ien Pis-let 7;its s-HA-i di sti:iet was eensrn*itea 18 .im-mediated py er to jt4,47,1980-,w" flee detaehi:nent e€ 19 the Cel e€ 8-ratge gkereff-eta; fe'IL 445 €elafEyie" .: 20 pened skA be redieed by the VT-ejeeted 21 €er State Tr-a3-tspeftatien Distriet 4-2- 22 As f t 4- er-eftt State TfRnspeyt Piet 4-2; 23 ftny --_r e,a_ = -- int 8 r i-ge Cees ie emeess of 24 prejeeted &filen-'-�z�'� it}the �9 9.t-fAe T}••anstorttrtl 25 li:npreTeffient 1'fegffti:n, as adapted 1y the G 26 T 3ortotienl erg. eft J�* -I; IIJ84, sh11 be 27 deducted fr-ei 3 the prejeeted e� ?T,64n ureq tneludeEl 28 ift the 4-9� Stade TF-�s�tatle 29 Tnperlatiensiet . 30 State Transportation District 12 is created for the 31 puzpose of determining the minimum eipenditczres for 32 purposes of.Section 188.8. 33 SEC. 3. Sections 1 and 2 of this act shall become j. 34 operative only, if Assemble Constitutional Amendment 35 AT6. 74 of the 1979-80 Regular Session of the Legislature- 1 36 is approved by the people of the state at the stateivide 37 election on ?November 4, 1980. s p. 1 96 70 0 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California August 19 ' 19 80 In the Matter of State Rail Program Fact-Finding Hearings The Board received an August 5, 1980 letter from Chet Wray, Chairman, State Assembly Select Committee on Mass Transit, .:trans- mitting a paper entitled "Investigation of State Rail Program Fact-Finding Hearings". IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid communication is REFERRED to the Acting Public Works Director. PASSED by the Board on August 19, 1980. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc: Acting Public Works Directo9upervisors County Administrator affixed this 19thday of August 1980 J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By /�® 6/ o a��• Deputy Clerk Helen H. Kent i H-24 3/79 15M 1116 NINTH STREET • q. SUITE 33 SACRAMENTO 95814 p q•I TELEPHONE: (916) 323.5746 ® i STAFF �ssrmhl plPrf �Ilmmrff�� GREG THOMPS LEAD MEMBERS SENIOR CONSUL TANT NATALIA KOUYOUMDJIAN VICTOR CALVO Litt SENIOR CONSULTANT ' WADIE DEDDEH ROBERT FRAZEE M�{ /!''{ aim rttnotf WILLIAM (VERS JEAN MOORHEAD41 LOU PAPAN CHET WRAY --••�-- MIKE Roos CHAIRMANRtc I t T1 AUG /7 1990 CLCRK S QR SURRV� QRS August 5, 1980 B „ A t To All Interested Parties: The enclosed. paper: titled:.Investigation of State Rail Program Fact-Finding Hearing was prepared for the Committee's hearing held -on July 24 and 25, 1980 in Garden Grove, California. The paper addresses the historical causes and effects on rail passenger services, the California Legilsature's involvement in such trans- portation services and the existing state rail program and rail corridors. The committee's hearing focused on the management and organization of the state rail program as administered by the California Department of Transportation. The scope of the hearing allowed testimony and recommendation for,,improvements by Amtrak, local cities and counties, local elected officials, labor unions, private organiza- tions, and individuals interested in promoting rail pas- senger services. If you are interested in receiving a copy of the report due at the end of September, or any information relating to the hearing or any future hearings please, .contact the committee staff. Your comment on the enclosed paper will be appreciated. Sincerely, HET WRAY Chairman CW: rcw ` i • � •� � 1116 NINTH STREET y SUITE 33 SACRAMENTO 95814 TELEPHONE: (916) 323.5748 STAFF 2�S Prithll PIPtf �:1AIlttlti#fPPCONGREGTHS ON LEAD MEMBERS SENIOR CONSULTANT y� NATALIA KOUTOUMDJIAN VICTOR CALVO nn SENIOR CONSULTANT WADIE DEDDEH (j�[ ROBERT FRAZEE -Mass Cramiit WILLIAM (VERS JEAN MOORHEAD LOU PAPAN CHET WRAY MIKE Roos CHAIRMAN INVESTIGATION OF STATE RAIL PROGRAM FACT-FINDING HEARINGS Background Paper Hearings of July 24 and 25, 1980 Garden Grove, California i m.r�rYo 13 INVESTIGATION OF STATE RAIL PROGRAM FACT-FINDING HEARING Background Paper Hearings of July 24 and 25, 1980 Garden Grove, California INTRODUCTION Since 1970, the Senate and Assembly have passed resolutions and legislation concerning the development of commuter and intercity rail service in California. These actions have led Caltrans to augment certain Amtrak services, contract for direct operation of commuter rail service and publish a Rail Passenger Development Plan. These actions have also prompted the federal government to show greater interest in the development of passenger rail service in California. While the current level of passenger rail development and planning is beginning to have the appearance of a cohesive "State Passenger Rail Program", such progress has evolved incrementally. A comprehensive state rail or bus program per se has not been created by the state legislature. The state's efforts in passenger rail development have encountered certain problems and successes. Most significant of these are evidence of high public demand, and apparent deterioration of the financial position of California railroads, the incomplete status of some legislated rail projects and services, and an apparent absence of satisfactory management of California rail services. Therefore, a legislative review of the state's rail program appears to be in order. Questions needing to be addressed include: 1. How are the state's rail services administered? Is the present administrative structure satisfactory with respect to expenditures of state funds and the state's responsibilities to its constituents? 2. How extensively should passenger rail service using common carrier railroads be developed in California, and how should rail development fit in with other modes, i.e. intercity bus, commuter bus, transit bus, rapid transit, and light rail? The hearings are intended to be fact-finding and to develop a record of needed information. -1- G HISTORY OF RAIL PASSENGER DECLINE r Passenger rail service in California evolved with the growth of railroads from the 1850's to about 1916, when almost all long-distance and much urban passenger movement occurred on rails. From 1916 to 1970, passenger service i declined to the point of disappearance; however, a signi- ficant resurgence has occurred henceforth. Seeds for railroad decline were planted long before 1916. By 1910, railroad regulation had become restrictive enough to stifle investments in railroads. Rates of return fell below levels which could allow railroad companies to con- tinue improving their systems consistent with the growth of the economy. As a consequence, quality of service, which up to that point had continually improved, began instead to decline approximately 10 to 15 years before competition became a factor. Largely as a consequence of insufficient investment, the railroads were incapable of satisfactorily accommodating traffic during World War I, resulting in their nationalization until 1920. The same factor made them vulnerable to road competition after 1920 when all levels of government began extensive road construction programs. Beginning in the 1920's, road development allowed automobile competition to draw passengers away from trains. At first, locally-oriented trains were affected, because the range of practical auto travel was not extensive. Later, as roads continued to improve through the 1930's, longer- distance trains and interurbans, serving what are now considered to be corridor markets, began to lose their patronage as well. The long-distance trains, such as Los Angeles to San Francisco, and those operating across the continent, continued to flourish. Following World War II, the rise of air transportation impacted long-distance trains. Time-sensitive business travelers quickly shifted to air in the 1950's, and later other travelers began shifting from rail to air as air faresdecreased. Still, though, sizable patronage remained on those few trains that continued to provide good service. Another significant factor in the decline of passenger trains during the same time frame appears to be a change in the manner of operating freight trains. Instead of operating many relatively short freight trains in the course of a day, some railroads would in effect couple trains together into a small number of very long, heavy , freights. The motivation was to cut labor costs. -2- v c I mJ e T ' 1 -0 1 f $ ^M 1}"d+f�'rrr, iS aS '_f�`r"}'�`r y Mllz'Y .��;r Citi h)'x' • 1 • �,wo 1� �-����x r�. ,�aH�.y��.l�^.a, '�p�1�'� �s' rr r�' �,�F'�rn'es7.�4 .l; • x. Yui.F"�g .y �`'P�i,itl2rb4 Y' x �� h nfXx}3..rk I1'iwr_ Jf xt. < ''� a M r�xsi k r".""F s4� '4eJ}4i+, vSsa,"3 #r ti,,r.r" 1 1 • • 1 • • ' °f•."yt �, ,i ti V17'ri x,tib rh r` 1 c• n ''> .f`Y 'r +r `� �r y�4#^xdy"� ... Llwf MIR F�{jSYW f••�,L�.f* ''�M�,`1J 3FfA�i& '�Y'4 Z� � .Y�'k� }.]K� 1 • 1 • � W xhr� d�'w�'."� '� ��{l "'rz..arw'e'�5 ,� k�ti}T s :Y • �..' ti"nR`�( °7�,,� �`a�1 } .�•sc��. r�ax�^N f �,. d �q« '^x tr'r'7 �., • 1 �rn_., :YS '�`�i '�D3t�•.S`,�C�x �x Sk.r�i Irk.�sr ,��, +u 4��11 rx r, • 1 1 1 1 T'- F w•K y f'i+r K.AGf,'ke y » �n4 rm"' c r .iK �a `ix / • • fzx i{,tak � ,^�fx'1'•jy5�r1� .F� $�-ri�i+ r I n f';;y, 9 �x�x �,f;.� wr� x 1 x • x^�•�'A''r yC_��}! tyr Sim tafa"S ,rr17'r`> "Y4L'�a'�,� ck'.,d 1 f e t rx i +,y +ti '1 1 .rx k a. i •. • • S''�JS.'3�'�wt,+C�#r'���'�' t ,}�2' � i :< A r f d 1 • • • 1 .�i}� `�.�c�,q--r '��y��4�I�xY may.hk.-..� 1 f rr��i{D � ars a�u�^�,s.x � • �' ,� `Ft.� ycr •�-»�'7�r? , � f,,rk i t "-.. 5 � t a a • kl J� 4i�dt}yy ly °��� �.r'��f z'�,x „ fk�rt'�tii h 1������'f a Yr mak""� xN �,fT x r�q _,iy�.P°' �` T7't ,nr]x,i_ • h"A '§'i�d P'e,•ze-^-•'}� a t S d "t�'r .S A �a 4�,� ''�� k. �[}�j`4�.� • 1 �.ia,T:.'�, r ,:3t. v�axGrsa�� �`�u��� ��s y.k..,x�i�f t i< �'k'vx Ail i�31E k��a l� � f.s't• .�.0 • 1 $,�v;d 3r ld�x r cr • • F Sa dkG'F<. J 191 t Sd ,� rte_ 1 1 Fl 4 7 'k� t' 1`md �n f {fi f - �y..9 aL4.,. • • 1 lie r. # I+e ! 1 1 x r �, �a�-;m w,^' rs�gy�r��..If� �qt rt �. �' -•Y,y � • 1 t�UR f c'�rr Y[ 1'� .r'2jy•`�°�a C ria -�'tt�yzt '•,5 1 F tf �;� 1 • • $fth, ul ti^;•il`r' 4 p r r$d6 gfi t�mi as.}� ig.,. • x ' . S� �! �, .,��r"r�' �;Im,i��rz"'{i;���jk ` }/ y ..,a 1 ;mss` ;� . • 1 u� '� :G�'A+ {�-+.�.,v r o t�� r_ rx ,r-�s��" � s� FS . • • fk.}J4 if,.. A t%<�r�1.`tx l x'�r,�a r♦ grZ'c i� s .,; • I 1 �e�Yd�r 4 � sy,yt,}'G i�"n,�.r¢�,.����r,..�. • +w. �r°X'1Yy`'i'�r:� • 1 NPI m. :i.`ak�k•w r'F x..y, t �� • • x dypy cpwt WI J,r 1 t• } • • • +�1�'l k rT�Y� fr„rH {i 2- 'w o � + !t'i ✓S • . 1 x r �� "'�''1 �'�:�tf��+.�'r' �S�Is� �i`�� ""�'��'; rx� '_ ��l,,��ff. • • 1 • • ��, <. rl'�rfi� J�,�"v,a�'���,�u ��c v �-.�J�r �{�- j�✓rl • 1 1 sf ,t, x�� • �a�,� �x kN f�x f� ���i ar y: 1 • • • ,• • • • Y.a F. F ) r� �d ,gyp �Fi � r^�rYi� • • i" � fi�� % r x o � ��+-0'7't��F,J�•r ~"�k�4 i' 'c'`'^ 1 x 1 • .fit �a l� iFr 1'.,,f +•3�i W"c� ;,'s,•:. F`r•k<Z� x 7P rt it , . ::,� �.�'^ .,7�� ym x Rb'°f.-�il�'5,.,+c"1�Wi,}�rhK',7rQ.lk� f 1 ,ih� xxx C.M�"•�✓{ 7r.< � f, } Changes had to be made to the track configuration to accommodate these extremely long freights. Some rail- roads, such as the Southern Pacific, spent millions of dollars to make the conversion on some routes. Other railroads followed this pattern to a lesser extent. The railroads converted in this manner proved to be much less flexible than in the past. Short, fast trains (either passenger trains or freight trains) iunning to schedules did not fit well into the new traffic pattern. These railroads appear to have actively "demarketed" types of traffic no longer compatible with their operations. High-value freight and passengers were included. The number of passenger trains providing good service rapidly dwindled in number, and many railroads earned the reputa- tion of pushing passengers off their trains. Southern Pacific, the largest railroad in California with the most attractive routes between all pairs of cities (except Los Angeles-San Diego) , became notorious as the national leader of the aggressively anti-passenger railroads. In 1967, the Post Office Department with little notice shifted most mail that had been moving on passenger trains to air. This move, along with the other factors, resulted in the virtual elimination of passenger trains by 1930. In an attempt to preserve the remaining passenger trains, the federal government created Amtrak in 1970. On May 1, 1971, Amtrak took over operation of most trains nationally, including the following trains in California: 1) Los Angeles to Oakland and Seattle (1 train daily, Los Angeles to Oakland, with extended operation to Seattle three times a week) 2) Los Angeles to San Diego (3 trains a day) 3) Los Angeles to Chicago (1 train a day) 4) Los Angeles to New Orleans (3 trains a week) 5) Oakland to Chicago (3 trains a week) In addition, the Southern Pacific continued to operate commuter service between San Francisco and San Jose (about 22 trains a day in each direction) because these trains, were not covered under the Amtrak law. -3- CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE .INVOLVEMENT In the late 1960's, the federal government persuaded the Pennsylvania Railroad to finance a demonstration of high-speed passenger service in the corridor between New York and Washington, in exchange for federal support of the proposed merger of the Pennsylvania with the New York Central. This demonstration proved highly' successful in attracting large numbers of passengers away from cars and planes and inspired the California State Legislature to seek a similar demonstration in California on the route between Los Angeles and San Diego.* The legislature did not succeed at that time in inspiring the federal government to invest in California rail service. Nonetheless, the legislature began investing its own money in the Los Angeles to San Diego route in 1976, precipitating the largest explosion of railroad patronage outside of the Northeast in modern history. Patronage success of that route prompted interest in developing other corridors and commuter services in California. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1. Senate Joint Resolution No. 9 -- Relative to the Los Angeles-San Diego Transportation Corridor (filed July 23, 1970) : Requests the U. S. Secretary of Transportation to investigate the feasibility of high-speed rail service between San Diego and Los Angeles as a possible precursor to high-speed service on other rail routes serving populous corridors in California. i 2. SB 325 (filed November 4, 1971) : Creates a Local Transportation Fund. u Extends sales tax to gasoline. Deposits of sales tax in Local Transportation Funds. (The extension of sales tax to gasoline generated more revenue than was lost by diverting 0 of the * Senate Joint Resolution No. 9, July 23, 1970 -4- i i I tax to the Local Transportation Funds. The excess is known as "Spillover Monies".) Deposits Spill- over Monies in the State Transportation Fund. 3. SB 2266 (filed September 26, 1974) : Authorizes San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles Counties to enter into a JPA to contract with Amtrak for the operation of two additional trains on the San Diego-Los Angeles route. ' Authorizes JPA (later called the County Trans- portation Service Organization, or CTSO) to spend up to $260,000 per year for this purpose using $86,667 from each County's Local Transportation Fund. 4. SB 2267 (filed 1974) : Requires Caltrans to conduct an engineering feasibility study for improvements to the San Diego-Los Angeles route; particularly for improve- ments that would cut travel time. 5. AB 951 (filed August 23, 1975) : Allows transit districts to file claims for Local Transportation Funds to pay for passenger train operating losses. 6. SB 283 (filed September 28, 1975) : Establishes abandoned railroad account. Provides that Spillover Monies shall be deposited in the Transportation Planning and Research Account in the State Transportation Fund. Provides $3,000,000 from the Transportation Planning and Research Account to Caltrans for entering into contracts with Amtrak for the operation of additional passenger trains. Authorizes the Metropolitan Transportation Com- mission to conduct a study for alternative forms of transportation in the.West Bay Corridor (San Francisco Peninsula, between San Francisco and San Jose) . Appropriates $350,000 from T. P. & R. account for above MTC study. -5- f Establishes rural bus programs and provides $1,000,000 from T. P. & R. account. Appropriates $750,000 from T. P. & R. account to Caltrans for construction of terminal facility described in Section 3 of Chapter 1428 of the Statutes of 1974. 7. SB 1879 (filed September 30, 1976) : Creates Intercity Corridor Demonstration Program. Finds that the Sacramento-Stockton-San Francisco and the Los Angeles to San Diego corridors represent unique locations for multimodal demon- stration programs (findings based on studies that had been completed) . Allocates to the Oakland-Sacramento route $1, 150,000 for track improvement; $950,000 for rail operations; $410,000 for bus improvements in the corridor; and, $140,000 for an intercity bus/Bart transfer station in the corridor. Allocates to the San Diego-Los Angeles route $350,000 for station improvements; $1;650,000 for track improvements to reduce travel time; $1,000,000 for rail operations; and, $150,000 for bus feeder service. 8. SB 1750 (filed July 18, 1978) : Allocates $5,918,000 to Caltrans for specified intermodal terminal projects. Allocates $4,000,000 to the California Transporta- tion Commission for specified intermodal terminal projects. 9, AB 1853 (filed October 1, 1977) : i Authorizes the legislative body of any city or county in the San Francisco to San Jose corridor to make bulk purchase of Southern Pacific commute or Greyhound Bus Line tickets and resell them to the public at below cost. Authorizes Caltrans to negotiate with Southern Pacific to assume financial responsibility for 'the commuter service between San Francisco and San Jose. -6- Requires the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to ensure the coordination of local transit services and the Southern Pacific commute service.. 10. SB 1894 (filed September 18, 1978) : Exempts rail improvements from the E1R process. Authorizes the California Public Utilities Com- mission to set speed limits on rail lines, where previously local jurisdictions had such authority. Reappropriates $1,650,000 for improvements to tracks on the Los Angeles to San Diego route (from SB 1879) to Caltrans to enter into an agreement with Amtrak to contract for certain track improvements. 11. SB 620 (filed June 28, 1979) : Authorizes Caltrans to own and lease passenger cars and to improve and own track and related facilities. Specifies that railroad improvements made by Caltrans become the property of the railroad. Prohibits Caltrans from directly operating railroads. Renames the Transportation Planning and Research Account the Transportation Planning and Develop- ment Account. Creates State Transit Assistant Funds to further assist local transit systems. Creates an Urban Rail Transit Guideway Fund to provide approximately $65,000,000 to rail transit projects. j; Appropriates $2,741,995 to Caltrans for specified intermodal station projects. Appropriates $5,000, 000 to the Commission for specified intermodal station projects. Appropriates $21,000,000 to Caltrans to contract for commuter and intercity rail services. Appropriates $1,000,000 to Caltrans for intercity bus services. -7- Appropriates $15,000,000 to Caltrans to expend for passenger cars and track improvements. . Appropriates $9,000,000 to Caltrans for the acquisition of abandoned rail rights-of-way. Appropriates $10,000,000 to Caltrans for construc- tion of grade separation projects. Requires Caltrans to report to the legislature on _ its rail improvement proposals pursuant to SB 620. STATUS OF RAIL PROGRAM In response to SB 620, Caltrans in January 1980 presented the Legislature with .a report, Rail Passenger Development Plan 1980 through 1982 Fiscal Years. This report presented, for the first time, a comprehensive picture of Caltrans ' rail development plans, which have gradually evolved from the various pieces of legislation just described. In addition, the following events have occurred: 1) On May 30, 1980, President Carter signed PL 96-254, the Passenger Rail Rebuilding Act of 1980, which provides funds for studying the potential for upgrading the following California routes: a. San Diego to Los Angeles, with possible extension to Oxnard; b. Los Angeles to Las Vegas, with more inten- sive service on the segment Los Angeles to Riverside/San Bernardino (four optional routes are available) ; and, c. San Jose to Sacramento, with possible extension to Reno. 2) In April, 1980, Caltrans announced development of commuter service between Los Angeles and Riverside/San Bernardino using two routes. 3) In May 1980, the California Public Utilities Commission ruled in the favor of Caltrans and - the County of Los Angeles for the .inauguration of two daily commuter trains (in each direction) -8- a between Los Angeles and Oxnard. The PUC deter- mined that no track improvements were required to accommodate freight trains and passenger trains on the same track. 4) On November 1, 1979, the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board completed purchase of the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway from the Southern Pacific. MTDB then began reconstruc- tion of a portion of the alignment to accommodate both freight trains and light rail transit trains. Similar joint use of freight tracks is being contemplated in Sacramento and Orange County. A fourth light rail transit line using dedicated tracks is contemplated for San Jose. In all four cases, the light rail lines would connect with commuter and intercity rail services at new intermodal stations. Figure 1 presents a rough aggregate compilation of these developments and positions. Figure 1 shows most current proposals for passenger development of California's oommon carrier railroads, SUMMARY OF PROGRESS AND ISSUES ON SOME INDIVIDUAL CORRIDORS . Following is a brief summary of the status (progress and problems) of the corridors proposed for most intensive development. 1. San Diego to Los Angeles Prior to 1976, Amtrak operated three daily trains. Caltrans has since contributed to the funding for three additional trains, for a total of six. Ridership increased from about 330,000 annual passengers in 1975 to 1,100,000 in 1979. Most new riders have come from automobiles. The Legislature appropriated $1.6 million in'-1976 for speeding up trains by 20 minutes. None of this money has been spent7 no track improvements have been made. The Legislature appropriated $350,000 for station upgrading. None of this money has been spent. No station upgrading has taken place. While-very .popular with the public, train operation appears to be very inefficient. On-time performance has fallen from among the best in the country to very low levels. -9- i •f FIG up.E I Redding i ®Chico i CALWORNIA RAIL PROGRAM Routes earmarked for intensive corridor or commuter develop-* Marysville! ment (both Amtrak & Caltrans) i Routes where Caltrans funds or � desires to fund more service !Reno •+^-a-P Other routes with Amtrak trains osevill Alternative routings under Davis `cramentoconsideration � Routes where Caltrans would ' Stockton '� like to extend service San Francisco ak. . '�, * Routes which only Amtrak and USDOT are considering improving (no Caltrans involvement) San J s �. Transit being developed on 'ti •♦ 1'Itl tracks of common carrier freight railroad with some Salinas �` Caltrans technical assis- tance v Bakersfield .� SLO •� Las Vegas t Palmdale _ •�•� d'S a ugus Santa Barbara' - Oxnard t� Los An San Bernardino Fullert n erside Santa A Oceanside Dei Mar San Diego Tijuana ._...._._.__�_._._._. *Amtrak is not involved in San Francisco to San Jose commuter service; c Caltrans contracts directly with Southern Pacific -10- ! P i Problems appear to be attributable to Amtrak as much, if not more, than to the Santa Fe Railway. Equipment and labor utilization appears to be among the. worst in the country. Applications for intermodal station projects have been received pursuant to SB 620 for projects at Fullerton, Anaheim, Santa Ana, San Juan Capistrano, Oceanside, Del Mar, Gilman-La Jolla and downtown San Diego. Strong interest exists for developing stations at Norwalk, La Mirada, Irvine, and Mission Viejo. No agency appears to take responsibility for resolving conflicts between projects, determining which trains will stop at which station, or monitoring the course of projects and insuring that funds are spent in an appropriate manner. Caltrans' report to the Legislature, email Passenger Development Plan - 1980 through 1982 Fiscal Years, calls for the addition of two trains to San Diego, plus two commuter trains to southern Orange County. However, the plan does not address the use of speed improvement, as mandated by the Legislature. It also does not address capacity improvements. Amtrak has notified Santa Fe that it will pay for the cost of two track improvements which Amtrak believes are sufficient to allow for the operation of two additional trains. Committee staff is currently working on a cost-effectiveness analysis of this route. 2. San Jose to Sacramento The Legislature appropriated funds for Oakland to Sacra- mento service in 1978. Caltrans requested operation of two daily Oakland-Sacramento trains, but Southern Pacific refused. Caltrans then modified its request to include a Sacramento to Los Angeles overnight train, that would also provide one round trip in a desirable time slot between Sacramento, Oakland and San Jose. Southern Pacific again refused, and the matter is now in arbitration. Caltrans' Rail Passenger Development Plan - 1980 through 1987 Fiscal Years calls for the operation of two daily San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento trains, in addition to the train now in arbitration. However, no funds are budgeted for speed improvements between San Jose and Oakland, where trains would average less than 40 mph without such improvements. -11- {e , f Major new intermodal stations in San Jose, Oakland and Sacramento appear critical to the development of this corridor, but there is no apparent program for coordina- tion between corridor development and the development of the intermodal facilities. Development of the San Jose intermodal project appears to be well-managed locally, but it requires use of a rail route currently not in use for passenger service. This route appears to be superior to that now in use, but there does not appear to be recognition of the need to v change routes by Amtrak or Caltrans. No funding is budgeted for such a change. F It is not clear who is in charge of the Oakland or Sacramento projects. There appears to be no program for bringing these projects to fruition, although funds have just been authorized for a preliminary study of the Oakland project, that would determine scope of the project and presumably a party responsible for its development. Recent federal legislation calls for a federal study of the San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento-Roseville-Reno route for possible federal development. 3. Los Angeles to Santa Barbara Caltrans` report to the Legislature calls for the exten- sion of one San Diego train to Santa Barbara, and the operation of two daily commuter trains between Los Angeles and Oxnard. In addition, the train now in arbitration that would operate from Sacramaneo to Los Angeles would also use this route. The report does not budget any funds for speed improvements to this route. Southern Pacific notified the County of Los Angeles and Caltrans that it would not operate commuter trains on this route. Caltrans and the County appealed to the California Public Utilities Commission, which in May, 1960, ordered Southern Pacific to operate the trains. The PUC found that no need exists for track improvements to 4 increase the capacity of the line to operate the commuter train in addition to the freight trains. Caltrans is now preparing to operate commuter service, but it lacks sufficient equipment. Cars might be temporarily borrowed from the Peninsula commute operation (San Francisco-San Jose) for which Caltrans is now responsible. However, the contract Caltrans signed with Southern Pacific for operation of that service forbids Caltrans to use Peninsula rolling stock on any other Southerm Pacific tracks. -12- Recent federal legislation provides funding of a study to determine whether the federal government should upgrade the San Diego to Los Angeles corridor. The legislation provides the option for extending this corridor to Oxnard, for the operation of through Oxnard-Los Angeles-San Diego trains. 4. Los Angeles to Riverside/San Bernardino In April, 1980, Caltrans announced that it would inaugurate commuter service between Los Angeles, Pasadena and San Bernardino on the Santa Fe, and between Los Angeles, River- side and San Bernardino on the Union Pacific. Caltrans has subsequently formally requested Amtrak to operate these services. Reaction from the railroads is unknown at this time. In June, 1980, Caltrans announced it was also exploring commuter service between either Los Angeles or Santa Ana and Riverside/San Bernardino, utilizing another Santa Fe line. Recent federal legislation provides funding for studies to determine the worth of possible federal upgrading of the Los Angeles-San Bernardino/Riverside-Las Vegas route. Amtrak officials are reportedly interested in intensive development of that part of the route within the urbanized Southern California area. 5. San Francisco to San Jose Commuter Service The only historic rail commuter service in California that was not discontinued in the 1940's or 50's was the Southern Pacific service between San Francisco and San Jose? Southern Pacific continued to reluctantly operate the approximately twenty-two trains a day in this service after 1971 when Amtrak came into existence, because Amtrak was precluded from operating commuter trains. In response to attempts by Southern Pacific to discontinue the service and following an investigation of alternatives, the Legislature adopted AB 1853 in 1977, allowing Caltrans to directly contract for commuter service. Caltrans assumed financial responsibility for the commuter service on July 1, 1980. The contract allows for expansion of commuter trains to about thirty in .each direction per day. However, it pre- cludes operation of trains during a two-hour gap in the middle of the day, making it difficult for the route to serve as a BART-substitute on the Peninsula (south of the airport) . Knowledgeable railroaders consider the Peninsula commute operation to be very inefficiently operated, but -13- the contract does not appear to address efficiency improvements or cost saving that might result from such improvements. It is also unclear as to how Caltrans will meet its commitment to pay for the commuter service over the ten-year life of the contract. 4 . -14- • 1116 NINTHSTREET SUITE 33 'i 7Sr:• Glifornia �Eqisfatur P SACRAMENTO B7B14 \. .. STAFF GREG THOMPSON MEMBERS ,�.��p � pj,p �1 Dlttttti Pp LEAD CONSULTANT NATALIA LIA Ko KOUYOUM DJIAN VICTOR CALVO II - SENIOR CONSULTANT WADIE DEDDEH ROBERT FRAZEE WILLIAM IVERS •��j1l�a A+��tt v a�F!" JEAN MOORHEAD LOU PAPAN CHET WRAY MIKE Roos CHAIRMAN INVESTIGATION OF STATE RAIL PROGRAM FACT-FINDING HEARING OPENING REMARKS BY CHET WRAY GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM CHET WRAY, ASSEMBLYMAN FROM WESTMINSTER AND CHAIRMAN OF THE ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON MASS TRANSIT. OTHER MEMBERS OF MY SELECT COMMITTEE WITH ME TODAY ARE.; ASSEMBLYMEN BOB FRAZEE OF CARLSBAD AND BILL IVERS OF PASADENA. TOMORROW WE WILL BE JOINED BY WADDIE DEDDEH OF SAN DIEGO, ALSO, WE ARE HONORED TO HAVE JOINING US TODAY AND TOMORROW, SENATOR ALFRED ALQ UIST FROM SAN .JOSE. SENATOR, ALQUIST HAS BEEN A LEADING PROPONENT OF MASS TRANSIT DEVELOP- MENT AND HE ALSO HAS SPECIAL EXPERTISE IN THE RAIL AREA, i SO THAT'S OUR PANEL AND I 'M DELIGHTED TO HAVE THESE DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES WITH ME TODAY, ALSO, IT IS QUITE PROBABLE THAT OTHER ASSEMBLYMEN AND WOMEN AND STATE SENATORS WILL JOIN US DURING OUR TWO DAYS OF HEARINGS , TODAY IS ESPECIALLY GRATIFYING TO ME FOR IT IS THE CULMINATION OF FOUR YEARS OF MY EFFORT IN BEHALF OF PROMOTING MASS TRANSIT FOR CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT NO LONGER IS THERE A NEED TO CULTIVATE THE INTEREST OF PEOPLE TO USE MASS TRANSIT --- BUT RATHER, , THE NEED IS NOW PRESENT TO SATISFY PEOPLE'S DEMAND FOR MASS TRANSIT. I BELIEVE OUR MASS TRANSIT COMMITTEE'S FUNCTION IS TO PROVIDE THE PROFESSIONAL, INTELLIGENT AND WELL RESEARCHED DATA NECESSARY TO COPE WITH THE DEMAND FOR TRANSIT THAT IS PRESENT -- HERE AND NOW! THE COMMITTEE AND I WANT FACE, HEAD ON, THE CHANGED TRANSIT ATTITUDES OF . • i I ' PACE 2 - • THE CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA AS WELL AS FURTHER IMPLEMENT THE CHANGING ATTITUDES OF LOCAL AND STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS TOWARD DEALING WITH MASS TRANSIT. IN SHORT, WE MUST MEET THE NEEDS AND DEMANDS OF OUR CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS. MY COLLEAGUES AND I ARE GATHERED HERE TODAY AND TOMORROW TO TAKE TESTIMONY ABOUT A PARTICULAR ASPECT OF MASS TRANSPORTATION. WE DESIRE TO KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT THE STATE'S COMMON CARRIER RAILROAD SYSTEM CAN BE USED FOR FURTHERING MASS TRANSIT OBJECTIVES, WHILE IT AT THE SAME TIME PRO- VIDES IMPROVED FREIGHT SERVICE. THE LEGISLATURE HAS SHOWN INCREASING INTEREST IN THIS AREA OF MASS TRANSPORTATION BEGINNING IN 1970, SINCE 1976, OUR CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY' INVOLVED IN THE ACTUAL PROVISION OF PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE; FIRST IN THE, LOS ANGELES - LOS ANGELES CORRIDOR; MORE RECENTLY IN THE qAN .JOAQUIN VALLEY, AND JUST THIS PAST MONTH, IN THE SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN .JOSE COMMUTER SERVICE. OUR LIMITED EXPERIENCE TO DATE SHOWS THAT PASSENGER TRAINS UTILIZING COMMON CARRIER TRACKS OFFERS GREAT POTENTIAL FOR ATTRACTING PEOPLE OUT OF AUTOMOBILES, AT LEAST UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS ATTRACT- IVENESS OF TRAINS IS IMPORTANT TO US IN THE LEGISLATURE BECAUSE WHEN TRAINS OFFER HIGH DENSITY ACCOMODATIONS AND ARE WELL USED, THEY ARE VERY ENERGY EFFICIENT. FOR EXAMPLE, ON OUR OWN SAN DIEGO TO LOS ANGELES ROUTE, THE 330,000 I PEOPLE USING THE TRAIN IN 1975 gWELLED TO OVER 1,100,000 LAST YEAR IN 1979. THIS INCREASE WAS IN RESPONSE TO IMPROVEMENTS DIRECTED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE, AND ABOUT HALF OF THESE USERS ARE FROM RIGHT HERE IN ORANGE COUNTY, CALTRANS HAS DETERMINED THROUGH SURVEYS THAT 65% OF i THESE NEW PASSENGERS HAVE BEEN DIVERTED FROM AUTOMOBILES, AND WE STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT A LOT MORE AUTO USERS FROM THIS AREA WOULD BE ON THE TRAINS IF THERE WERE MORE TRAINS. THIS FACTOR IS IMPORTANT TO US BECAUSE THE AUTOS FROM- WHICH THESE PASSENGERS WERE DIVERTED PRODUCE ABOUT 30 PASSENGER MILES PER GALLON OF FUEL CONSUMED, WHILE THE TRAINS ON THIS PARTICULAR RUN THROUGH ORANGE COUNTY ARE PRODUCING ABOUT 100 PASSENGER MILES PER GALLON ACCORDING TO CALTRANS, CONSIDERABLE FUEL SAVINGS HAVE OCCURRED, AND THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR A LOT MORE. w• PAGE 3 _ • SO, AS I SAY, USE OF EXISTING RAIL LINES OFFER GREAT PROMISE THERE IS SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC DEMAND FROM THE CALIFORNIA MOTORING PUBLIC TO USE THE RIGHT TYPE OF TRAINS, AND THE TYPE OF TRAINS THEY WANT TO USE ARE HIGHLY ENERGY EFFICIENT, HOWEVER, WE HAVE NOW REACHED A POINT, ONE DECADE AFTER THE LEGISLATURE FIRST EXPRESSED INTEREST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF RAIL SERVICE, TO. STAND BACK AND ASSESS THE PROGRESS WE HAVE MADE AND HOW MUCH POTENTIAL THERE IS FOR GOING FURTHER, A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED: A, ARE THE BENEFITS FROM INVESTING IN RAIL SERVICE WORTH THE COST? B. IF WE PROCEED WITH PASSENGER DEVELOPMENT OF RAILROAD LINES, HOW WILL THEY FIT IN WITH OTHER TRANSPORTATION MODES? C. HOW ,WELL HAS CALTRANS CARRIED OUT THE WILL OF THE LEGISLATURE IN DEVELOPING .THE RAIL PROGRAM? WHAT FACTORS LIE BEHIND UNIMPLEMENTED PARTS OF THE PROGRAM, WHEN ALLOCATED FUNDS REMAIN UNSPENT? D, WHAT TYPE OF ORGANIZATION AND EXPERTISE ARE DESIRABLE FOR PROVIDING RAIL SERVICE WITH MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS FOR GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT? HOW SHOULD THIS ORGANIZATION RELATE TO OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT AND THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY? E. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF PASSENGER RAIL DEVELOPMENT OR THE INTERCITY BUS AND THE RAILROAD INDUSTRIES? i IT IS MY HOPE THAT THE WITNESSES WHO WILL TESTIFY TODAY AND TOMORROW WILL ADDRESS THESE AND RELATED QUESTIONS, BEFORE BEGINNING WITH TESTIMONY, I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESSO ON BEHALF OF MY SELF AND MY COLLEAGUES, OUR DEEPEST APPRECIATION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT AND THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, THESE AGENCIES GRACIOUSLY INVITED US TO HOLD OUR HEARINGS IN ORANGE COUNTY AND MADE AVAILABLE TO US THESE EXCELLENT FACILITIES, IN ADDITION, THEIR STAFFS SPENT MANY HOURS IN ARRANGING THE TECHNICALITIES THAT ACCOMPANY EACH HEARING, IT IS NOW MY PLEASURE TO CALL AS OUR FIRST WITNESS, THE HONORABLE RALPH CLARK, CHAIRMAN OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AS WELL AS OF THE TRI-COUNTY RAIL COMMITTEE, I' In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California July 22 , 19 80 In the Matter of Public Hearing on the Subject of Management and Organization of i the State Rail Program. A communication having been received from the State Assembly Select Committee on Mass Transit giving notice of its public hearing to be held in Garden Grove, California on July 24 and 25, 1980, . for the purpose of examining the scope and level of State involvement in the operation of rail passen- ger services using tracks of common carrier railroads, emphasis to be on corridor and commuter services; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that said notice is REFERRED to the Acting Public Works Director. PASSED by unanimous vote of the Board this 22nd day of July, 1980. I I i I i I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. c.c.-Ac-ting Public Works Director Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of County Administrator Supervisors affixed this 22nd day of July 19 80 J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By G. Russell Deputy Clerk H-24 4/77 15m 11111 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO 951314 //S �/,4;/" ',1„ 4 4 l ♦ TELEPHOn e: (916) 323•S74 STAFF Amirnthhj #Mprt Ti1lltl ittpP GREG THOM LEAD SENIOR CONSULTANT MEMBERS.' NATALIA KOUYOUMOJIAN VICTOR CALVO 'tin Cll�2SENIOR CONSULTANTWADIE RORER FRAZE .}}){ass Ci ranstf „[ ROBERT FRgZEE i�l�W� u ,/V''C��., WILLIAM IVER5 ''/'� T `��`/✓3-J JEAN Moo APAN EAD R L' ' • 4 `PE T Lou PAPAN CHET W RAY L Lr \�i(// 'L\ MIKE ROOS CHAIRMAN ; JUL�� 1980 Ju ly 14, 1980 CL RK BOARD OFllr T SUPERVISORS B COSTA Co. -DePut I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING THE ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON MASS TRANSIT WILL HOLD A HEARING ON JULY 24 AND 25, 1980 IN GARDEN GROVE ON THE SUBJECT OF MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE STATE RAIL PROGRAM. THE HEARING WILL BE HELD AT THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS, 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY AND WILL BEGIN AT 1: 30 P.M. ON JULY 24, AND 9: 30 A.M. ON JULY 25. THE PURPOSE OF THE HEARING WILL BE TO EXAMINE THE SCOPE i OF AND LEVEL OF'--STATE INVOLVEMENT IN THE OPERATION OF RAIL PASSENGER SERVICES. USING THE TRACKS OF COMMON CARRIER RAILROADS. EMPHASIS WILL BE ON CORRIDOR AND COMMUTER SERVICES. TESTIMONY WILL BE PRESENTED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AMTRAK, THE RAILROADS, RAIL LABOR, TECHNICAL WITNESSES, THE TRI-COUNTY RAIL COMMITTEE, AND O�e b 13 Awft NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PAGE 2 REPRESENTATIVES FROM REGIONAL AND LOCAL COMMISSIONS AND GOVERNMENTS. TOPICS COVERED WILL INCLUDE; HOW EXISTING AND FUTURE RAIL PASSENGER SERVICES FIT INTO TRANSPORTATION PLANS THE EXTENT TO WHICH PASSENGER SERVICE CAN BE DEVELOPED ON COMMON CARRIER FREIGHT TRACKAGE EXPERIENCE WITH THE INTERMODAL TERMINAL PROGRAM AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A MORE EXPEDITIOUS PROCESS THE EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF THE RAIL PROGRAM AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO MANAGERIAL EFFORTS DESIRABLE GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE FOR PROVIDING RAIL SERVICES, AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERMMENT AND THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND. THOSE WISHING TO TESTIFY SHOULD NOTIFY THE COMMITTEE OFFICE AT (916) 323-5748. CHET WRAY CHAIRMAN CW: rcw May 28, 1980 RECEIVED MAY -9y, 190 TOa CITY COUNCIL OF WALN T .CREEK r CONTRA COSTA• COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS J. V MUON CLERK GOAR9.Of IUMRVISORS Ot .ASSEMBLYMAN TOM BATtS r TSTA e4• TO t WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT a . D.PUJJ REs ROSSMOOR BUS SERVICE This is a reminde4' that I have appeared at the piublic hearinge ` held earlier this' year'on the above matter 'at Del Valle High School by thaWalnut',Creek City Council. I appeared there as President of. the Saranap improvemient 'A'ssoeiation -and' as the - representative, to,the Parkmead •School -Site Council. I have also spoken: to,Bob'.Schroder about try views on this subject however I will,,, reiterate for the record: : Personally speaking warm they proposed biis t2 Rofismioor to' stop and ick �fflitQren along Tice-Vali'-@YA 01 _plc, and MoMevarid ax since Me- bus must iso on es ets to Rive• .. 'aervice- to the Rosgmoor' area. . I do not feel that I am makin this request• with My, hat in. my fan--d because 'this. ro osed bus. service.19 unded from-state funds• ,gasoline taxes I believes. I, amtfin. receipt of.a letter :from'Walnut geek School Diatrict er dated May ;21, 1980 with.a,.proposal that would* cost me $53.00' per semest for. each'of..,nay two ,children for bus service' if'it is passed by,.,the School Board'. .That would cost me $;212.'00 'per ,year., In view of' the .proposed bus..iaervice to.Rossmoor .which passes, d. tpy"do®r. see wh y'the 's'chools cannot coordinate bus -service schedules with' the 'cit and vice versa so that we b� not have duplLcated bus : sery ces. . , I .g'rew`up in:a,. large,city' aril rode.busses-,ail Amy, life.' One would' think ,that:with all•-.the.. corpora te,?offices. out' here ..that the'City of. Walnut i.Creek would .expand , its thtz*ing to 'areas.,, that a ave:.,the walnut- Creek •address. . F'ROMi Mary Harlan R 21 Boulevard Wa Sarana -on-Walnu pt Creek California %4�10 94595 �� �J� �? rblic Works Depa�nent Contra a Deputy-Administrative Barton J.Gilbert ' 69H Floor, Administration Building Costa (415) 372-2105 MaServices Martinez, California 94553 Co (415f 372-2102 County Mark L Kermit `J Deputy-Transportation J. Michael Watford (415) 372-2102 Acting Public Works Director R.M.Rygh Deputy-Buildings and Grounds (415) 372-2222 J.E.Taylor Deputy-Operations May 28, 1980 &Flood Control 255 Glacier Drive (415) 372-4470 RECEIVED MAY 301960 J. R. OLSSON Mx`. David J. Larkin CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Vice President L)NT COSTA Co. Corporate Development Behavior Research Center P. 0. Box '13178 Phoenix, Arizona 85002 Dear Mr. Larkin: The Board of Supervisors referred your letter of May 5, 1980, to this department for review and reply. While your proposal is an extremely interesting one, it appears to "-us that it is more applicable for the State level than the County. I suggest that you might wish to present it to Mrs. Adriana Gianturco, Director of the California Department of Transportation, in Sacramento. Thank you very much for contacting Contra Costa County. Very truly yours, J. Michael Walford Acting Public Works Director By 'eu Q Mark L. Kermit Deputy Public Works Director Transportation' MLK:fd CC: ,upervisor Nancy C. Fanden Clerk of the Board I In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California Mav 13 , 19$0 In the Matter of Behavior Research Center's Offer of Researching and Counseling Services The Board received a May 5, 1980 letter from David J. Larkin, Vice President, Corporate Development, Behavior Research Center, transmitting a research proposal and offering the firm's services to aid in developing and successfully financing a program of transporta- tion maintenance and improvement for Contra Costa County. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid communication is REFERRED to the Acting Public Works Director. PASSED by the Board on May 13, 1980. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc: David J. Larkin, Vice Pres. Supervisors Corporate Development affixed this 1St day of May 19 80 Behavior Research Center P.O. Box 13178 Phoenix, Arizona 85002 J. R. OLSSON, Clerk Acting Public Works Director By Deputy Clerk County Administrator 'x Helen H. Kent H-24 3/79 15M May 5, 1980 Ms. Nancy Fanden . Chairwoman RECEIVED Contra Costa County County Administration Building 19$0 Room 197 AY 7 l Martinez, California 94553 J. R. OLSSON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COjj��T,R , STA C . Dear Ms. Fanden, The transportation financing crises now facing govern- mental planners and transportation administrators throughout the United States involve complex technical, economic and political issues. This unsolicited proposal is being sent to acquaint you with a new, comprehensive professional service to aid you in developing and successfully financing a program of transpor- tation maintenance and improvement during these unusual times. The high rate of inflation, declining gas tax and other user revenues --, not to mention taxpayer revolts -- combine to make successful transportation financing for Contra Costa County a tough challenge requiring innovative strategies. Since 1965, Behavior Research Center, Inc. , has success- fully provided research and counsel to scores of diversified clients including businesses, associations, and governmental agencies. Now, we have developed a comprehensive team approach to assist you in the development and implementation of .your transportation plan -- one supported by your engineers, plan- ners and taxpayers alike. Enclosed with this letter is an outline of our approach and proposal. Please review it and discuss it with your collegues. It costs you nothing and may help you solve some of the difficult and frustrating transportation financing problems you are now facing. If you would like any additional information please do not hesitate to call me collect at 602-258-4554. P a& Respectfully submitted, t� �� / 19PRO David . Larkin /ealea�e�i Vice President Corporate Development governmentstudes RESEARCH I MARKETING I CONSULTING I OATA COLLECTION 1117 north third street I p. o. box 13178 I phoenix, arizona 85002 I telephone C602) 258-4554 1117 north third�et - - p,o.box 13178 _ phoenix,arizona 85002 18027 258-4554 - Research in Public Opinion and Consumer Behavior David Larkin i Vice President - Corporate Development I A' RESEARCH PROPOSAL li I TO DEVELOP A TECHNICALLY COMPLETE -AND PUBLICLY ACCEPTABLE I TRANSPORTATION FINANCING PLAN May, 1980 For Information Contact: David J. Larkin V.P. , Corporate Development P.O. Box 13178 1117 N 3rd Street Phoenix, Arizona 85002 (602)258-4554 behavior research. center phoenix, arizona t IR 1 INTRODUCTION: Whatever the differences in size, geography or population, the 50 states now .share a common problem, funding transportation . systems. For example, most states have problems finding enough money to keep their system of. roads, streets and bridges in minimal drivable con- dition. This condition has been brought on by a series of circumstances beyond the control of any of the- agencies involved. For example: • Highway and transportation costs have sky-rocketed because of inflation. On the average, the cost of new transportation facilities has increased 200% since 1970. • Many miles of highway must be rebuilt to replace . worn-out sections, meet current safety standards or, simply to handle ever-increasing traffic volumes. • Most state and local governments have been driven from the major transportation debt capital markets by today' s record setting interest rates. • Our citizens are getting better and better fuel economy, -- ,driving more miles yet using less fuel. Available tax revenues, therefore,. are being re- duced while maintenance expense per vehicle mile traveled is increasing. q Per gallon fuel tax assessments were conceived during another era when gasoline was plentiful and relatively inexpensive. Demand for gasoline has -been shown elastic in nature -and, in the face of dramatic price increases, the" tax revenues i traditionally available for transportation purposes have.been further eroded. behavior'research center phoenix, arizo)a a • Increasing costs have further eroded other user taxes and revenues such as transit fare box re- ceipts and road and bridge toll receipts. The problem of transportation financing becomes even more complex when the social-political environment is. con- sidered. For example- • Many states are enacting state and local spending limitations. • A competitive environment exists for distribution of funds to various modes (i.e. highway needs vs transit 'needs) . o Various distributions and types of funding methods have diverse support factions -- (user tax vs gen- eral taxes;' gasoline tax vs general sales tax) . • A competitive environment exists for distribution of revenues to various jurisdictions (i.e. state vs county vs city) . The total tax burden upon the average citizen or income class segments is a serious issue of the times. o And finally the competition for additional revenues from various public service needs such as health, welfare and housing. While many other issues may be more pressing than the above mentioned, the development of a viable trans- portation financing solution must encompass (A) the right technical solution, and (B) the right social-political mix to be acceptable to legislators and tax paying citizens. behavior research center phoenix; arizona AML 3 Behavior Research Center (BRC) can help you develop a technically complete transportation financing plan -- one which is acceptable in social-political terms as well. Through the blending of skills in Transportation Economics, Public Opinion and Market Research, a seasoned team has been assembled to accomplish the task in a timely and efficient manner. r 1 behavior research center phoenix, arizona; i 4 t STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL OBJECTIVES: The primary focus of this proposal will be to pro- . duce a technically complete, publicly acceptable trans- portation financing program. The product of this effort should result in: (1) Comparing alternative transportation financing plans vs transportation needs. (2) Development of a preliminary transportation financing plan. (3) An evaluation of the acceptability of various transportation financing plan elements on the public. (4) Aiding in the development of the final trans- portation financing plan - testing of public acceptance of the plan, assessing the chances of implementation, and aiding in the develop- ment of communications strategy. (5) Offering expert economic and survey testimony on behalf of the transportation financing proposal. (6) Opportunities for follow-up evaluations (attitude surveys after implementation) to determine public acceptance of the plan. i i i behavior research center phoenix, arizona E Ask 5 Working within the project framework established by these tasks, the following work plan is proposed to solve technical problems presented by the study and to achieve the objectives of the program: TASK 1: COMPARE ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION FINANCING PLANS VS TRANSPORTATION NEEDS : A. Assess currently inplace financial mech- anisms and their historic, current and future income producing ability. B. Assess current and projected transpor- tation needs. 1. HIGHWAY: e Maintenance e Pavement Preservation e New construction e Administrative 2. AERONAUTICAL: e Airport maintenance e Airport preservation e Airport construction and clear zone e Administrative 3. TRANSIT (Rail & Rubber tired) : i e Transit operating subsidies e New transit facilities construction e Administrative expenses behavior research center phoenix, arizoha i 6 4. OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: e Transportation planning e Transportation administration e Other transportation costs C. Compare historical, current and future income with alternative transportation needs. D. Determine program shortfall and time- frame requirements. TASK 2 : DEVELOP A PRELIMINARY TRANSPORTATION FINANCING PLAN• A. Develop preliminary transportation fund- ing: (1) Near term program (0-2 years) (2) Intermediate term program (2-5 years) (3). Long term program (5-20 years) i B. Identify and evaluate: (1) Fixed unit tax elements (2) Variable unit tax elements (3) Debt and debt service elements (4) User fee elements (5) Other elements j behavior research center phoenix, arizon C. Determine financing plan sensitivity to: (1) Changes in transportation patterns (2) Changes in economic conditions (3) Changes in technology (4) Changes in federal, state and local legislation l TASK 3 : TEST THE ACCEPTABILITY OF VARIOUS TRANS- PORTATION FINANCING PLAN ELEMENTS ON THE PUBLIC• A. Determine areas of inquiry regarding financing plan. B. Determine sample size and coverage. (1) Geographical (state, special district) (2) Legislative C. Research instrument (questionnaire) de- sign and pretesting. D. Production of questionnaires, adminis- trative and interviewer materials. E. Data collection and verification. F. Data assembly. G. Data editing, coding, keypunching and computer processing. H. Data analysis and interpretation. I. Survey report development/consultant recommendations. behavior research center phoenix, arizon'a 8 11) TASK 4: AID IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF FINAL TRANSPOR- TATION FINANCING PLAN: A. Utilizing findings and recommendations from survey: (1) Determine most acceptable elements (2) Determine acceptability vs revenue yield of various alternatives B. Construct transportation financing plan utilizing plan elements and most accept- able revenue alternatives. C. Test final transportation plan with limited public survey to verify trans- _.. - - -- -portation---financia-1--glan ..acceptability TASK 5 : PROVIDE EXPERT ECONOMIC AND PUBLIC ATTITUDE SURVEY TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF THE TRANSPOR- TATION FINANCING PROPOSAL. i TASK 6: FOLLOW-UP PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS TO: (a) Determine level of and reasons for public acceptance or rejection (b) Determine future course of agency direction i behavior research center phoenix, arizona TIMING: - The estimated project duration should be from 60-120 days depending on project scope and consultant responsibilities. BID AND BUDGET ESTIMATES : The scope o.f engagements outlined within the frame- work of this detailed work plan is very comprehensive. Program engagements will be on a fixed fee or task con- sultant basis and a precise estimate of project costs will be given after a more thorough definition of your specific project scope and responsibilities involved. It may be as comprehensive as that outlined or involve only a portion of the consultant services available. Progress payments will be structured. (Example: 25% upon an approved scope of work and signed contract, 25%after the development of preliminary transportation financing plan, 25% upon completion of the final trans- portation financing plan, and 25% upon completion of the final project and presentation of the final report) . i behavior research center phoenix, arizon i 10� PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION AGENCY i BEHAVIOR RESEARCH CENTER Project Director David Larkin Transportation Economist Opinion Research Director Louis Schmitt Earl de Berge Research Operations Manager Staff Bruce Hernandez Field Director Data Compilers Computer Mary E. Miller Coding Services Interviewers N. behavior research center phoenix, arizon`a Ask - .. . . 11 David J. Larkin- MBA (Advertising/Marketing Research) BS (Marketing) Mr. Larkin is a recognized authority in the devel- opment of marketing strategy and business problem solv- ing through information generation and analysis. He has a diversified national and local communications and research background with prominent publishers, adver- tising agencies, television stations and research com- panies in New York, N.Y. and Phoenix, Arizona. Since 1977 he has been Director of Corporate Development for the Behavior Research Center with exten- sive involvement in marketing planning and consulting and the administration of numerous multi-faceted re- search projects for the Center' s public and private sector clients. He is currently a Vice President of BRC. i behavior research center phoenix, arizona I Louis A. Schmitt - MBA (Finance) ,BS (Industrial Engineering) Mr. Schmitt is a nationally recognized expert in the field of transportation economics and financing. He currently holds the post of Deputy Assistant Director for Transportation Planning, Arizona Department of Trans- portation. Mr. Schmitt has represented the Department as Chief Economist before the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Arizona Corporation Commission and various city, county and state legislative bodies. Mr. Schmitt directed and co-authored the Department ' s long range financing and legislative plan for meeting transportation needs. He also has an extensive private industry background in developing Capital Budget and financing expansion programs for United States Steel, Reynolds Metals Company and Motorola, Inc. behavior research center phoenix, arizona 13 Earl de Berge - MA (Political/Behavioral Sciences) BA (Political Science) Mr. de Berge is a nationally recognized authority on public opinion sampling, study design and interpre- tation. Since 1965 he has specialized in the design, administration and analysis of research programs in- ' cluding attitude, behavior, use and need surveys. He pioneered the development of non-partisan public ser- vice polls in Arizona and created the award winning and highly respected Rocky Mountain Poll. Since its inception, de Berge has served as Director and Editor of the Rocky Mountain Poll and Director of Research and Analysis of its patent company, Behavior Research Center, Inc. - -- Mr de Berge has been a-key advisor to numerous----- governmental umerous---governmental agencies and diversified segments of pri- vate industry for more than a dozen years. He also serves as a consultant to several civic and professional organizations on problems relating to public relations and management systems and has written extensively on the impact of social change on consumer behavior. I i t r behavior research center phoenix, arizona 14 Bruce R. Hernandez - Partial Completion MA (Quantitative Systems) , Advanced studies in social and economic statistics, BS (Market- ing Statistics) Mr. Hernandez is a recognized authority in the areas of study and sample design, questionnaire design, data input formatting and data retrieval, quality control and data interpretation. Since 1971, he has been a key pro- fessional staff member of Behavior Research Center where he has had responsibilities for research design and im- plementation, data assembly and computer program design, quality and cost control and data analysis. Mr. Hernandez has worked on numerous public opinion and marketing research studies throughout the United - - ---- States f0f" d 'ver-91T ed clients. He currently--serves as Vice President, Systems Design and Quality Control for Behavior Research Center. 0 i behavior research center phoenix, arizonaI 0 M) Tratoidt 508 16th Street, Oakland, California 94612 ❑ 415 654'7878 March 18 , 1980 RECEIVED , LIAR /9, 1980 J. R. OLS ON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CO T OSTACO. 1Zs . Nancy C. Fanden, -Chairman B -- •� •---- ..--•.•De Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Post Office Box 911 Martinez, California 94553 Dear Ms . Fanden Attached is a Notice of Public Hearing for the purpose of considering: a Capital Assistance Project for "which financial assistance is being sought by AC Transit from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. It i's a requirement that this notice be .provided to the princi"pal elected officials of each general purpose unit of government within the service area of the mass transportation'operator receiving the assistance . This notice is for your information, no action is necessary on your part. i Respectfully submitted, ,�lGJ Lawrence A. Rosenberg District Secretary LA.R/j s attachment ACTrarriLs 508 16th Street, Oakland, California 94612 ❑ (415) 654-7878 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District will hold a Public Hearing at 4 :00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 26, 1980, Latham Square Building, 508 - 16th Street, '0akland, California, for the purpose of consider- ing a project for which financial assistance is being sought from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration pursuant to the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. Purpose of the capital assistance project is to aid in the . financing of a capital improvement program for the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, consisting of the purchase of diesel buses, spare parts packages for buses, transfer ticket machines, diesel automobiles, and service vehicles. The buses and related equipment will be used by AC Transit in upgrading transit services in Special Transit Service District No. 1 as well as in local contract service in the Cities of Concord and Moraga/Orinda. Estimated Cost of the project is $15,759,352 of which 80 percent would be met by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. No persons,. families or businesses will be displaced by this project, nor will there be any significant environmental impact upon the urban area. This project conforms to the Transportation Improve- ment Program and land use and transportation planning in the urban area. The total project has taken into consideration the special needs of elderly and handicapped persons. The Charter services operated by AC Transit are incidental to its operations of regularly scheduled mass transit services, and such. charter services are operated in such a manner .as not to foreclose private operators from the intercity charter bus industry. The mass transportation operator to be assisted under this project does not engage in charter bus operations outside its .transit service area. Therefore, the requirements of 49 CFR 604 do not apply to this project. Atthe hearing, AC Transit will afford. an opportunity for interested persons or agencies to be heard. with respect to the. social, i economic, and environmental aspects of these projects. Interested persons may submit orally or in writing evidence and recommendations. with respect to 'said projects. �i A copy of the proposed project application, the Transportation Improvement Program, and the draft report describing the environ- mental social, and economic impacts of the proposed project are currently available for public inspection at the office of the District Secretary, 508 - 16th Street, Oakland, California. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District 508 - 16th Street, Oakland, California Lawrence A. `Rosenberg District Secretary I 2/5/80 I tmm I H vF In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California March 11 , 19 80 In the Matter of Proposal for Use of a Portion of Gasoline Taxes for Public Mass Transit Guideway Purposes. The Board having received a February 25, 1980 letter from John C. Houlihan, Executive Secretary, Contra Costa County Mayors' Conference, advising of adoption by the Conference of a resolution requesting the Board to place on the next available ballot a Measure (in conformity with the provisions of Proposition 5 and Senate Bill 620) relating to the use of a portion of gasoline taxes for public mass transit guideway purposes and submitting a proposed ballot Measure therefor; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid request is REFERRED to the Public Works Director and the County Administrator for report. PASSED by the Board on March 11, 1980. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc; Contra Costa County Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Mayors' Conference Supervisors Public Works Director affixed thisllth day of March 19 80 County Administrator County Counsel J. R. OLSSON, Clerk g L1 Deputy Clerk Ma,,dne M. Neuf d H-24 3/79 15M / CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MAYORS' CONFERENCE FES 2 G 1980 i Representing the Mayors of: February 25, 1980 ANTIOCH RECEIVED BRENTWOOD A0 Hon. Nancy Fanden MAR 1980 CLAYTON Chairperson Contra Costa Count J. R. O County RK BOARD OFF SUPERVISORS Board of Supervisors cr coSTA CO. CONCORD 805 Las Juntas Martinez, California 94553 EL CERRITO Dear Supervisor Fanden: This is to advise that, at its regular meeting on February 7, HERCULES 1980, this Conference adopted a resolution requesting the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to place on the. next available ballot a Measure in conformity with. the provisions LAFAYETTE of Proposition 5 and Senate Bill 620. In discussions with Mr. Vernon L. Cline, Public Works Director, MARTINEZ and with Mr. Si 1 vano Marchesi , County Counsel '.s Office, the following ballot language is proposed: MORAGA "Shall a portion of the revenues deposited in the State Highway account which are made available within the boundaries of Contra Costa County by PINOLE the State from taxes imposed on motor vehicle fuels and on vehicles or their use be expended for public mass transit guideway purposes des- PITTSBURG cribed in Article 19, Section 1 (b) of the California Constitution?" PLEASANT HILL Very truly yours, 4CExeu RICHMOND Houlihan ve Secretary SAN PABLO WALNUT CREEK JCH/Jb Office of the Executive Secretor * Hotel Claremont, Berkeley, California 94705 (475) 847-4040 it / Trar 508 16th.Street, Oakland, California 9.4612 ❑ 415 654-7878 October .19 , 1979 RECEIVE Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors OCT 4.9,1979 P .O. Box 911 Martinez, CA 94553 J..R. OLSSON CLERK BOARD_OF SUPERVISORS CQN 1A CO. Dear.,Members of the Board of Supervisors : e •••- - - Deu Beginning Novemberlst, AC Transit will have good news for all regular -.ri ders ;.on East Bay' LOCAL bus 1 i nes . The news - Ts a new. mo;nthsly '.pass --. a card purchased once. a month ; (f0r. $1,5) which is good, on' disp1ay to any bus driver during one month 'fo'r uftl fmi.te:d.k.I ocal bus rides . For ,regular ''riders, 'ih'e new pass offers a n.umber' of immediate benefits . .. One singlre_. purchase ensures a whole month of bus rides . . And th,ere'.' s no need, to. find change fora exact fare, or to .fumble .with transfers.. . The rider simply shows the pass . and goes We at AC Transit _are taking a number of steps to launch this new pass . We ' ll be ,using' multi-media announcements , and we 've gained the ass,istanc.e . of. several supermarkets -- notably Consumers Co-op , Emby: Fo,ods , Lucky Stores. a.nd Safeway -- to. market the pass at all their outlets located within the service area where the pass is to be honored. In coming months , we will be seeking the help of other agencies and organizations .( including your, good offices ) for assistance in a d.i'fferent" manner. We also have avail able countercards with pre-addressed "take-one" envelopes which riders may use to purchase monthly passes by mail, and we ' d like to make these envelopes available as widely as . possible. This initial monthly ".pass , as explained in the poster enclosed , is . .good fo'r LOCAL bus rides only. And it is priced so that the regular bus-riding commuter breaks even -- and realizes a discount if he or; she uses the bus for trips other -than to and from work. In' the very near' f.uture, you ' ll be hearing about an additional monthly pass -for transbay commuters , giving them too the convenience of bus. trips without hassling wi.th. tic,kets or cash . We -will keep you informed of these future developments . And you ' ll be, hearing from me , .as. I seek assistance in spreading the word about the new passes - and '.our "buy by mail " arrangements -Very truly. y o u'r's t�f i e I l l s Marketing Department F0R .YQU,R Ilea O"'INION 01(sm Z 4... Z R3- M�3 x i e a a L �a�ka a z� zj \h��. as \. � •�a job pun llmogslsnr,, 9404 anow Sault iaisoa snq aql uo 1a6 noA„ „Isnq D uo lablsn(sialsuoil ON Buiddogs iollDaig„ _ "i ml sapu nilxe lab I „gluow 810gm eql iol las w,l ssDd eql gil/yA„ ;a6UDgO lgbu gql bufAOq lnogo buikjOm aiow oN aoualuanuoo O Mq/N„ 11}noge 2ulAes we saapp 41sueal OV}egM Iaail AIIDlluassa aiD ADP-plw sdul IDloads io'spualeam 'sbuivana—sepia IDuoilippn IIV'(gluow iad shop buhliom 9 lZ to 96DJOAD un uo pasoq)gSDO BUTADd SD awDS agl 1nogD SI 1SOD aql IOOgoS io�iom of AIIDp alnwwoo of ssod au)asn noA 11 gluow 1Dgl iol Sapu to iagwnu pallwpun uD iol ll asn ADw noA 9l5 iol ssod aql pasngoind eA,noA aoup •ares noA wow ayj 11 asn noA wom aWl Ai0SSa09U 8i0 SialSUDiI ou'awll AuD 1D uogoailp AuD BuioI5 sasnq pJDoq uoo noA asnDoaq puV buwpi0oq uodn ianup agl of 11 mons Isnr:aldwis sI ll 6ulsn'snq ayl bulpu allgmiaploq ssod eglAq paulolai aq lsnw ssod Amuow usuoii ov Aagl—olgDialsuDil-uouaiDsassOd'gluOw5ulpa0 m9uagjAgpaNasueiv -aid eg410109m 4SDI aql @IDs UO 05 glUOw g0D9 iol sessod sasnq uo algnllDAo sialinw-llas 6ulsn AU al IIDw Aq puD'a011lo 1ISUDi1 oV aql lo'ssod aql Aq paivas snain aql ul sai0ls do-oo pun A{ong Aomalns PiomhoH. 1D paSDg0ind aQ UDO SOSSDd AglUOW IISUDil fit/ opawUltl,< PUDIN�0 ;!asn o}MOH•j!Anq o}MoH M1aIaNia" PU0wUIa, uaNao SialsUDil iol peau oN'a6UDgO lOOAAOO agl aADq of peau ou s,aiagl SSnd AlgluoW llsuoil OV un asn noA uagAA salnoi ssaidy]idV8 io AogsuDil uo poob tON (dnw gas)splq Aog4sn3 aql In lsam salnoi Inool llsuoil OV In uo poog•g 09C Aq aiol ayl saonpai ssod aql 6ulmogs sasnq ssaidx3 Alpialul uo-Z (suniADgsuoilpun ssaidx3 idVo uo ldEme)gluow euo iol Sapp to iagwnu pallwpun UD iol PODS•L jST$.lO0111JOLU 0104M e.io;'jueM noA se sawn;Auew se snq 044 apla ma noA ssed A141UOW}isueal OV Mau 041411M 4d?, olsot!-4 46�4+C" 0 40 1-00 >6 'P,� /0 Q,- 4,00+ ;5 9 ' .1 0,- "0 by I'll 0 "P-19 YCI P/ f Y Y Y o o � a o Olto , Q � o � 0 BUS RIDING BUS - RIDING . . MADE EASY.1 MADE 'EASY! o . Ride as many times as you Q to > want for a whole month —with the$15 AC D O.0 Transit Monthly Pass. ® Good for unlimited rides on all local busy Q' ;0 lines In the East Ba west of the hills.' E- n > No need to find correct change `O m C!) No need to ask for transfers a -� --i N QP Just show your pass and GOI' °Notgoodon TransbayorBART Express C Y Express; buses. Valid for 350 on Intercit Ex r C/y P: ® pay additional zone charges. HOW TO BUY A PASS ® Use this envelope— at least 10 days prior to the up-coming month M ® Or purchase pass — In all East Bay cities ;a (west of the hills),served by AC.Transit — in any Safeway or Lucky store. Passes will be n available last week of preceding month M d first week of effective month. 0 < CU m j IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFOIRNIA I , August 7, 1979 In the Matter of Use of ) State Gas Tax Funds for } Fixed-Rail Transit Systems. ) Supervisor S. J. McPeak having commented that the Mayors' Conference, at its last meeting, had discussed State Proposition 5 (California Constitution, Article XIX formerly Article XXVI) dealing with use of gas tax for fixed-rail .transit systems; and Supervisor McPeak having further commented that Contra Costa County has more miles of roads than many other jurisdictions of the same population and, therefore, it is more difficult to maintain an adequate road system with its appropriation of gas tax money, and that she would therefore be opposed to diverting any of the County's appropriation of gas tax money; and Supervisor McPeak having advised that it was her understanding that in order for a county to take advantage of the diversion of State gas tax money for mass transit systems or fixed guideways there first must bean election in the county to authorize such) use, and she would suggest that serious consideration be given t10 placing such a measure on the ballot in the near future; and Vernon L. Cline, Public Works Director, having strongly recommended that such a measure, if placed on the blallot, authorize only the diversion of the State portion of gas tax money, not the cities' or the countys' appropriations; and Supervisor McPeak having recommended that County Counsel and " the Public Works Director prepare an analysis of t alternatives and requirements if the Board determines to develop a ballot measure to be voted upon by the electorate of Contra Costa County; and Supervisor Tom Powers having commented that he would like to know, in case such a measure passes, where the discretion lies for diverting those funds, whether it be this Board or an outside agency, and whether it would include State funds, City funds, County funds, or all of them; and Board members having discussed the matter is some detail; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of Supervisor McPeak is APPROVED. i PASSED by the Board on August 7, 1979. i C'E TIFIIiD COPY I Certify that this is a full, true & C-rec Copy of the original dowmmt hi"1,is un file in me ffic,.and that it I "v S paSSed 1'�: ndonral! by the Board of Supervisors of Cc: Public works Director Conte C-m Qu;ac;. Ca!if.trniu, on the 111:ae16.111•11. Count Counsel ! County AT-1 I.R.OLSS(}iV,Gn.nty Clerk s ex-offitiu Clerk County Administrator of v Boas of Suprn•isors, by Deputy Clerk. AUG 7 19179 Diana Pad. Herman i i 06 bice 04 COUNTY CLERK Con.tn"a C•ob.ta County I Man.t.inez, Catigonn.ia f SUPERVISOR ERIC H.- HASSELTINE j SUPERVISOR TOM POWERS � . TO: SUPERVISOR NANCY C. FAHDEN SUPERVISOR ROBERT I . SCHRODER R SUPERVISOR SUNNE WRIGHT MC PEAK FROM: JAMES R. OLSSON _0 N3Y CLERK - RECORDER SUBJECT: SPIAL LECTIONS BATF: AUGUST. 13 ,. 1979 } In case plans go ahead for a County Measure consolidation. with General Law City Elections on April 8, 1980 ,. no money is budgeted in, 1979-80.. There will be approximately 230 voting precincts in -the cities in which the county. would share costs . The unincorporated area plus Richmond would be approximately 125 voting precincts . Shared precinct costs $51 , 750 County only �� �� 56 ,250 Arguments , e.tc . 10 ;000 I Spanish materials .1 ,500 Estimated unbudgeted Cost $119 ,50.0 . cc: M. G. Wingett, County Administrator cc : Vernon Cline, Public Works Director 1 RE CEI VED ANUG CIERK BOARD OZSSO,q pZRVI 8 CONI to CO. � 1 > In the Board. of Supe,visors of Contra Costa County, State of California July 31 ,19 79 In the Matter of Information for Record Purposes. The following matters were discussed by the Board this day and informal determinations made as indicated: i 1. Request of Supervisor Tom Powers that the .Boa_--_ adopt a resolution endorsing initiation of public transit service between Ricin-mond and Mar:=ez_ Action deferred. one week to allow further review by Board members. ?_ Discuss_on on Woodland Hills tourt decision and the impact this could have on a candidate's ability to pa..tica-Date in Board's decision-making process and the neer' for campaign financing reform. �. Dr. C ? .Wood, health Cfficer, commented on.caseload of Vietnam refugees in Contra Costa County. The Health Department is currently monitoring 126 families; Social Service Denartment has 150. The Health Department has not found any major health problems among these families who have been visited by public health nurses. She indicated that the sponsors of these people should notify local health agencies of their arrival into a particular area. 4. Suner-Tisor McPeak announced that the meeting of July 24, 1979 with the -Walnut Creek City Council members was very productive and indicated that the Board should meet witll other City Councils on matters of mutual ir_terest. 1 Supervisor Hassel:tine i-ndicated that City Councils desiring, to meet with the Board should submit agendas on items they wish to discuss. 5- Supervisor Schroder suggested that the Board give some Ccusideratlon as to what position the County will taKe <� regard to a proposal to. extend BART service. to the San, ,Francisco Airport_ TEAS IS A kLA.TTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY a 'ala tter of Record I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of r�rK6ec�K?entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Sea{ of the board of cc: County Administrator Supervisors affixed this 31stdoy of Julv 19 79 J. R. OLSSON, Clerk pyt.� % Y Deputy Ciera eanne 0. *lagl o H-24 4177 15m - V ■ 508 16th Street, Oakland, California 94612 O 415 54'7878 July :20, 1979 RECEIVED J U L x23,1979 Contra Cos.ta� County J. R. OLSSON Board of Supervisors CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P.O. Box 911. .mac aA rA co.v� Martinez , California 94,553 61 Dear Supervisors : Attached is a Notice of Public Hearing for the purpose of considering two projects for which financial operating assistance is being, sought' by AC Transit from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. ; 7t' .is a requirement that this notice be provided to the principal elected officials of each general purpose unit of govern- ment within the .service area of the mass transportation operator receiving the assistance . This 'notice 'is for your information; no action is necessary on your part. Very truly yours , Lawrence A. Rosenberg District Secretary i LAR/njs attachment -�rzu I . PIN, Trarrit 508 16th Street, Oakland, California 94612 ❑ (415) 654-7878 C7 NOTICE OF PUBLIC .HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District .will hold 'a public hearing at 4 : 00 p.m. , Wednesday, August 8, 1979, Latham Square Building, S08 - 16th Street, Oakland, California, for the purpose of consid- ering two projects for which financial assistance is being sought from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, pursuant to the Provisions of Section Sof the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 , as amended. The purpose of these operating assistance projects- is for financial assistance for operations to permit .AC Transit LT main- tain current levels and standards of transit throughout the East Bay .service area and3for financial assistanceQto provide service under contract to the Eastern Contra .Costa Transit Authority in the Antioch-Pittsburg Urbanized .AreaD The proposed application for AC Transit , requests. tier 1 operating assistance funds for the. East Bay service area. in the amount of $7,496 , 709 . 00 and also tier 2 funds in the amount of $1, 886,984 . 00 for a total of $9,383,693. 00 for fiscal year 1979-80 . In addition, the proposed application requests tier l operating assistance funds for the Pittsburg-Anitioch Urbanized Area in the amount of $346,910 and also tier 2 funds in the amount of $-60 , 366 for a total .of $407, 27.6 for fiscal year 1979-80 . No., persons , . families or businesses will.. be displaced by these projects nor will there be any significant environmental l�rrhact upon the urban area. These projects conform to the Trans- purl ation Improvement Program and land. use and transportation plaKning in the urban area. The projects have taken into consid-- era-ion the special needs . of the elderly and physically handicapped persons . Charter services operated by AC Transit are incidental to its operations of regularly scheduled mass transit services and such charter services are operated in such a manner as not to foreclose private operators from the intercity charter bus industry. Public hearing exhibits will include a certification of costs for the District' s charter bus services and a cost allocation plan in conjunction therewith. AC Transit is not limited by state or local laws as to the area in which the District may conduct, charter bus operations and provides charter bus service throughout California from points originating or terminating within the service area of AC Transit . (continued) i Notice of Public Hearing August 8, 1979 Page -2- The entire AC Transit coach fleet is comprised of 838 passenger buses , all of which are available every day of the year for charter bus service when not in regularly scheduled mass transit service. At the hearing, AC Transit will afford an opportunity for interested persons or agencies to .be heard with respect to the social , economic, and environmental aspects of these projects . Interested persons may submit orally or in writing evidence and recommendations with respect to said projects . A copy of the proposed project applications , the Trans- portation Improvement Program, and the draft report describing the environmental , social and economic impacts of the proposed projects are currently available for public inspection at the Office of the District Secretary, 508 - 16th Street, Oakland, California. ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT 508 16th Street, Oakland, California Lawrence A. Rosenberg District Secretary • i I f 1 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL AUTHORITY P. O. BOX 3366, RINCON ANNEX SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94119 TELEPHONE (415) 557-2608 ALAMEDA•CONTRA C05TA TRANSIT July 13, 1979 DISTRICT BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION j CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT METROPOLITAN.TRANSPORTATION - L i'C E I V E D COMMISSION SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT I DISTRICT i REPRESENTATIVE, PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION INTERESTS JLi ,1/1979 1/19/C�9 i J. R. OLS,,ON Board of Supervisors CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C R COSTA CO. Contra Costa County By.... . ___De 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 The San Francisco Bay Area Transportation Terminal Authority has scheduled a public hearing for the purpose of obtaining maximum public input concerning proposed revisions to the existing Transbay Transit Terminal at First and Mission Streets in downtown San Francisco. You are invited to attend the hearing which will be held at 7: 30 p.m. on August 23, 1979 in Room 1194 (Auditorium) of the State Building, 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco. A copy of the newspaper notice announcing the hearing is enclosed for your information. Representatives of governmental agencies, civic groups and individuals are being encouraged to attend the hearing and to present their views regarding the proposed project, its Draft Environmental Impact State- ment and its funding alternatives. All statements rendered at the hearing will be made a part of the official hearing record. Written statements received by September 3, 1979, will also be included in the hearing record. Sincerely yours, GARY CHERRIER Project Coordinator Encl. I ��i YOU RE INVITED TO ATTEND A PUBLIC HEARING ON A. BAY AREA TRANSIT TERMINAL PROJECT The San Francisco Bay Area Transportation Terminal Authority (SFBATTA) is considering revisions to the existing Transbay Transit Terminal at First and Mission Streets in downtown San Francisco. Lai l MARKET�� "VO� ` Q 3 Lu 1E �oir EMISSION ILL a � LL W HO i I RD 11.7 it j gpY�BRI'DG E 80 ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is intended to serve future bus growth and to provide centralized access to the Bay Area's transit network. Several alternative solutions ranging in cost from$6 million to$83 million have been studied. A plan will be selected following the hearing and review of the public's comments. Federal transportation funds are expected to finance 80 . percent of the project's cost.The remaining 20 percent is expected from State and regional sources. RELOCATION: Two businesses may be displaced by the project. Businesses displaced will be eligible for relocation assistance. Such assistance will be provided through the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Ac- quisition Policies Act of 1970. ENVIRONMENT: The project may have a significant environmental impact on the area. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING: This project conforms with comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the Bay Area. The project has been reviewed by the State Clearinghouse, the Association of Bay Area Govern- ments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED: Full access to all public areas of the terminal will be provided by the project. INFORMATION AVAILABLE — Between now and September 3, 1979, you may review exhibits, reports, and review and obtain the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)on the proposed project. This information is available at the SFBATTA Office, Room 502, 150 Oak Street, San Francisco, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Copies of the DEIS are also available for review at the following public libraries: San Francisco Main Library; Marin County Civic Center Library; Berkeley Main Library; Oakland Main Library; and San Mateo County Central Library. - HOW CAN YOU HELP? The hearing will give you an opportunity to com- ment on the project, its DEIS and its funding alternatives. You can help by giving your opinion on the various plans under consideration. DATE: August 23, 1979 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: State Building, Room 1194 (Auditorium) 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco Written comments will also be considered by SFBATTA if received by Septem- ber 3, 1979. If you have any questions regarding the hearing or the project, please contact Mr. Gary Cherrier, Project Coordinator, at (415) 557-2608, or write to: i SFBATTA P. 0. Box 3366, Rincon Annex San Francisco, CA 94119 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California June 12 , 19 79 In the Matter of Car and Van Pool Activities The Public Works Director reported that the Department has been actively engaged in the formation of carpools for County employees since June, 1977. Among the measures taken were information, questionnaires and signup sheets were distributed to all County employees who work in downtown Martinez. Computer print-outs were furnished to - interested employees giving them names and addresses of other County employees living. in their neighborhoods. Employees working in Richmond, but living in the central County area were invited in April to join with City of Richmond employees to form carpools. The van pool program has been less successful so far. In January of 1979, 2,600 County employees were furnished with infor- mation about van pools. The RIDES staff, which administers van pool operations for Caltrans, informed the Department that although some interest has been indicated, no van pools have been formed as yet. IT IS BY THIS BOARD ORDERED that the report of the Public Works Director is accepted. PASSED by the Board on June 12,- 1979. i I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the data aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors Originating Department: affixed this 12thday of June 19 79 Public Works Administration cc: Public Works /� I// J. R. OLSSON, Clerk Transportation Planning By , P:�e�✓ �� Deputy Clerk Helen H.Kent H-24 4/77 15m .! J L�v A'a"a - -- + s CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Martinez, California TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Vernon L. Cline, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Agenda for.June 12, 1979 REPORTS Report A. CAR AND VAN POOL ACTIVITIES The Board, at the request of Supervisor Fanden, referred the question as to the status of car and van pooling to the Public Works Director. Starting in June, 1977, the Public Works Department has been actively en- couraging formation .of carpools for County employees who are working in downtown Martinez. Information, questionnaires and signup sheets were distributed to County employees. The latest distribution of such material was in mid April ; 1979, as a part of a downtown Martinez parking and commuting questionnaire. All '' those who responded to the invitation to join a carpool were furnished a computer print-out of other employees who live in their home neighborhood. Of those who responded to the parking-commuter questionnaire, 16% are present- ly in carpools. The County carpool parking lot averages about 2-1/3 persons per car. Van pool formation has been less successful so far. In January of 1979, 2,600 County employees were furnished with information about van pools. The van pools are administered by RIDES, which is operated by the California Department of Transportation. The RIDES staff has notified the Department that no van pools for County employees have been formed as yet, although some interest has been indicated. Currently, employees working in Richmond, but living in the central County ,area, were invited in April to join with City of Richmond employees to form carpools. The City of Richmond is now doing the computer match and will shortly notify County employees of City employees living in their neighborhood so that they can form carpools to Richmond. The Department will continue.to monitor activities concerning car and van pools for significant changes in available programs and disseminate informa- tion to all interested parties. (Information Only. No action required) (MLK) A G E N D A Public Works Depart:ent i Page 1 of 12 June 12, 1979 i 7 I In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California May 29 19 79 In the Matter of Authorizing Real Property Division to Provide Services To A C Transit District I i IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Real Property Division of the Public Works Department is ALTTHORI'ZED to provide property acquisition services to the A C Transit District for District bus maintenance facility in the Central County. PASSED BY THE BOARD on May 29, 1979. I 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Orig: County Administrator Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors cc: Public Works affixed this 29thday of May . 19 79 A C Transit (via Public Works) J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By Deputy Clerk R. Fluhrer H-24 4/77 15m Y PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Date: May 16, 1979 To: M. G. Wingett, County Administrator Contra Ccunfi! From: Vernon L. Cline, Public Works Director - 9 717gg Subject: County Services - AC Transit OfflC� orf Administrative Bulletin 3.1 County Administft There is attached a copy of letter from AC Transit dated May 1 , 1979 requesting the services of our Real Property Division to assist in the acquisition of property for the development of a bus maintenance facility. i . This matter has been discussed with Jim Fears, Principal Real Property Agent and he informs me that his division would be able to give the assistance requested. All staff time and consultant contract services will be chargeable to AC Transit. The cost for these services are estimated at approximately $7,500.00. If this .matter meets with your approval , please present the request to the ' Board of Supervisors in accordance with the provisions of the subject County Services Policy. VLC:da cc: J. D. Fears i IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIF03NIA i In the Matter of } . ) RESOLUTION NO. . 79/554 Request for Improved Summer Recreation Transit } WHEREAS public transportation has been identified as a top priority in the General _^Management Plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point -Reyes National Seashore and is essential to provide for public use of parklands by Contra Costa and Alameda County residents when there is a need to conserve fuel in the Bay Area and the nation; and adequate transportation service would make these urban national parks more accessible to people in a manner consistent with park preservation and energy conservation with a minimum disruption to nearby communities; and i i WHEREAS the National Park Service has worked closely with AC Transit and other Bay Area transit agencies to extend recreational opportunities through transit and, in spite of severe budgetary constraints, transit companies have pledged funds to assist in these programs; and WHEREAS the National Park Service has requested from, the Office of Management and Budget a total of $247,290 to assist AC Transit and other Bay Area transit operators to greatly expand recreation transit routes to serve transit dependent citizens and to conserve energy; and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County requests the Office of Management and Budget to act favorably upon National Park Service transportation proposals for Golden Gate National Recreation Area/Point Reyes so that this important summer transit service can be implemented as soon as possible and the people of Contra Costa/Alameda Counties and the Bay Area can have affordable, convenient and necessary access to their national parks. PASSED BY THE BOARD on May 22, 1979. i •, ^oy I _ ��'•T correct cony of T C.ertff? tact. this iA a •" in my office. the original documnnl •.'1+•''ti -~e Board of and that It n'as nasscd �. adn•-':'• _ .•,forma, on SUP-, isor% of Contra Cn:;[a t�`"'°' ,ervisors, the date sholrn,ATTEST: J, lt. CLSf Sop County Clerk&ex'olerk"Clerkof said Bo:u'd of Sut7 by Deputy C '(\/x,11}- _ O➢ --.»...»--.._"."... cc: Hon. George Miller Hon. Alan Cranston Hon. S.I. Hayakawa I County Administrator RESOLUTION NO. 79/554 DRAFT i RESO•L-UTI.ON._TO .REQUEST OFFICE-0-F MANAGEMENT`"AND—BUDGET FOR /) AJ IMPROVED SUMMER RECREATION TRANSIT i WHEREAS public transportation has been identified as a top priority in the General Management Plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore ' and is essential to provide for public use of parklands by IContra Costa and Alameda County residents when there is a need to conserve fuel in the BayArea and the nation; and adequate transportation service would make these urban national parks more accessible to people in a manner consistent with park preservation and energy conservation with a minimum disruption to nearby communities; and . WHEREAS the National Park Service has worked closely with AC Transit and other Bay Area transit agencies to extend !' recreational opportunities through transit and, in spite of severe budgetary constraints, transit companies have pledged s funds to assist in these programs, and WHEREAS the National Park Service has requested from the Office of Management and Budget a total of $247,290 to assist AC Transit and other Bay Area transit operators to greatly expand recreation transit routes to serve transit dependent j citizens and to conserve energy;, and therefore be it rRESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County requests the Office of Management and Budget to act favorably upon National Park Service transportation proposals for Golden Gate National Recreation Area/Point Reyes so that this j important summer transit service :can be implemented as soon ;.; ! as possible and the people of Contra,, Costa/Alameda Counties and the Bay Area can have affordable, convenient and necessary : access to their national arks. p J I lj i r May 22, 1979 RECEIVED 1 ,1' J. R. CLSO, ` CLERK BOARD OF SU?cRVISORS COP17R6 COSTA CO. 'Deputy g, a I • i United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ` GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA FORT MASON, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94123 f -IN REPLY REPER.TO: GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMISSION ,I. RESOLUTION 006-79 QUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FROM ALAMEDA/CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS FOR IMPROVED SUMMER RECREATION TRANSIT i WHEREAS the Golden Gate National Recreation. Area Citizens' Advisory Commission has worked with the National Park Service to establish appropriate public. transportation to and within Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore; and II WHEREAS public transportation has been identified as a top priority in (I the General Management Plan for. GGNRA and Point Reyes National Seashore and is essential to provide for public 'use of parklands by Alameda and I; ;I Contra Costa County residents when there is a need to conserve fuel in the Bay Area and the nation; and adequate transportation service would make these urban national parks more accessible to people in a manner J. consistent with park preservation and energy conservation with a minimum { , disruption to nearby communities; and WHEREAS the National Park Service has worked closely with AC Transit and other Bay Area transit agencies to extend recreational opportunities I through transit and, in spite of severe' budgetary constraints, transit companies have pledged funds to assist in these programs; and WHEREAS the National Park Service has requested from the Office of Management and Budget a total of $247,290 to assist AC Transit and iI 'I other Bay Area transit operators to greatly expand recreational transit routes to serve transit dependent citizens and to conserve energy; and WHEREAS the GGNRA Advisory Commission requires your assistance in asking Office of Management and Budget to approve allocation of these monies �I l ($247,290) for high priority transportation needs; and therefore be it RESOLVED that the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Citizens' Advisory I� Commission respectfully requests your assistance in requesting Office of Management and Budget to act favorably upon National Park Service �> transportation proposals for GGNRA/Point Reyes so that this important summer transit service can be implemented as soon as possible and the i ! people of Alameda/Contra Costa Counties and the Bay Area can have f affordable, convenient and necessary access to their national parks. Adopted -' Golden Gate National Recreation Area Citizens' Advisory Commission May 12, 1979 (� _. 77 i { I RESOLUTION - 006-79 ..; Noes - None Absent - Ayala, Blumberg, Greene, Haas ; Frank C. Boerger 54 Chairman i i I � I 6+W.17 •D gyp.QR ' r U1 7 n .N N'S r O tJ 0 fJ O �'a.7 1�. 7�=•7. In - 7 f. n :0 ZD-•c n u f D (m .•C N G d r rJ '1 G G O C U '. N_. G 3 r• y 3 D f1 G � _ p' . A �n G^ O O rJ I N e+r.n Ir' O n fD 01.0 F �•. O T. n C f pp N 7 Z N � O O. � � �•N .� a I ' O n 0. p••• 't _n. d Tao'- O C\" �'�, i t 1 j n I o o -4c 1 O N •..• -S N MO C O n COC QC w _ r N �T_ r C N C 1 Q N O F IZ � t Nom,. O '+ fD —0 O rJ -+ N in � o a Z C• �C N x nom•- �� "' in .., . n M fD E = n m x n_a. •S N N £ N � a .c N .'.. ( �;• G NO. •� LnO n O t^b n Q. 3 NO r. '•f vGi �� 001 O Ce+�• �^A C = I� :i 7 1 tjf %D O n 3 Z �C O--1 C N• N i n n eD N O 7 7 0 0 2 - I: r y a 4+bcr ns ���i �� o 01 N O' d � 1 r•J � � � 3 r 1oro c �c,a r Ion n c C N N O N wo n 7 7 O N N. N Nn' m ••+. d w r.io O r a O f- c T O •'c a cn� ; •r _ CD .I A -7 + •S e�d f7 •1 C 1 •� _ N t0 01 n 0 O 7 ON O N C a C. O .01• 7 - .. O ] ♦• �. i n•r1 C N m CL. I i o o Nej Ii 110 ob lb 10 40 wo I N .at ! �• t .. 10 t'► t IIIA I I y1 . t �I eb CD cm N M N 44 at 1' qo 0°10 G I { •s i:' I I In the Board of Supervisors of I Contra Costa County, State of California December 12 , 19 78 I i In the Matter of Assembly Transportation Committee Meeting The County Supervisors' Association has requested that Contra Costa County present testimony at the Assembly Transportation Committee hearing scheduled for December 13, 1978. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Mr. Mark L. Kermit, Deputy Public Works Director, Transportation, is authorized to offer testimony on behalf of the Board of Supervisors as to local financing problems. PASSED by the Board on December 12, 1978. i I i I� i I I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc: Public Works Department Supervisors County Administrator affixed this 12th day of December 19 78 J. R. OLSSON, Clerk B Akxm, it Deputy Clerk Helen H. Kent H-24 4/77 15m 2-Martinez News-Gazette, Wednesday,October 4' , 1914 TS'!.' etc '®n ""..0 naes- Tal-k By .JOYCE SWANSON News-Gazette Staff Reporter Repres,en.tatives from almost every organization- concerned with transportation in Contra Costa.County came'.to a meeting Monday night.in 'Concord_ to share concerns, ideas and 'goals for' getting `from one place to another -within the county. ; ;Y .,State and regional transportation agencies, ".'BART,'.Greyhound, AC Transit .and city bus r ntatives were there to answer lines represe '.,questions 4or the• school superintendents, city y`representatives and commuters who showed up. Supervisor Nancy 'Fanden said the topics `r co real little bit of everything," but com- ,,,•,mute transit and-,,school busing were two major Supervisor Warren Boggess called the ,;meeting .to .allow the :user of public transit to .,- talk to the providers of the'services:.Greyhound; ;BAAT;�AC.Transifand various'eity bus,lines. The lack of coordination between modes of transit in-the county cause time delays for those' ,who must rely on public transit, like the elderly, said Paul. Kilkenny of the county's public works department. The ,meeting .is the beginning of an effort which will lead to.the completion of the Central Contra :Costa .County. Public Transportation Study,which was requested by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, (MTC), a regional agency which must approve bay area city and county requests for state and federal transpor- tation funds. .Fanden said coordination between the transit modes could mean more feeder buses.and.more parking facilities at aW.T Mations 'and more bus transportation for fIR fl, city of Martinez. public `not� C e . n � 0 So(7 y w ~T° m 'a ✓oo uin AnliOch 3 9 River 160 ' _ I BRIDGEHEAD RD To Riol Ova—PROPOSED .. (f FISHING PIER ' AND RIVERSIDE .' NO PARK CONTRA COSTA SAN 4CAOUw COUNTY COUNTY TI CALTRANS STUDY RESULTS AVAILABLE ON PROPOSED FISHING PIER & RIVERSIDE,PARK WHAT'S BEING CALTRANS (California Department of Transpor- ,PLANNED tation) is ,planning to convert the southern- most -5-35 feet of the old Antioch Bridge and the adjacent eight acres of State-owned � 1 property into a Fishing, Pier. and Riverside ' Park. to be maintained by 'the East Bay Regional Park District. . -; WHY THIS AD CALTRANS has studied• the effects this proj- ect might have on the environment and has found that the effects will not be signifi- cant. This notice is to tell you that a report called a Negative Declaration. explain- ing these findings has been prepared and is �. available for you to read. WHAT'S Copies of the Negative Declaration and the AVAILABLE companion Environmental Study are- available at the local CALTRANS office at 150 Oak St . , 'San Francisco, and may be reviewed at the , County libraries in Antioch and Martinez, ` and at the Antioch City Hall. WHERE YOU Do you have any comments about processing 0. COMEIN this project with a Negative Declaration? W� Or about the findings of our study? 11 so, please. submit your comments in writing, not latex than September 5,1978, to CALTRANS., ' Environmental Planning, P. 0. Box 3366, Rincori Annex, San Francisco, CA. 94119.. ,pry >qvc CONTACT For more information aboutthis project or , any transportation matter, call CALTRANS at 557-1840. �: ;4 j� lo J 'r °L• • ® � ! .340 FQR Y_0_UR_.__IN 0RM_A'T10_----- - 1 f -- __,� .__.�_._.__1�1Q.T.}(,_r��;>.�_l._�Gccti-- -_�--����tf_���.J_�c��.v_�---�Lrvvrcr�5s,•:c�._..._.-_ :___. _..� _._...__..__..__._._.._._._.�._-----._ i E C E I-V-E D- Y-fie-y , -C_ f.. I - �_•. G>_s _._ _ --._,_ ------------ E P S, 1978 ROLSSON ODJARF SUP ERVISORS CLERK BOOORCSTA CO. 9 ....::.De u r � L 1 ��._._.. �-tY�j._�G-vrc'3.C�.:.:___Lc�---i/L-�t v_CI~G� -._ cS.C'"�_'!/!_G__e_ /_���CJ�c✓t._._C C?�7�r!r�.�.._...._._ _. . _... (J 4 _._...... r 9 / 61�' __:,._•_ _._ ._��1�.`_5_crz2�' r __�.._�'�_C3 r ..._.. ( 5_ _j-�,'_�7 _S "tee-! 4 _ ------ ( 1 ` " d'�._� /-/fes t% ...� 5 .— of L"��y^s.._ _ . �.._. � - S ec'G'r 0 !'�i�f Uk J CG!yfG/Ci4lCYi1T� ( . L• <_4_�i7 _. .D t � - - 1/lccil._,�' �SCG?( ,ltt;��•cc .. ..�--- ���.+�.�t�f-. �..5 .C___.._.SU� �.�:cy .._�-�--�' .� ,r Cmc%.- ./J_ �-►-` _ �'{�l v._: �/ r��--2�:-�y - � _�%'� 1'G✓�1>_$�!r?'t _...v 7-..._.:,��`� C' . _�tl� _ S-C-''3''!�!L� .._7�U...�r���CJ.. i�Z;.'U'J '�'_.. _ 1 -------________.�.... .__ Jr! -------------- .......------------ Ul Lr i _..._-.._. ...: �_TC:;'J`aC'', c5'i ��.C.��-r:� t'�t �-c• ��-11�'S --- -----------� _ �- �T_�^ }_J___ ._t_jj_..� t- ----._... _ .....:--__._._ ___.._.._ _._-.. ._----_ __. _.__.. _.... - {J Lc•N 'C.)�Ce � �.L 11 c��Y v1I G _ G��._F'.\.Gf_.��G C (n.c I►'xt CC.•i Ixi _-P�:c:i C c��Uro��'1�iSc+-r' 67 LI In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa .County, State of California November 28 . , 19 78 In the Matter of Extension of BART Express Route D into Martinez. The Public Works Director having reported on support concerning the extension of the BART Express Route D from its present terminus at Diablo Valley College to downtown Martinez via Pacheco Boulevard, on a 30-minute headways schedule; and the deletion of the experimental M-1 route; and The City Council of the City of Martinez, by Resolution No. 180/78, supports the proposed changes; On the recommendation of the Public Works Director, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that it joins with the City of Martinez and supports the recommended changes. PASSED by the Board on November 28, 1978 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Originator: Public Works Department Supervisors Transportation Planning affixed this 28th day of November 197 cc: Public Works Director Central Contra Costa J. R. OLSSON, Clerk Transit Study (via P.W. ) Metropolitan Transportation BY Zb . Deputy Clerk Commission (via P.W. ) Helen H. Kent Bay Area Rapid Transit District (via P.W. ) H-24 4/77 15m i y In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California j September 19 . 197B— I i In the Matter of Workshop on Public Transportation in the Central County Area. Supervisor W. N. Boggess announced that he is conducting an open workshop on October 2,. 1978 at the Contra Costa County Water District Auditorium to acquire input on public transportation which the Metropolitan Transportation Commission will use to develop long range plans to meet the transportation needs in the central county area. Supervisor N. C. Fanden distributed a September. 19, 1978 memorandum to the Board regarding the feasibility of extending the Pleasant Hill bus service into the unincorporated area to include the ' Mobile Home Parks in the Pleasant Hill sphere of 'influence,. the feasibility of extending the Pacheco Boulevard corridorbu:s service to the unincorporated communities in the Mt.:.-View, Vine Hill, and Blum Road areas, and requested the Public Works Department to investigate said proposed extensions . Supervisor R. I. Schroder expressed the opinion that the recommendations of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission may mitigate the concerns raised in Supervisor Fanden' s memorandum and suggested withholding action on same until after said workshop. I I I I a Matter of Record I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy oft §*K entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. i Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors 19thSeptember 78 affixed this day of 19 Meputy SON, Clerk By Clerk Vonda Amdahl i H -24 4/77 15m i i 805 LAS JUNTAS c -=�F• ( Friday Only MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA 94553 = 4300 GARDEN ROAD (415) 372- 2080 '� r EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 (415) 222- 2822 srA -aRECEIVED NANCY C: FAHDEN SUPERVISOR DISTRICT TWO j t P. /1 '1978 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ' J. R. OLSSON. CLER OA F SUPERVIS September 19, . 1978 N COSTA C B .. .. ...�. .. .._... .... pu TO: Board of Supervisors From: Nancy C. .-Fanden RE: Bus Transportation A meeting was recently held in Pleasant. Hill regarding the passibility of extending the Pleasant 'Hill bus service into the unincorporated area in the Mobile Home Parks, in the P.H. sphere of influence. Representatives from the Mobile Home Parks have conducted a survey which shows a very high :`percentage of these residents are potential bus riders My office has also received inquiries concerning bus service in the Pacheco Blvd. corridor; serving the unincorporated communities. in Mt. View, Vine Hill, and the Blum Road areas. To futther investigate the feasibility, I would ask .the PUblic Works Department to do the following: 1. conduct an evaluation of the population in the unincorporated areas that might be served by this Pacheco corridor bus route. 2. based on this evaluation, estimate the amount of funds that might be available to the county through TDA (Transportation .Development Act) . 3. since the most practical routing of such a bus would have its starting point within the city limits of Martinez, begin a process of asking for cooperation with the city by assisting it in estimating the amount of TDA funds available to the city. 4. Evaluate the efforts of MTC and its projected survey to see if this might provide added information. State Appointment:.Family Planning Advisory Board Board Assignments: Mental Health Advisory Board Bay Conservation & Development Commission- Criminal Justice Agency - Economic Opportunity Council Internal Operations Committee-John Baldwin Ship Channel Steering Committee- Local Agency Formation Commission In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California September 5 , 19 78 In the Matter of I Vanpooling Services to Commuter Groups. I Mr. Tobias Kaye, Executive Director, Rides for Bay Area Commuters, Inc. , having appeared this day and explained a proposed program to provide vanpool services to commuter i groups and having urged the Board to endorse same; and i Board members having discussed the proposal with Mr. Kaye; and Good cause appearing therefor, the Board HEREBY ENDORSES the concept of vanpooling services for residents of Contra Costa County. PASSED by the Board on September 5, 1978. I I i I I I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. ! cc: Mr. Tobias Kaye Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of k County Counsel Supervisors Director of Public Works affixed this 5th day of sP=tPmhPr 19_7R County Administrator J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By. ��� Deputy Clerk Robb' Gutier z i I H -24 4/77 15m i ZOtt76 'vo 'Oos!:Iuej:j ucS '1001=1 436t '"any Ss8N USA OOL ,3Nr3v3inwwoo v3uvkva moa 8896-C98(9 t 17) jojaaj.io aA'anwx3 3AVN svisol r�1 (�} }i-y'' Jam>s R.dtsson WC; Po� d of S�, pe Wrs Contra a ..� Count; Ciar<end _ Ex O ficio C ark of the Board County Administration Building CostrA 'Mrs,Caraidina Russell Chisi C:arc P.U. Box 917 w, y Martinez,California 94553 ((''�� "� �IJ��L� -. (415)372-2371 James P.Kenny,-Richmond ist District Nancy C.Fanden-Martinez 2nd District ,✓ ^ Robert i.Schroder-Lafayette 3rd District cT" Warren N.Boggess-Concord 4th District DATE,: August 30, 1978 Eric H.hlasseitine-Pittsburg 5th District TO: . Tobias Kaye Executive Director. Rides For Bay Area Commuters ,, Inc. 100 Van, Ness Ave. , 19th Floor. San. Francisco, CA 94102 FRGT4: J. R. Olsson, Clerk of Che Board SUBJECT Vanpool Services to Commuter Groups Your matter has been listed on the Board calendar for 1978 and will be taken up at Approximately 9 . 30 a-m_ Please provide the clerk with a copy of your stats- ment either insadvance . or at the time of your appearance before the Board. Deputy Clerk Diana M. Herman cc: County Counsel County Administrator Department - Public Works Amok, August 211-, 1.978 FOR BAY AREA COMMUTERS,INC. R E I VED Supervisor Robert I . Schroeder, Chairman AU G x1978 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors County Administration Building j. R. OLSSON Martinez , CA 94553 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS n COA COSTA CO. Dear Supervisor Schroeder: The California Public Utilities Commission has recently directed that Greyhound may be permitted to discontinue its Central Contra: Costa service to commuters coming in- to downtown San Francisco. In speaking with P.U. C . and Greyhound officials , we understand that the service will definitely be terminated as of October 2, 1978. As you know :this disruption of service will be a major hardship for . the roughly 700 commuters who have come to depend on it . We have therefore been asked by M.T. C . to provide some alternative transportation service to avoid increased congestion and pollution resulting from additional vehicles on county roads . RIDES for Bay Area' Commuters , Inc . is a newly formed, publicly supported ride.sharinE corporation providing var_pool services to commuter groups throughout the ten county Bay Area. I have enclosed for your information, an Executive .Summary 'which describes our ' risk free ' program. We seek an opportunity to present this program before the Board of Supervisors as an attractive, inex- pensive, and immediately available alternative for com- muters who may not have good access to BART or other forms of transportation. The Board ' s strong and timely endorsement of this ride- sharing alternative will be a major factor in reaching these commuters before October.. If you have any questions or need additional information please feel free to call . Sincerely, Tobias Kay e Executive Director Enclosures TK:kg 100 VAN NESS AVE., 19th FLOOR, SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94102 (415) 863-9588 ^ / 17,Y -� � No A-proposed AC Transit least three months to co public hearings on the i bus fare increase would plete and could easily re- matter before making a not take, effect until at quire five or six months. final decision. least October, according The cost of the EIR Nisbet said a fare hike j to district officials. could range from $4,000 to is necessary because of The action needed to $90,000, Larson said. new state laws and Metro- raise fares was outlined - 'staff Transportation for the, district board fi- The district staff has Commission .rules that begun work on the"fare in- ` nance committee.yester- make it more difficult to day by, Acting General crease, and is expected in raise property taxes to the next few.weeks to ask Manager Robert Nisbet cover higher transit costs. and his staff. district directors to au- thorize the start of the Directors were issued a EIR. staff estimation of what Donald S. Larson, man- revenue ager of research and plan- Any fare raise would ning, said that a.state-re- have to be approved by if fare hikkeses derived from a nickel rom quired Environmental Im- the board of directors, pact Report would take at which will probably hold to 35 cents were adopted. The 13 report said, for example, a nickc el fare increase on local-runs would bring in almost $1.4 mil lion'more for the 1978-79 fiscal year, despite a loss of more than �. one million passenger trips.'- On the transbay run, the staff analysis figured a nickel fare, ; increase would bring $387,075;in new revenue without a loss in ridership. However, the report' said, a 10-cent fare hike would,j .bring `in. almost twice as much. 'r new revenue, but with a loss of 129,411 passenger trips. When and if a fare hike goes; into effect, it would be the first; increase in the 25-cent bus fare ; since the district was formed in 1960 to take over the Key Sys- tem. The transbay fare, which has been raised from time to" time, is now from 60 to 85 cents,' depending on the route. ''S f` In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa .County, State of California November 15 , 19 77 In the Matter of Assembly Transportation Committee Bearing. i The Public Works Director having reported that he has been invited to testify at hearings before the Assembly Transportation Committee on the future of street and highway financing in California; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Public Works Director is AUTHORIZED to attend such hearings and reaffirm the Board' s position on financing as expressed in Resolution No. 75/901, adopted by this Board on November 12 , 1975. PASSED by the Board on November 15, 1977. I I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Originating Department: Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Public Works Supervisors cc: Public Works Director. affixed this 15th day of November 19 77 County Administrator County Counsel R. OLSSON, Clerk Deputy Clerk Patricia A. Bell H -24 4/77 15m r` CONTRA. COSTA. COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Martinez, California __....:.. . ... _ ..:. - - _. . . - .__. November 15, 19.77 REPORTS . Report A. ASSEMBLY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE HEARING The -Assembly Transportation Committee is holding a series of hear- . Ings on the future of street and highway financing in California.., The Public Works Director has been invited to testify at the Northern California hearing In Oakland on November 21, 1977 to represent the point of view of urban counties. The purpose of the hearing 'is to determine the adequacy of existing methods` of financing state and local street and highway programs. -- The major question to be examined at this meeting.- is what effect will federal energy standards, which will increase miles per gallon by as much as 200% by 1985, have on fuel tax revenues used to finance transportation programs. As the amount of fuel gallonage used begins to decrease in spite of the. additional numbers of -vehicles that come on the highway system, other methods must be considered to finance the highway transportation . program which are not tied to gallonage of fuel consumed. This- Department will respond to the invitation from the Assembly Transportation Committee and reaffirm the Boardts position on financing, as expressed in -Resolution No, 75/901 adopted by the Board on November .12, 1975. Microfilmed with board order r i .. .. ' .. .:: .... .._ T 77 . DeadheadsCostingPienty By FRANK WOOTTEN Tri-Delta and Pleasant "-But the one benefit . Tribune Martinez Bureau Hill estimates may be will be the less time the Deadhead runs — those right. But AC has not buses are .running empty. passengerless trips to get .,pulled out the deadheading While the division yard ex- usse costs so it cannot give the . penses may be as high as ..buses esto runs — are taking and from their exact-costs. the deadheading costs, the regularg buses may have a 'little a huge fund bite from lo- Gene Gardiner said the more time on their cal.bus systems,in 'Contra various systems now have routes." Costa County. drown to the point where The T - Ita District it will be oracri�at r� nogn Including the Concord rhe a Central Contra Costa system and the BART estimates it takes nearly ounty bus yard as a feeder lines, for which no $100,000 of its $562,000 various cities have want- deadheading costs have annual budget to get six ;- been estimated, AC is op- buses back and forth be- — erating 30 buses in central tween the AC Transit yard AC is looking at several and eastern Contra Costa in- Emeryville and the sites in the Concord:area. County. Pittsburg-Antioch-Brent- But Gardiner said that ,wood area where.they car- . when the yard opens it Paul Kilkenny, the ry passengers. will not mean that Tri- county's transportation Pleasant Hill, which has Delta will have another expert, feels that even if a a smaller system and is $100,000 available for the yard is opened in the Con- much closer to the Emery- transit system. cord area, the buses on the Y- Moraga-Orinda system ville yards, estimates "We will have to have. still would deadhead from about $30,000 of its $185,- dispatchers, maintenance .Emeryville, which is clos- 000 transit budget is for people and a superintend- er. deadheading. ent," he said. "And,it is , AC Transit, which o er- very likely that the cost of The proposed West 1 p all of this_will be about County system would op- . ates all of the systems un- what is going into dead- erate out of the Richmond der contracts,, says "the heading. yard. � / �1 OF TR41 n S Q�� OQy o OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 r �a fU SrA EES O+Ptf' ASSISTANT SECRETARY July 7, 1977 RECEIVED JUL /a 1977 J, R. OLSSON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NSTA CO, LB ••James Kenny, Chairman •.• •..... ,De Contra Costa County Supervisors 100 - 37th Street Richmond, California 94805 Dear Mr. Kenny: The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention and to the attention of your staff the U.S. Department of Transportation's organization to assist in fulfilling Secretary Brock Adams' commitment to improve communication between the Department and State and local governments. The Secretary's Office of Intergovernmental Affairs has been organized to maintain liaison with State and local officials regarding transportation matters. This liaison is intended to supplement, but not supplant, the established contacts which State and local government officials presently have with the operating administrations within our Department. As a head- quarters office we can assist with special concerns and issues which may not fit neatly into the existing modal categories or which for other reasons you may wish to have brought to the attention of the Secretary. Mr. Ray Warner has been appointed as .Director of the Office of Intergovern- mental Affairs. He and his staff may be contacted at the address and tele- phone number which follow: - U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Intergovernmental Affairs (TCI-20) 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590 202/426-1524 We look forward to working with you and your transportation officials in a productive partnership in the years ahead. Sincerely, ' Terrence Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs y f In the Board, of Supervisors of r Contra Costa County, State of California i July 5 . 19 77 - 1 i i In the Matter of Proposal for Expanding Transit Services in Contra Costa County. The Board having received a June 27, 1977 letter from Mr. John L. McDonnell, President of Board of Directors, Alameda— Contra Costa Transit District, 508 16th Street, Oakland, California 94612 responding to Board orders relative to expanding transit services in central Contra Costa County as well as the feasibility of annexing to said District, and noting that a meeting between Alameda—Contra Costa .Transit management and county_ staff would be appropriate to evaluate potential approaches for implementing and improving public transit. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid response is REFERRED to the Public Works Director. PASSED by the Board on July 5, 1977. I i i i II - I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Public Works Director Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Director of Planning Supervisors County Administrator affixed this th:rlay of Jul 19 J. R. OLSSON, Clerk sy , Deputy Clerk Jeanne 0. Maglio H -24 3/76 15m I 0 AC . Trarr40it 508 16th Street, Oakland, California 94612 415) 654-7878 JOHN L.McDONNELL PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECEIVED. June 27 , 1977 ,;UN ? 8 1977 7 Mr. Warren N. Boggess, Chairman Contra Costa County. Board of Supervisors f J. R' °L! CLER OA OF U I RS P. 0. Box 911 NT COS A Martinez , Cal,i,fornia 94553 u B tv Dear ChairmanBoggess and Members of the Board of Supervisors : ' AC Transit has been provided with a copy of your Boards ' Resolutions relative to expanding transit services in central Contra Costa County as well as the feasibility of annexing to the District. As you are aware, AC Transit now provides local public transit 'service under contract to the cities of Moraga, Pleasant Hill, Concord, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Brentwood and certain unincorporated areas adjacent thereto. The existing contracts have proven to be an excellent means of allowing each community to design a system which is best suited to their community needs. Each community determines the type of equipment, levels' of service, routes, fares and marketing program while AC Transit operates the system consistent with the wishes of the community. This approach has proven to be very successful thereby allowing the decision making powers to rest at the local level. Based on our experience it appears that a sound course of action would be to allow these individual communities to continue their experimentation with public transit for a few more years thereby allowing time for their system to develop and mature. It may be desirable to postpone consideration of annexation to AC Transit, or establishment of a more formal subregional transit organization, until after this maturing period has taken place. A more ambitious approach at this time might diminish the potential for future transit development in the County. AC Transit is anxious to continue working with the County and local communities leading towards a local transit system which would cover the entire central Contra Costa County area. The District is presently evaluating potential sites in the Concord area for a -bus storage and maintenance facility to better serve the entire central and eastern Contra Costa area. i o � • Ir additiori',. mprovements in local bus services "are cons.tantly, being •implemented based upon anongoing evaluation' kiy . local officials .and the. District. Attached 'for your information is a compilation *of the Transit District Law pertaining to" annexation, taxation, and bond'.indebtedness as' well as the steps leading to annexations . A '.thorough review of..t•he::most acceptable- program for transit development -in, centra'l .and .eastern Contra Costa County, might well " entail some 'amendments or modifications to - the enabling act that created AC -Transit in .order ,to provide a -more' flexible organi- zational arrangement." The'. District ,looks' forward to working: with the County towards a'"comriori. goal 'of implementing 'and _improving public transit. To :this' •,e'nd; `it .would be appropriate to set up a- meeting between our management and your staff to evaluate potential .approaches for reaching this objective. truly ruly- Yours, John L. McDonnell JLMc D/,s f At. 'OA_CO+T RA COSTA T RQI'c SIT 0IS f RI�Y' A Su111h111h5' OF THE TRANSIT DISI' UCT T-P PERTAINING TO \ A VEXATION, TAXATION, AND BONDED INDEBTEDNESS GENE"RAI.. DISTRICT AREA SPECIAL TRANSIT SERVICE DISTRICT AREA. I , Definition t The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit The District is permitted ` District now consists of all of Alameda under the law to create special County west of the City of Hayward, in- service districts which may con- cluding the Cities of Hayward, Sar. Lean.- list of less than the total dro, Alameda, Oakland, Piedmont, Emeryville, district area. At the present Berkeley and Albany, and all of western time the District has created Contra Costa County including the Cities Special Transit Service District of Richmond, San Pablo; El Cerrito and the No. 1, which consists of all of unincorporated areas such as Kensington the area of the District with the and El Sobrante. exception of a sparsely settled area of Alameda County'in the vicinity of the upper San Leandro Reservoir. r II � f hethod of Initiating Annexation i By city council on behalf of the Board of Directors of District f city or a petition signed by 10 percent may determine that a city or un- of total vote cast; incorporated area within the over- . By Board of Supervisors on behalf of all District should be annexed to unincorporated territory. the special transit service district after hearing is held. Any city or the county may object to its territory being included and require an election therein; otherwise, no election is necessary. NOTE; The annexation agreement between a city or county and the District .for annexation to the overall District may include a provision agreeing that such annexation will also constitute annexation to the special transit service district. III Approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission. Prior to proceeding with annexation c to the District the city, or county in the case of unincorporated territory, must obtain the approval of the Local Agency Formation Commission for the annexation. The pro- i cedures for such approval and the factors „ to be considered by the commission in its � review of the annexation are contained in " Chapter 6.5 commencing with Section 54.750 of the Government Code and in substance include, but are not limited to, the following: population, density and growth, per capita assessed valuation, need for organized communit;T services, future need for such services`, alternate courses of action and the effect of the proposed awnexati.on on mutual, sochl and economic Anterests of the COMMU0W The Local Ageacy Formation Convissi,on consists of five (5) munb ;rs selected .as follows: J.. GI,1\SBAL DISTRICT SPECIAL TrAIA SERVICE DISTPJCT AREA (a) Two (2) representing the county, each of whom shall be a county officer appointed by the Board of Supervisors. ( ) Two (2) representing the cities in the county, each of whom shall be a city officer appointed by a city solecti.on committee. (c) One (1) representing the general f public appointed by the other four members i of the commission. 4 IV Vote Required for. Annexation A favorable vote of a majority of . If election is required, a the electorate within the area to be favorable vote of a majority of the annexed; except, if any indebtedness electorate is sufficient. of the District is to be assumes' a 2/3 vote of those voting is necessary. V Annexation Election Costs Costs of the annexation election Costs of the annexation election shall be borne by the city or county shall be borne equally by the city or requesting annexation. county requesting annexation and the District VI Annexation Agreement Prior to the annexation election an (Same: See Note in annexation agreement shall be drawn be- paragraph II above) twee n the District and the annexation proponents, containing the terms and conditions of the annexation with re- spect to any special, taxes, etc. VII Services to be Rendered Outside of special transit service Full operation of facilities with areas it is contemplated that the only service to all parts of the special service rendered would be planning transit service area to the extent f toward eventual extension of service by found feasible and desirable by the annexation of areas not included in District Board of Directors. special district. VIII I Establishment of Boundaries of Directorst Wards Wards for the election of Directors (Ward boundaries not affected by .:hall be established prior to each 'bi•- boundaries of special transit ennial general election and shall con- service district.) tain an equal number of voters, as j nearly as may heti k LSC Taxation Except- for areas within boundarITS - w Ttio absolute limit. Board may tax of a special transit service district, to make up any deficiencies in annual � tax is limited to 11 per $100 assessed revenue from the operation of facilities, valuation. and must tax if revenue is not suffi- cient to pay the principal and interest on any outstanding bonds. 2 GENZ)'AL DI,73 RECT_AIEA SPECIAL TI-MSIT SERVICE DISTRICT ARCS+, X tyxistinr Indebtedness A city or unincorporated area annex- A city or unincorporated area an- ing to the District may assume outstand- nexing to the special transit service ing indebtedness of the District upon a district from within the overall dis- 2/3 vote of those voting at the time of trict may assume outstanding indebted- annexation. ness of the special transit service dis- trict. No trate is required unless objection is filed. (See Paragraph II above.) XI Future Indebtedness -- Bond Issues A 2/3 vote of those voting is neces- A majority vote is necessary to sary to approve a bond issue in the Dis- approve a bond issue in a special tran- trict as a whole. sit service district. Prepared by t Robert E—Nisbet, Attorney Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District i R i 4 ! l 1 t f+ f b t t k { 3 3 I C loth& Board of Su ervisop of Contra Costa County, State of California _ Nay--l7 , 19 77 In the Matter of Proposal for Expanding Transit Services in Contra Costa County. Fallowing a workshop presentation concerning transit services in Contra Costa County, the Board on May 10, 1977 requested Alameda—Contra Costa Transit District to -provide a proposal as to how it would furnish bus service to that portion of the County that can feasibly be served by bus transit, to include the cost of said service, as well as .a report on the feasibility of annexing to the AC Transit District the areas of the county not now included in said district; and Supervisor J. P. Kenny having recommended that the Board reaffirm its request for said proposal- and report; and Supervisor hT. C. Fanden having seconded the motion; . and S?xpervisor R. I. Schroder having indicated that he opposed said recommendation and having declared that such action should not be taken without coordination and contact with the eoven cities lying within the central and eastern portion. of the county and Board members having discussed the matter, the vote was as follows: AXES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, N. C. Fanden, E.' H. Hasseltine, and W. N. Boggess. NOES: Supervisor R. I.. Schroder. ABSENT None. PASSED by the. Board on May 17, 1977. I .hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order enured on the ;minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc: Public Works Director AC Tran.sit(Via Public Supervisors Works Director) affixed this l 7th clay of rt ,; Coun� ty Administrator Director of Planning J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By _ Deputy Clerk Bi .A ie C. Souza H-24 4/77 15M t' - THE BOARD OF SUPER visoase CONTRA COSTA COU?QTY, STATE OF CALIF01UIIA .. May 109 1977 In the. Matter of Proposal for Expanding Transit Services in Contra . Costa County. This being the time for a workshop presentation con- cerning transit services-in Contra Costa County; and Mr. V. L. Cline, Public Works Director, and members of his staff having provided an overview of the. past history and current policy of transportation services in Contra Costa County; and Members of the Board having discussed the various . aspects of public transportation, and Mr. Paul Bay, Deputy Executive Director of the regional Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and Mr. Gene Gardener, Senior Transportation Planner for the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, .. having responded to the several questions posed by Board members; and Supervisor J. P. Kenny having moved that AC -Transit District be requested to provide a proposal as to how it would furnish bus service to the central county areas, and the cost' for said service, as well as a .report on the feasibility of annexing to the AC Transit District the central part of Contra Costa County; and Supervisor R. I. Schroder having stated that he would vote against the motion in that he is not convinced that there is a need nor that the areas involved would be receptive to a transit system subsidized through -property taxes; and Supervisor N. C. Fanden having seconded the motion, the vote was as follows: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, N. C. Fanden, E. H. Hasseltine, and W. N. Boggess. NOES: Supervisor R. I.. Schroder. ABSENT: None. Supervisor E. H. Hasseltine having then recommended that the aforesaid motion include the area to be served by the Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority, and Supervisor W. N. Boggess having suggested that the area to be considered include all of Contra Costa County that can. feasibly be served by bus transit; . IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of Supervisor Hasseltine , as amended by Supervisor Boggess, is APPROVED. Nr. Gene Gardener having stated that much of the back- i ground material required for said report was already in the files of the AC Transit District, and having indicated that if the District were interested in serving the area in question, a report could probably be submitted at the next meeting of .this Board; and . a . L Mr. Clinetavin , then recommended tha the Metropolitan Transportation Commission be urged to change its rules concerning local matching requirements for the funding of public transportation projects, inasmuch as an estimated $8 million in unallocated Transportation Development Act tax funds could be available to the cities and the county, if they were not required to match l for every $3 of Transportation Development Act money; IT IS BY THE BOARD FURT_ -M ORDERED that the aforesaid recommendation of the Public Works Director is AP°ROVED. PASSED by the . Board May. 10, 1977 I IMEBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my. hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed this 10th day of May, 1977. i. R. OhSSON, CLERK By Billie -C. SouzaQ Deputy Clerk cc: Public Works Director AC Transit (Via Public Works Director) County Administrator Director of Planning Metropolitan Transportation Commission f i jI .—........!qn• -�..-..,^^.^.t•.--s�n;}'EF +.m..—.^,.; :.s'T"�""im^.� ,^'4a+�^^,'.-n..'"r`l,•�"!..!eJ,i'!e^�'�ttr^°'T".' Y"..'+'. t q .n^.c+g4^ts:.•--".•.+-m , kI80 tribune CONTRA COSTA .COI all ; TiNo �q t ervice, 'ea . om !g Tribune Martinez Bureau Pleasant HUB,Concord,Pittsburgh, Antioch and' er the entire central-county area. With several areas contracting with AC Tran- Brentwood and certain unincorporated areas. "The district is presently evaluating potential• sit for bus service,.now is the wrong time to "Based on our experience,it appears that a; sites in the Concord area for a bus storage and consider:annexing practically all of Contra Costa' sound course of action would be to allow these. maintenance facility to better serve the entire, County, said the head of`the transit.district individual communities to continue their experl- central and eastern Contra Costa area,"McDon- board of directors. mentation with;public transit.for a few more nell said. John L.McDonnell's remarks were made in a years,thereby allowing time for their systems to He told.the board existing contracts with the letter to the Contra Costa County Board of Su- develop and mature," McDonnell wrote the cities have proved to be excellent ways of allow- pervisors. board. r ing each community to design a system which is In May,the supervisors asked AC to come up "It may be desirable to postpone considera-., best suited to its needs. with a proposal to furnish bus service to the tion.of annexation to AC Transit, or establish:` "This approach has proven to be.,very sue- county and to say how much it would cost. ment of a more•formal,subregional transit organ,. ' ' cessful, thereby allowing.the decision-making -The Richmond area already is in AC,and.the nization, until after'this maturing :period -has powers to rest_at the local level." I supervisors indicated the AC study should not taken place. Amore ambitious approach at this, • He suggested the county and district work consider bus service in the eastern county farm time might diminish•the potential for...future '. together in improving public transit. "To this I areas that would not benefit from public trans- transit development in the county. end,it would be.appropriate to set up a meeting portation. McDonnell said the transit district is anxious between our management and your staff to eval- McDonnell,wrote back, pointing out that AC to continue,working,with the county and local uate potential approaches for reaching this ob- now provides service under:contract to Moraga, communities toward.a system.which would cov jective,"be said: II i a j i i l I In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California X.ay • 19 In the Matter of Proposal for Expanding Transit Services in Contra Costa County. Following a workshop presentation concerning transit services in Contra Costa County, the Board on May 10, 1977 requested Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District to provide a proposal as to how it would furnish bus service to that portion of the County that can feasibly be served by .bus transit, to include the cost of said service, as well as a report on the feasibility of annexing to the AC Transit District the areas of the county not now included in said district; and Supervisor J. P. Kenny having recommended that the Board reaffirm its request for said proposal and report; and Supervisor N. C. Fanden having seconded the motion; and Supervisor R. I. Schroder having indicated that he opposed said recommendation and having declared that such action should not be taken without coordination and contact with the eleven cities lying within the central and eastern portion of the county; and Board members having discussed the matter, the vote _vras as . follows: a AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, N. C. Fanden, E. H. Hasseltine, and W. N. Boggess. NOES: Supervisor R. I. Schroder. ABSENT : None. PASSED by the Board on May 179 1977. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc: Public Works Director AC Transit(Via Public Supervisors Works Director) affixed this 17th day of X2,, 197 County Administrator Director of Planning J. R. OLSSON, Clerk 0 By C_ Deputy Clerk Billie C. So� u H-24 4/77 15m �J l CA ) ��� c IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 7 OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA . May 109 1977 In the Matter of Proposal for Expanding Transit Services in Contra Costa County. This being the time for a workshop presentation con- cerning transit services-in Contra Costa County; and Mr. V. L. Cline, Public Works Director, and members of his staff having provided an overview of the past history and current policy of. transportation services in Contra Costa County; and Members of the Board having discussed the various aspects of public transportation, and Mr. Paul Bay, Deputy Executive Director of the regional Metropolitan Transportation. Commission, and Mr. Gene Gardener, Senior Transportation Planner for the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, having responded to the several questions posed by Board members; and Supervisor J. P. Kenny having moved that AC Transit District be requested to provide a proposal as to how it would furnish bus service to the central county areas, and the cost for said service, as well as a report on the feasibility of annexing to the AC Transit District the central part of Contra Costa County; and Supervisor R. I. Schroder having stated that he would vote .against the motion in that he is not convinced that there _ is a need nor that the areas involved would be receptive to a transit system subsidized through property taxes; and Supervisor N. C. Fanden having seconded the motion, the vote was as follows: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, N. C, Fanden, E, H. Hasseltine, and W. N. Boggess. NOES: Supervisor R. I. Schroder. ABSENT: None. Supervisor E. H. Hasseltine having then recommended that the aforesaid motion include the area to be served by the Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority, and Supervisor W. N. Boggess having suggested that the area to be considered include all of Contra Costa County that can feasibly be served by bus transit; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of Supervisor Hasseltine, as amended by Supervisor .Boggess, is APPROVED, Mr. -Gene Gardener having stated that much of the back- ground material required for said report was already in the files of the AC Transit District, and having indicated that if the District were interested in serving the area in question, a report could probably be submitted at the next meeting of this Board; and . u i Mr. Cline having then recommended that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission be urged to change its rules concerning local matching requirements for the funding of public transportation. projects, inasmuch as an estimated $8 million in unallocated Transportation Development Act ,tax funds could be available to the cities and the county, if they were not required to match $1 for every 33 of Transportation Development Act money; IT IS BY THE BOARD FURTHER ORDERED that the aforesaid recommendation of the Public Works Director is APPROVED. PASSED by the Board May 10, 1977. I IEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed this 10th day of May, 1977. J. R. OLSSON, CLERK By , Billie C. Souz Deputy Clerk cc: Public Works Director AC Transit (Via Public Works Director) County Administrator Director of Planning Metropolitan Transportation Commission N\ j your" oo �� fD'o �o✓ ya � wr.L N o'OOfD� �aq � a.�' z � • � . O. OQQ y w ❑ CD _ O' (n G H(Dms" w (�D r. oa CD S' y y ¢K Cl)IDw IDID IMD.10D 11 21 cn CL �, a~ ,, o o y M CD � cr M ID 10- 5" � c 5ID o l G�:� F�oC7c He =(D EOM cn mat, OID y AO .< . Cop?�CCa�O � tocn �0 m O C rMIA, CD IID O.� �y S' �C .�G O =_ ¢ W-Z% mod=.V c¢ oxr"° ='rC ocD M .oma Co lD DiD oma. o t '01 o �ow A•>v (D �.O CD O X00 CDCMD Wcoc2CML y c � r —r= "V C o y �� � P� � `•cDD ((DDCDDOCD pC eC A O �eC QQ O (D.. O (D .,S� - O y ' y,0 C (D wo. cr - ((DD .A...W n=. w (DSO O � �(a MMyC R �... D � O rL ID � � c fv �� GL A p, OCD I �t C cD 0 =-E O oCD a� 1. norOnr c�DO3 S'A� --t (wig ID o_cD m O 0'Q � A� CL (OD (¢D COs O y O =� � M(D E �. 00 � � .. AiC L ID�Cn O k Rte, g O "'t OA �*-Oy �`C A � x'fyD O K, O c.((DD n CD CnD OnEr � � ABX O.A.!•i .(D � ', x I 1 - t - b c rn oxo t ai m < d n ►s � C w � t0-, � to � m � � ro �-.. .-• ,ce ro •-* ro ro . c�. VCs " w a '` j3 tOD R C C , a4 yr g ro C crop i° Ii rn :' I—": ►s C Q ,- p''rro� v' C froD G. Ci. t�D vpi ^'"'Y e�D W p LOU E S p e"..' r0 O CSD ..:i. togo ca '3t ZT e� F+a ca, Cif Cf `" ro O O e-• �' O ro fp r Oa a 92 s p .3. =. ro 5 ro "�. O. O O• y O O�C a. A+ .-� O i? �_ O a o S� '-' ro ea'^ `� fes"? `C7 '.� "r Sy O — Cr O c �. cron rros ro , R .c w a a o R ti MC :rtj �• � ceotros 5tcU tDr. cao, ozzoa ren -. ,ros awa O" O O ro C om. -`, f, CS rai o-ef3 M n �. O O O O O •-S e••• CL".""'.. S O f.,� ro ,.r .`"... LR `'Y cn cr C �. �: ro� ^s a s o tp {D O OG u7 G� . e CD � 21 - @ Er rs m o a a K ro ro c" CD 0 CD En IRa a* ro m ro ¢ � o ••• �. � mroo � vaio coc � � .� R" � o � ran c .M co ztroa, m, � ' tD o •-, o � oaa� ey ^, ev ^Y .��- .o... O � ...arq to '� CD G.� `� a rai a Pa C` o :r », CID, w v - oiZ C p o U, DJ ro _ '< air C y �-. a = o ^ ro 5. rte. 1 x v� -r Cr ��' =� ` X n a i e� ro a O a ro C ro rn C 7. ro O ... "" � to Co. r e r _ +C C/] ro o �'.CA ro o "�. b aro o `� as .�y ro n a D '� CL � ty'% � ro •-t •-r ((qp � Vi � a-r a— ro ro ro �' +"; O• e••r rA p tp e-. QQnow 0 CD t7 O a• r+a tip Vi •�Y ca'C "�' """'"'+ O _ b7J O N `D !.+ "Ip ro "". O ^! O .�.• O .^q < eA•r GIf CL G• O'1 M R+ o R W v� m " •"` e-.'.... to O• <4 ct� �'i (p R <p ,... y CD �C O "" Car G O �_ pton, ro r• rte. C e0► «r�+ �' pW C � ... aIQ 6T ch r_rM te � .aA o c�v� � ro ro ccun a � ' �"' c M• �' ca.`'� eroD � � � �. � aeon , � o � roa 5 •� � a R _ �, o a `�° CD 4nCL CA U, CL o � , � CAro ro m� rrosr: y .�. SCD e.,,� O ••��- O O' CD 7 T'aC O ro - ro r-n r� o M = 5 _ c� ro ^. , �%�. s a cos A. R ¢' D � ro ro o � as � � ( co cn r9 _ (�9 ��-• C11 ° "3' CA CL CIOp ro a C cD o cS w G ,troll 5 O O o ro rn to rt"'.., .~.• O' o C o a iT.ro a o o cn a a '^ O.n t A r0^, C t`D C CeD CD CD A� �G W OQ Supervisor Hasseltine having moved for funding for a six- month extension of the service,. and the motion having died for lack of a second ; and Supervisor Schroder having noted that the East County Transit Authority will begin a fixed route bus - service in the area beginning June 6 , 1977 , and having moved that the recommendation of the Finance Committee be approved and that May 10 , 1977 at 1 : 30 p.m. be fixed as the time for said work study session on the County' s transportation policy ; and Supervisor Kenny having seconded the motion , the vote was as follows : AYES : Supervisors J. P. Kenny, N. C. Fanden, R. I. Schroder, E. H. Hasseltine. NOES : Supervisor W. N. Boggess. ABSENT : None. I i i Part of the TDA funding sought would go toward progres- sive replacement of the four exist- ing shuttle buses with newer equipment, probably diesel-pow- ered, city engineer Marc Goto said. City officials say Walnut Creek is,able.to,provide.local service at- less expense than through AC Transit. TDA application is described as the first step in a five-year program aimed toward eventual development of a full citywide r transit system. v,..... ..rte •...._-.,. -.f' � , v In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California Lfaz February 15 19 77 In the Matter of Presentation onTransit Financing Plan; San Francisco Bay Region. This being the time fixed for presentation of findings and recommendations with -respect to The,-Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transit Financing Plan for the San Francisco Bay region ; and Mr. Paul• C. Watt , Executive Director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Mr. Nat Gage , Project Director, Metropolitan Transportation .Commission Assistant Director , having appeared and reviewed said plan and responded to questions posed by members of the Board ; and Supervisor Eric H. Hasseltine having expressed his concern about the need for equitable collection and distribution of _transportation ;moneys ; The Board expressed its appreciation to Messrs . Watt and .Gage for their appearance and presentation.- THIS IS A MATTER OF RECORD. NO BOARD ACTION TAKEN. A MATTER OF RECORD I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of 4M eislm entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Public Works Director Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Metropolitan Transportation Supervisors Commission, * affixed this!5 th'day of F.eb.ru ary q 7 7 County Counsel County Administrator J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By. Deputy Clerk Robbie utierr 4 H -24 3/76 15m i Pubfis Works Department ConDepuutra R. h tyy-B-Busiusiness and SerJlces Costa (415) 372-2105 Kermit 6th Floor, Administration Building Mark L.Kermit Martinez, California 94553 Deputy-Transportation (415) 372-2102 County (415) 372-2102 R.M. Rygh Vernon L. Cline Deputy-Buildings and Grounds Public Works Director Room 115,Courthouse(415) 372-2214 J.E.Taylor J.Michael Walford Deputy-Operations Chief Deputy & Flood Control 255 Glacier Drive (415) 372-4470 January 27, 1977 RECEIVED . Mr. Paul Bay; Deputy Executive Director JAN 2 8 1977 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Hotel Claremont . . of -0r1 Berkeley CA 94705 CLERK�_* VISORS If 0441 B ......... ...Deputy Dear M5_1_&6 This is to confirm our conversation at the MTC meeting on January 26. The Board of- Supervisors has accepted your offer to make a presentation on the Transportation.-Financing Plan. Tuesday, February 15, 1977, at 11 :35 a.m. ,, has been set aside for this presentation. We are looking forward to your presentation. Very truly yours, Vernon L. Cline Public Works Director By ark L. Kermit Deputy Public Works .Director" Transportation MLK:fa cc: rthur G. Will , County Administrator -Geraldine Russell , Chief Clerk of the Board fOC ' , 45 Civic Avenue Hasseltine , `\ � California 94565 (415) 4394138 �,.. ,,-- Supervisor, District Five Contra Costa County °fit- r, y"Q 120 South Hartz Avenue Board of Supervisors A -.�� Danville,California 94526 (415) 820-3742 COU Murch 8 , 1977 To: Members of the Board Arthur Will Charles. Hammond Vern Cline Mark Kermit From: Eric Hasseltine Subject : PITC Financing Study I believe that there are two premises from which we must proceed : . (1) There is a need for public transit and a need for overall public support of transit systems (2) The provision and subsidization of transit systems should be consistent with the . distribution of demand for transportation. The implication of the acceptance of these premises is that Contra Costa should share in the effort to finance transit to the extent that we create the need. I have _undertaken a brief analysis of the. MTC Financing proposal in this light . My conclusions are : (1) The proposed plan for use of the 1/2 cent sales tax throughout the BART District and increased bridge tolls does not provide a revenue base consistent with the transportation demand. RECEIVED MAR X 1977 J. R LSSON' C BO CO Cos FSUPE ISORS e ur (2) However , there is no inequity in the proposed plan for Contra Costa. There are , I believe , inequities r Alameda and San Francisco. (3) Contra Costa has little to gain by advocating a change in this plan other than. the satisfaction .of dealing with a serious local government, concern in a more logical and appropriate manner. Some points of information for your consideration follow. My estimates of the percentage distribution of revenues by County (that can be identified from available data) are : REVENUE PERCENTAGE COUNTY BRIDGE TOLL SALES TAX TOTAL ALAMEDA 34 . 4 43 41 . 1 CONTRA COSTA 25 . 5 22 22 . 8 SAN FRANCISCO 18 . 5 35 31. 4 SAN MATEO 3. 5 0 0 . 8 SANTA CLARA 0 . 5 0 0 . 1 My estimates (not very accurate) of total traffic distribution are as follows : PERCENTAGE COUNTY BART BRIDGE ALAMEDA 34 30 . 6 CONTRA COSTA 28 29 . 3 SAN .FRANCISCO 21 21. 3 SAN MATEO 17 .5 . 4 My conclusion, therefore , is that both San Francisco and Alameda m—�y be' paying more than their share , but Contra Costa is not . What is missing is data on AC Transit an .SF riders . w There is one more note that I consider significant . Of the total current deficit of the 3 transit systems , BART is responsible for 600 . Yet , under the funding arrangement , if all the 1/2 cent . s.ales tax goes to BART, 78 of the total revenue goes to BART. In addition, if one looks .at the MTC projections for 1980 , 91% of the total revenues are scheduled for BART. TFis means that AC Transit and SF Muni are expected to find alternative means to meet their deficits in addition to .b ridge tolls, but BART is given the 1/2 cent sales tax plus a share of bridge tolls to make up its deficit . This is not a program to help AC Transit and SF Muni . They are expected to receive TDA funds as a major source of assistance . This program adds bridge tolls .to the property tax and sales tax in a further effort to save BART. c.r In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California January 25 ___, 1977 In the Matter of Transit Financing Study Summary, San Francisco Bay Region. The Board having received a January 17, 1977 memorandum from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission transmitting Transit Financing Study Summary, San Francisco Bay Region, dated January 10, 1977; and The Board having considered the- matter IT IS ORDERED that February 15, 1977 at 11:35- . a.m. is FIXED for staff presen- tation of findings and recommendations with respect to said Study Summary. PASSED by the Board on January 25, 1977 . 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc : Public Works Director Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of County Counsel Supervisors County Administrator affixed this25thday .of January 19 � Mayor Richard T. LaPointe City of Concord Metropolitan Transpor- tation Com. c/o P.W. By Deputy Clerk Helen C. Marshall H - 24 3/76 15m \I Mefrop®/IPan T ansportatlon C®mmIs".-Von memorandum data: January 17, 1977 w.i. 1006-01-08 to: Chairmen, Boards of Supervisors fr : Nat Gage re : San Francisco Bay Area Transit Financing Study L M1 a Enclosed for distribution to your boards is ^ITC's Transit Financing Study 5Summary. RECEIVED JAN 18 1977 of e J. . OLSSON CLERK B ARD Or SUPERVISORS ` NTA OSSA ERV B ..... De u Metropolitan 1} Transportation Commission Hotel Claremont•Berkeley, Ca 94705 -iRST ��@. j' W.N. Boggess, Chairman Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 HOTEL CLAREMONT 0 BERKELEY.CALIFORNIA 94705 • (415)a4S-3223 �L s/ Jopio panoq qpm pow"!],03:51 Q tai U X cc o,o O vc� cc Cl) LL C/)� Cl) < _ y �M. M iii » Y,e, 4` A . r, r r S _ ` t -_ — ,7 '�__ . ..meq.• . .: �...Ci.— "e�\F.. - _ \�—'�—'"�� t. C37 Z a 0ou o o v , °`C-00W w � , C� C� z tom• (MY W z �, rt cc W Wz �„ C3- z ••-� Q J QChu 0 z O W cr W 0 z� � _ E- I— 0 W - J Cl) 0 W y0 W a Ca W F— Q z v ;z — � 0 z _ = W J = �• c� _ j t. - z iJ �c a Cl) W �- W �o 0 cn Rn v CD OCD COO T 97 A `0 13 CD gip ^ 0 CD c13 ➢Z 'U03 13 m Z oZ a i • CY) ,., W I co O > E .-- o f to tc$ > ' N N O N C L Cf) cn O ca -1 Q +' .0 CO C �_ Co CO UtC = tt> ~ C - `O toco N O co V aU- ++ - C Q ?r 4° i CL 0 NS0 p � U . CO CO0 -0 CD - N � C 0 OOC+- NCV s a) CO ,C . N a) a) > 0 N NC O UN +' co ? Caj � ' 3 O o, •tN O c O %- Q c,. ° cnov► (n n t p ° o a'o• 4.O V mC O NO C 4- ' 0 0 s0� C asi L _ CS + a CO 0) CL 10R .. U v�'i � OC � `� cNa � � C •— sou a NN co O cas -a a. N O U �«- .N 0.0 O N a) ttS E a) ,4.? a) j �- C C C a a) ❑- cz ° o C CL .,. cc$ E o cts -a m -a co w 4- N c o cn U U > U ,� -a 0. cnO N a) U -a CL 0 co N as -c E C13 (n > te a) 4-' a cn � , 0 a, -C a) -a �' @ C- a � 4-- -a a a-' X -a _ O cn 0 ,., 4- N Q p _ C a N ct3 cd c 1 (n 3 o -a cc$ O C C y0 ° N « flaQ U :3� +(nco E cn c ) t :3 O - >) co Q ct$ co ; -a N cnn cc$ co C-m o ° N c NN O S aQ =45 :� .�� -aQuLso c � oa 0 d -' ch cv Q O c O �+U ''' N m co cn O co *' co a a = ocn aCi o N -Y moi; �' ccd COoN � wow o. o cn Q w cD o CD CD a CD CD a , 3 — w cn c � w CD CD W w < T CL Oi NcD CD �:3 O CD CL cQ : cn 3 �, ' m OD 0D 0 cn n 3 Oo ° oon � � �; (° W z � a C: C: 3 = G � < � �- � ,.+ CD o C r+ = n r+ —. (n (D (n n Q S cQ O fA M W n o cQ N CD T. 3 w "0CO N O (D 3 w =r CD .00 (p `G n c n CD CD n' o Q � ,--� _ CD . Ea CDcn N � (o CD CD L C Cn 3 = C) CD CD cn C Q ,••. N O Q (o CD. a c =rCD < (n n Q Q CD � CD '+ 0 D (D N C O (n C CD C� O n n Q n CD w 3 Q 0 ,�,f C a � -0p � � CD CD CD w 3 (o cn 3 -• � Q CD 3 CD �. CO 0 3 � � �, CD � - 3. 3 < Ocn 0 CD CD COn C CND n O W CD QL N CD Cb o (n CD C tD � U) CO 5)- cn CD 14% (a 0 0 ;;: --% ---i %< 11% 0 :3 2) CD --4% CD Er 0 n Q S N cn C CD CD C c '+ r0+ =� iU �' • n CD Cn � -, •O —. + O 0 w � 3 � W CD(Q � � 0 � �.� � " CD CD CD C (� �_ C D O CD 0- CD CD ,.+ Q =+ CD cn n 07 :3O r+ W n D CD _ _ CD w cn (�D O Sv w Ei- =3 -• � s� tv 3 :3 —. =3 cn n O W ,+ QCD :. (Q co `G iUi (D LO .0OE C6 -Wo r, C: 0 > cz. Z j6 'm .0 cn 0) n cn c T3 U 0 c 0 C: =) Co O in " 0 75 E a) 0- CL cz co cn -C (D - -W -0 '0 07 0) C 0 0 (D = U) E Zo 4-0 cz * =3 C E0 x w o E .2 cc cn cz a) 4.0 0 0 0 E co U) M C OcnC E co(D c cn 0) 0 0 "D " 0 E E ca "R +� 0) M C co Co-0 0)0 cz cn co +� c (n 0 - CL 0 0 4- C) 00 0 0)Co L- — w �–U) 0 D *� 2 c �o CL 4- (D (> C 5L U) 0 o - O C: Co E • 0, Q cz 0 U) El a) oc: cn 0 cn 0 (D 0 4— a) %4- O 0 "0 < +, cn W (D cn c: 0 C6 U) C� ol c CD a) E U) :3 0) :3 0) 0) 0 co cu (D C (D (D a) .0 r %- (n 0) CL E " 0 c c < u ' o0 > cn a)m c o -D c cn (D 0 0 C r- ca cn 0 =3 CL a) a) IC U c 0 0) .423 E > c cz . 0) 0 0 -0 C: 0 0 0 co cn -,,e I -W 0 0 0 0 Cl) 0) CU (D -0 co 3: ED — -0 cn cz c (n 'W 0) -a -- o 0 0 C 0 0 a) 0 E T c 4� %- .- . U) 0 CZ c 0 0 w O) o ca ui -c *:E .CL C: E 0 a cD r— +- 0) cn -0 (D X E .2 co U) cn 4� o) 0 0 -0 u) M (D w c a)w 0 C c (D(D (D C Co C CO n W 0 4� X -0 E CL cnE CU Fo a) -0 cn 0 0 0 0-W M = 0) w M m 0) cn 0 cn CO 0)a) w 0 (D w cu �c 5 75 o c 0 < c) (n 0 0 0 0 0 U) c w 0 0. 0) cz C -cn 0 .— .- -05 iS E -0 ) — a) -�e " E cn rn co -o Rz c 'L: - . co ca a) cz c a) :3 C 0 :3 (n E c 0) In -o 4- ca cz U) 0 C: CZ >. 0 6 2 =3 0 0 :3 _ ° ccu o CL in > E E in • D X11 Z C m D = < n _ C Z O m O J0 L, m o m D x 0 90 m w m m O N CO) ? Ui V ap Z � � � C = 0 �--- --� _ o h Cl) CD Cn r- OU) 11) ::3 Cf) =3 c � D � T a� Q c0. F :0 �,cn (n w rj) n tQ 0 O, O � Q. .. N � •� -� cd 0 v O N 3 O- t? -7� 34co N O N � S C' S •�.. N D N .� ° �d �9+U � p cv p G 0 •�,� � �' U S N N N p °v L6 'd O .r p� •x, r•- � c6 G r� C-1 ° T ctS t9 Cf� '' U cd G cY4 N N OC1N• Ca �' Gc6 N N N S O © G — _ 6 'p f 00 O G O C O v .+t� CO 00) - N .. Co o O c6T_ O N ° O ¢ � U- 0) O � v � .d cd G ¢ .,-� ° G L- V Y O O N ° cy ? U -0 ,• N .' N S td O v o- s v v ¢o r, Q �' S� '0 O O G O N O G4 Y o � Y O- .r N Y O N a, c6 Co �,. p ,.� O O v i N N to N .r V .}- p7 c4 ° ¢ O d N �cd N ttS wG N c67 V S G cs N p o Y Co .a Y N Y C N N ° o ' T Y Y Y Y cd .�, O �d ~ C °Y G � O N p' Q N "-• O T ;r s- O 0 0 0 cd O hCG O a v r� N i 00 O N 0D m O m nyWm O 111 > o Z -r1 Z c�i� O 0 cmn m IN 4S,� D O CA ♦♦ z e ♦ o0 �♦ O m I� Cl) � C7 o OD CD CA) Cl) U) n D +r L tl?CL N d o m as O O 0 �G N %- O- tll t►) s- C. N O 0 , 0 E CO c O'er N p C N •.Y O N tti > U U C2. ..... O O _ CO 0 N COC N � 0 ` v ° -a v Cl) N t) to C a +.ar E ca Cksami0 '. 0 -0 COcts (D 4- = � c + oo W C o ,.�., U. � � N O �. M y, t� a� u, ca i�id c6 �.. U i�- 0 'C3 .CC as cO �'' C 0 C L- p C co N co C e6 O WOW 0 0 +•' N 0. CO U O 0 � CIO co 0 07 wow CL 0 a CLO 0 Q •� N O_ O N ? _ � CO N cd � OO p > 0 U N "ONO Li u 0 N0 U O >+ (D No 0 0 co 0) .0 Q O -CC:C = — C N � CD to N O N . 0) C r ~ O 0 t5l > A ,., -(n N O C tV N Vi./ Uy N C '- cl N O E O 0 P � ~ O � 0 � N O C 0 0 -p N a.. Co p co . E O C 0 co N N ? 0. 0 > 0 CO 0 >+ UO3 0 6a Cco p vow as ,- N 0' tN C O O v C N �p as co •.;, C,, 0) C O '�. 0 0 N O -0 ' U 0 Oto 0 0 COOfl- 4O Q s C 0 CO 0 T • i zz� jaw t s 3 z.: ..� Mr ir Tit wi IS , 1 � .r + � r i v zwl 1 $ ro wk l w�9 r T T 1 1 1 w � 0 C � �1�� E O p� co, 0) L .+ O >1♦ C�rtt U •� •� Q i co Cl) C N cn a U C U C U C .. M N U O }' � 6603E cn cA C O U .}' E 0- co l U %- a) U cr Oco •C UIt o 0 0 O L i cn c= > V � N � U N cO �C O N Cacn (% >+ O a) aci U) +r 0) 0) 3 . . C O U c O) QC C UN }U;- — TCN Y cn C � NE CO O L C , 0 co cu Z U a) :3 .0 N O L E C C 1� U - >+ — C ,C O V O ' co O C O — z }' i � -0 TO � E N (D 0 C_ .Q C O co L Q N L O > a) Cl) m CL .— •— ++ +r •— Z cr- • • Q Z .c CO cl uj c c +_% ) O CU � N L LL co °' � . 0 > C � co O O C co i C � o c� E o co Q c c U a) U U >' (� C C W a) a> aU6ELo Q)cn ai � � cc -oco W CLX 0 OL c°� Q °' xa� � '� � s :� N co U Q N = M L UCl) O O cn E as (D C V♦ Y a m � m CO C O U cn +r t co N O W ccNL � .NLoUo � co _00) o i •L LL -C N •i (ZS 0 � U O N 70 . CO C N N N C U � � > .X � = j • � � � = c " L - a � = co � � ui E ca c o }' U N 5 3 �' E O >, O U) uL > CUco -0 N �'(� 0 0 V N c� O > C O cn Q _ U U L O cn O U t O N �.., _ _ cn a cn cn 'o -a CC c C " c c � aDa� a ._ � cco � •_ a> = N '� .. �fl �♦ aka` I � g v� �c A, s� Cr? r' N L. O co ++ co O N O U O 'C3 N 'i C N �,, ctS , .,� N N N 'p > N N O T3 C d C O *' >" Co ) 'O co N .F► c,d U N U C CO C N 'S c t"' NO -�, Co co a co 0) 0 '� ' �% C C C to N �+ -C U -d C S� C cov N O co N 't3 Q O- O 'C3 C O �.. C to L N C co p O N > d U N T N N yZ C O N G Q- CO O N N 0) pti"' p 45 m N O N tU CP 0 'C3 Q coaTCo °' °x °' 03 °) ca odcon ° 'o~ Z ca -0 N cam 00oN UO0 O a o N *j (S) Co N p 0) : oU E U' O O - co N .� co " a) p � .� o v U n/ p N cUtS a O U- co N N �J C d '•- = tl�" U LAC N .a f+' O m 0.4' _ p O p © 'O '; U N co N .•� CO O Vr O co 0) W O N '0 +' C N p C Co O O U O O O .� N O N -0 ,p p co�N to V Z3 ON co N N f-- Q' CCS �_ N N p U CD `, vr 00ul Q © O ) O 0 ''` O N N p N 0,;):; 'a—) p p U © co N -� U T3 G N Z — > O- C U C ul p 0) p C 0 C) T V V O *-' C O '3 L L p 7 co 00 N p N C = CS) to ) U N L p L N N05 / ♦ dul O to co N V p S?' 'p � 't3 S� 0) 0) 0 N -d ;-' C CO N WOW C � ' C C � C L C O O CO >' Co N co C CCS CCS v �.. "'' co %- B G s.. , %V- `fir "C u- N N O >� m U O t3) 'C3 O O .�y p {v J-t} V r N .... 3r p C s► '? C '� tU p U Co C O t1) V O a. o O C O -0 Co N �•+ V � 0 U O OOP -''' w -03 Q O D 3 -0 CD °_ `gyp M CD 0 c m r 7o 3 r CD n �« CD CD p 1 m x CD 00 Z = CD (D < w CD m C 01 CCD ?� m c n c (D _ CD n CL 0 0 0 cr CD v m OL mn `D 0 C CD U) Ln � . � Cn Cn O j 00 p -06 � sv D C� CA (J1 j Cb W .p -• O L m n -+ 4�h N N N O Ut O Cn N :3 'n O Co --► Co 6 Go Co O Co cn 0 Z 0 W 00 N 0) W N N O N ai On GJ N �I N O N a to i MEL 00 N Co -+ v (0 N � O C � A O U l W -1 Ut c T N 1 1 V W -4 O! Cn CEJCD O D NW N 1 Cn •P O -► U7 io Co 61 :NV :_4OD N Cn x N 1 W N P CEJ 00 CCnn OA OD N UUl O� V Co -P Ln -+ :A p� CO, 4 r LO T L 00 co N CU L 0 U 0 C N .� a) 0 ca C — O N S O .Q? E > 3 J - C O cn C T a -0 ,Lr N N CO .O � _ � _0 3 _jCD � � a) a) o = }, amici co cn. o a) CL 0 c Oce c j � 64 o o -o m C CC) +•' _U U 00 }�, �-' C Q- cn c� 0 O +. -p L 0) := C - X N C > m 0 C O CL CZ X L cn .� U O cn — -0 O - O 0 E O 0 E w co C O C > .}, N + 0 0 U _ 0 O fn L c� C - > 0 N C a) L .X O N O D U cn N C C N cn L cn 0 a)U L N �•• CU i C C > E CU i C p) C fn N fn _U) > — CU U) O ■ C C .0 _0 L N = C N H O O �. O 0- C X , U)+�. i) U 2 0 CO CU � %O � N O ♦ ♦ U) C +.. +, O N 0 C co V O c p M ER L 0 0 ca � _O L cz -p 'cn C U CU a M cn cn W - ~ o- ooh ° Q � 3 `� co -v T o cn0 cn +r 0 a) U i. +, O 3 '-' A � C In. cn Z O L H E >+ = L C 0 (o (U In N _ _ +r C C (u J N T E 0 RS O N O cn cn %I.— N � ESU ELL ,� cn N CD co O CM E C.> =3 �} }, C — 0 +� N cn MO +r C C C 'ca 0 � cu E >% "r— O ico }' C 0 0 Q C N ca U U O C C 3 CZ 0 C CO •+O-' O D U C U CU a) � C N i �_ L , O p CO +r '(n — '0 _ — L 'C U) - C — = CU N .O Cu O E O c� con E co CO O _ N � +r O CO - i o N O C 0 4" T U UEY co z -', CD CD CD CD < _ m m <E p O 0 . A � � m 3 x � . m ao n .o z o m c z < 0 0 m a w CEn COc N c CD p' ° 0 'co-°o Q cD CD v CD f o w C O C O CD i r" o cn + < O`CD * m .n h ODD `D CL .« 0 W. W 0 -4 W OBD CD c OD v j GJ m o m n w 69 m W O N (n O CJ7� N b) OD OD O W CO 0 m mn U) w c o cN 01) W W N 0 � m 0 O �p N (CD j 1W r (D 7 0 ac O O N O N' U' 0 . ai N w Do 0) Q j CD Cp Ul 00 C n W TI < - U1 0 W W T. w CD A a O J 00 1 O _►. (77° 0) D 1 b) bD W _bD - w q 00 3 O OA �A � CD W III V 0 O T ,r `l (0 � 0) im :o, bD a S w co 0 00 cn V O -4 N CD 0 D 00 CD CO' :I .A CO OD CD r 0) ti T cn UE cLcn cn OC co (n pc6 ON ci3M Z U N0 C i O cs -OCc > N > o O c p CD O M U N r cn O O :D >o cn _ N co O) C 0 CU 3 C CU C O UJ O U � r O .c co O c -0 co N m 0 'O +r v U R3 C C C) O w ^ O E cn � O •C Q ;_ O T 0 ^ N +� O C C O C ° C N � i ^r cU � � E o V M c C +- CLCD CD c° Co O C Ca 0 Co s -0 0 C N > E — +'cn N 0 +.. Q Co CO O N N 0 O C N 0 — Q W- �' +r .� r .- Uo +rUO -0oaU O V �- c c' d o c ' c c (1)W cz co _ CL) co � +r +r }' > U U 4- +• +r O C 0.C' co N ca `~ coo ° U U -0 i C C N U > L N CL 0 O Cl) +. Q W N cz N0 U C N - -0 -0 � c) �04 o ° � ° _ cru C N C i U N M OL U N N U '� c a) co a — :3 J J rOt cn += + _ � OUr �v cn �oi6 Cai° pN n °c � CC 070U0F- 0 U0 O . -0 . O — m C O 0 ,Ei °- OT3 a c c Q-0 " C � W c Ev ° O E CcE n m Ecn C30 CO Ca M '}o O O rn 0doU cn 0)%+- F 2W L cn E O O M N � 'i i }' N .0 = U -p N 0 0 0 C r :3 ~ N 'U C Q 00 . CDDJ DJ O -� (0 O< -0 CD 0• 0 C N (D C (D p 0 (D O O p cC CD 0 C N O O w < C 07 CD (nN C (D C (n C (D w (n 0 (D - 0 = N0 NEn 07 O .+ : CD Co c CL cn 0 x n N (n O 0 �* O N (D �' (D \ ,{ (D O _'' v '�{ O O O (D — NO O ol CD cn 0 D r-r W r-r (n O CD O (n (D (C O � �Ocr 3 � n (D 0 D 'O co (n C m 0Ow (— p N _ CN C m m - Oon -0 D) ( _ CD pcn � < (D D 0O DM, 0CD 3 0 (D Q n W .-r C C (D rn CL 0 CL 0 �' C C 3 O OL Q ;; (Q (n D =} (j) m (CD d (D p 0 (D (D (D p 1 O X O O < 'a � O 3 -t 3 CD t.t. m N vOi � N -F — M. O N CD O 3 CD O (D n O_ n "1 1 0 Cn 0 ((n = C % � p (D - � (n rrcn _ (D cn ,-+ O rr =r CL cn CD `G (D• CD n 7 �_ (D < Q CD (n (C -0 n — <. 0 0 O C �, 0 Q (D rn-r (D 0 3 n n `< � 3 w (D O o cn 0 p C (D = N O cn (D O -� '"r N cn 0 ' = � 0 - < 3 Q: C O CD 0 C. (D (C N CD (nn-CD r � (D 0 Q 0 C (� (D (D X ? 0 Cn N CDD O O N � 0 3 — cr O m C �' 0 C W( D. ,--r (D O C- - W 6 AO (D < 0 (D (D cn (o O cD U X O O =r Co C6 0 0 4, 0 C: a) cn 0) 0 .— 0 r- w c 0 cts = 0 .— C)) -ja 4- 0) =3 4-0 L- -;,- -7) 0 0 (n cn (1) C OL . -0 , > C13 'a (1) a) o -c < co .— -- -0 C.) (n CL CY) 4� 0 O) S-- f) 4- m a) 41 Co x (1) M cap 0 4� co 0 uia) 0 = .0 0 CZ < 4-1 Z cn 0 4-j Ct C: ia) 0 0) 0 Cl) o '70(1) 0) 4) :3 0 cn 0 a) 0 0cn u RS M 0 c " L- c 0 C cc - cz co E '0 — o C +1 co 0 < CU 4� a) co E N0 — 0 4-4 0 0) cn = o 0 0 (D CL 0 x = (D0 4) %- 0 u CD T- m x co 0 E a �c co 0) CO (D (D co 4-0 73 0 < co (n E co m ca 00) > _ u c C a) to c 'E E tp� %- .- 4) Co n c 4) O < C)) cn CO O (.) M o 0) Z, co :3 a) c N -C . r.: GA N0) =- C: >1 70 >1 Co Co (n "0 4) E -a c co (D o 00 a 4� .0 0) ca c E -C -Z-- r-- cc 0 5(D 0 E =3 -5 cn 0 , LL - C E c 0 c o > x as co LUf., co 0 cn -W U f- %1 0 0') CO CO cn cn Ul 0 0 ii c c < co r- 3: z CL 4-- 0)() 0 z 0) U) 4- w :3 :3 0 0 Co C\j T" (1) 4-- %1-- C N ka C 0) 0 0 " c 0 a) co a) w -- 0) E cf) C 0) C CA 4� '6� =3 cz U) c 0 M 4= 70 CFS CD .0 cn cE (D Cn CL co > 0 E E ' c X 4� C co 0 -- 0 cGCS4-1 4 =3 U w 0) E c x +- r c -0 c cz 'a cn c E .0 U) C Co Co 0 co (0 0 cu E w c c 4--f - " CO :3E MU) .W�: 0 0 0 V) 0 CO 0 co -0 -0 1- cn a 00 > r- 0 (D 0 c =3 1 0) c 0 co 0u Q) 4� '— 4' o) 0 -0 0 u) E c a) 0 0 ol CL .Ln cz (n (D 0 (D CL cn C 0 > (z Co co 0 0 0 0 0 0 E .0 �o 1Z. CZ :3 -C Co >-. (n , — 0) — — .- E U- cn 0 0) .Ln U) SO 0 a) c0) 0 0 C -0 M W 0) "0 — c >, a) < -0 -C c >, o 0 > =3 -0 CD J: ts1 p O O ¢ O' to. co v> s N G O OCD CD O S CS O to •G O G ,' CD rA* to 4- .,►. 0- 5 O p r+ O �CD 0 . N CD p O X N - 000 N p .¢ ? CD N O O N P �% N Us %�4 tD N p N t!s O '3 CD ►�'+ � 4- CD G f Q U� '` ¢l N ',Pp G 6 O 3 O N O' "G 9� r+ r* N ` n uy to •C O p �L OG P O O- --4% N O O O O tD .G �-A ° O m cQ ,� © �. -o to �. � O 6 O- G CD CD CD n- N O LOtQ cQp O (D .@G P O t0 7�' N CDD N Cl p� t :5 9� 0 `- O CDelk, rIv CD O C1O 0 CD C) OQ. " roIr � 9) N � 1toCD CD -0 'CCD NN P tD ev �CQ C.+ N cQP " xOOto S tDO . CO - O N S O tS3 t5 C- o O CD 6i r* -11% - CD .-r.. 5 s (n O O' tD 'C3 �) •� ,,A 9� � N � � O 6 p CD _ tD r* eolfCD '•G ' CD -.jr S A� CD C1 cn c4. CD '� 'd CD `� to O N. O 0- t' O to CDG O C1 O r p' V ILO CD 0 Cl) c 0- � � QQ D cP 4 {10 (0. - �" O O t• CD CDG (n�' �" C1 '{ O - r ` r" CD n 4a •��' ' N pCD 'O N O r+ 0 tD � @ O ' Cs c'p O, O O tr 03 CD O- O C3 p -0 C0 CD om•) N N e' �" � t1 S1 C) is N. C2 p ':= O tV ¢% -t Ca Cep _ CD tfl0- Q N tn� N sv n CD O 3 O N N CD t" n OLO O CD - .G . N �fi * CD ¢ S� 0 +-► O O NCo CD Ln CD 0 0 CD 0 role CD -•c 5!. - G -` 0 Z-- n O Co r', .� � CD G ID O p - O 4 N CD Lf� N N O- n n 0 0 G N O O 10 ev LP Ln O n Or+ N CD CD CD N fir* 2.+ Q G N N N �,. -+ 9 ¢� "D - N O N 9� -C7 G CD '" G C � 0 5 � O O- t.-D N -d � O�, ... � CD � c� r, pCD O O -• Ln P - 0 CD 14) - % U- n tz O O ra O Sv O O CD n -d O '-+ G C1 CD 4- 0 CD N N O CD N c O 00- ';' p N ' @ N p CD N,• O- C- A� 9f,r t0�, 0 SD c •G O CD O t0 O r`' O to O � O C7 � � O O- ` O to Cl 0. r+• LO CD O CD P O 0OG N ` O o tD 0 I— N O N U �i0 CD Np *-t ~ 4 O O ° +� CD CD j N G 0 � °O• � cGd vCO CO �� .S1 c"d •Cf G co �° Cl. co 7C N O N p fl. G sY. G .- .. N CO� O G U � -, c�6 N U CO 0 ��•+ RS E'' CO — 0 co '° cT O y- ✓ U G co 3 N cum 'd d o tom- cG6 N cGtiS .� N N N co � 3 Ir- N 0 +, N O r cn CD .- O ci) C N 'd -,;, co N O ?, N -0 N CIA' s ca co U NO ° NT G U> o All N � 10 U N 0 co Q yN 48 d N O UO . .�� '� N '� U o qy o N 0o N co t> N V 'C3 CO c G N . .�- U G 'to 0) v s G O O N OCG 0 ° O co co O - eco � N .G N c6 0 T � -0 C�. 0 N L N cot O O cd 0 O N O O 0 c0 G "'" 0 s.. O �• c6 0) G T o 3 G o (.) 3 G •` N •+ . C co Oo 00 L = co y+ O c� G� O O O cb 0010 QN ccs N 0 G O Q �' N 0 co C,�0T _0 Q G 6 0 co cd n A.' 0) N c '© V U G O 0 �.� d c4 -a N r✓ p co N ° N,t03 °�, G +•,• N vim-• . 't3 O O � •••' ,N,. O Off•' y 3 T � !Z-- CO s � � -, 0oo6N •cN co� a� CIS co -0 0 0 0. o a) o co o F— O cd N '�.. a•+ m N coco t7 v D -O G ° cGa G N N , N D GJ r �• I i i � C o P v � I Ch � T Z i � n �J � CIO N o O v 9CO O N cll N N O N C N co 0) 'C3 OSS N .}, U Y 'tt3 'N y N t4 N .G O N tri N .d 'C3 ° N 0- � N S, ON- N N O 0 O t3� y � O 'Cd ,.+ ., T O c0 T a,, .FJ 6 d r� c� U N O K C� O O 0 7 G C3� co �% Y G G (n O S� co G t¢im � N o -a ° Q. ° o to •o -o CO Ica* co � 30 O � '� O y c6 N O �,; U ,i, N too � � yya ° o ° N O sco (11 r� ai O C 0 3_ 10 , 0 3 �i oo� � � Noo ° = C -0 °coN 0 00 S7co O °, � � y O ° .�- '',� '}' ° 0 (1) CO ° moo Q : O N 'o � S� •� O -0 c4 N '� N •� N °y N N �_ co N C� � - C dl �-- d p ,r U O- cd O G y G N ttU C.co ¢7 GN7N O ON � 'C3 N •� co G O N C = O CO O a N U y N G .Q �+�' O 7 T G ° � o O •o 'o a., ccs -C3 '� W '' -O ccs N N c6 ? CO"Sin (f) co c � Ne nas .- r- N —co D v ° . v �O 0 N Y ON N OG 4 p ; O .� CG O N co N 9 N 'y O C• cn `n ccs d -CAo cU O Off-+ CO O N as T � co N N tv � 'd 43) co N U �. N O 0 Sj r d Cl. ITO N CD O �G O CD 0CD Ln Lo CD O .c CCD N 4- Q ,,, CQ cD �CD ° oma` @ tQ CD CD CD CD D CD --'rmsooN � UO �, � o CD a CSD CD CD N C*) (D 5 O O woo- omOo U) � IACD . -+ ca � CD O N �' D000 m - 0 -0 tea m m Q- ° °u" N tL-N {� 'NCS N p CD 0 BOaQ GO � ¢ --1 O- o° 9O *--r C: � . ID CD G r+ i °O- °�,,,M N CD CD' NCD CD O'-+ CD 7C O� ..t• O CD '"' CD O � N -:5 O N 4. 4- ��• N. c '. UD o = o0 ° � � � °• � N o CAS ` ¢% 5 �CD fl- D 0 o � p CD a 96) n NQ- CD N O @ O -n N CDCD 0 ' "� n CD � r' CD O- � O N °� ?�� N O O N p. 6 0 Ln 0 Lo O �'" N ��' `L O ° N --I COD 0 O (D n N CD O p.. CD "- ..G , r CD � 0 CD 0- fi CD cD, 0. rr Lo p O N .•o N ''� N ° N N Sv 'CD ,•� O ,O N O O� O 'CD 4 O 0- 0 O , LO ` L 4 ':) Lo 0 9' N CD C *-Im 'p 4, C• O CD O :6 CD CQ N ¢� �r.� N O 4- '"" CSD -* Sv �G G CD CD 3 cn c ° CD CD CD O N l- y lS� C`a r T tb � t0 cp o U m c Q D G N { o CD Y m a m G T cb y �✓�,° N 7 d' ° U1 r tt1 G y •r G O U Q m N r N Y r� a 3' a O G co G 7 - 7Q G O"s Ern a a �- "� T a* 0 �6' ,o.' O .n d N•o o L m � rQ T ✓� p O y O O a> o 0 6 O ro m N r v w i° 00E G o -° (j E' cjGOrD R WM Cep � ✓ A m cb N G@ N 9 O v m G N G a R A r ° Z y G o 0 N ° O OW �N d 6�0 r moo@ ai G'° °'% W a, 'W moot me NY1 N9c o � to Goo S o o N p m Gm pC d L O d °'oN,, rN oco'° co �N�O 00 'o 9 d y U `b N 4 r0:NJ�01N7 yO•Go°mm�'Om3O6?d�@�m� 9 NotO ?NrO=G LOdofO mb CD 0. G�Srn3 N 9 i ID 0 o m •Ome, C_ ��mto G ? coo rno 1 - L ' . Cc vO e) 0 UG G N `� ° ca7N a. aib OW d s � r u0r o ° !,NaOOrNYw 1 ` LN °y � �" mG ° yO�o✓m� dd�o Nm N � N Ew `°� m0 ? .°. O 3 =W d "WO � m � GOm09d (Drn p aa3O� o Nov 0, a am O U NG .0w Um C � wN6a Z �.. rNO N O aOd (P % G 0) .0 R N 'ai ° � m� E O o o° V o o mfr o O Z GG'�m � � mcnymm o c N o 'ocb W � u a ti rand mpj° mG >W. o ✓ N� i,qv ora' p G % m m� cab N N ib G d p r@� O m E ,^ O mp N 7@ A d U`s O L O O r •+ m ° ��N M`g `r `bs ° Nrn d NCAOrr w O � U ° G 0-60o.N �✓ d a co N '6 cn .° .'�' -� m moo •' m ° � ° � � ib G U N3 °' G O ymGcaallo a oN Dui cr �,� mo m °� r t� .✓ �"i6 cC 3 3 O G +O" V � O � �(''G m `r .i6 9 O^ �O N:✓ � ✓� .mr 'U O G� � N X NNo U� o m ol O3i G �do mrdf d oy dma� t :u � 6� vmuaiQ rN � ° coca � mN o ib a i`�" (� ✓ d p i6 to 'G b> N ONN ✓ QU aU E ' 4m_°W c R-oNmar- ef, EUyaG Na, cCrm % °*toN ONN 0Tc U NOL) m > ' 4� do Nd(L � O or,, `01 d. r aNO Z o L, 0 0) QO-E o ov GG O CO ) o OG0 �Np � r mc°a ,NGO �W9 "? t 'o , •.°. mmo .0 O N ` ( O 0,6 cbo0 o 7:3 Vy .0m U G N Gco N a Q•• C>O.✓oOOcCn�y,tt�!,idQ)7U cO�Q1Y G cy,va''O WNwO W>W= Gm��a•_`N@�yk`Em o m�pGS�N,"�mTy�-Oc6 aN Nmm G G od✓y—6 U�06 m�N s ay'm'oN4Oo,@m�GmGaGm•GmV'i LcmmoN'Oa \ON 4y°,L. EorNR ' •y a' N gOc b tt- N raNm�0,�m a 0 CIO 03 NcO•O to s 0) mO ' O 'fiN OO N Scom , O m N A Z CD 0- p ddN �ymmmo` N d 0) i d o coo3�L .N Lr flO , 3UoUO D c �PlGr0 � a NON o m a Z� 0 ` aU0 io ad ° � m m T� oo oc 7-0 (o o� o (Ao `v - s�oNtom sUw ✓ E d IG 3 U i,r 6� N�c m O ° R p O O d f v.0 s-- ma o dE 0 0 OWN Q : 41 , °2.0 o,l* ° r d t' a U of N-01 p Y �- , i p v CD ° F o g to F O o c CD ro w Lo 30 X11 p .+ oo N s a N N 6 fl N �0". 3 o N aG 2 N 10 -o-`• i m a a n �- G u+ a �• -3 o , p c w 3 N-a N y ;,A 4 O S O N . O -'s o.0 CD,N C', Co ;� N O�•«wOGw �N� kq O�o om. 'G NO� Cw = , N a ° x m ° m . fOp.1Z O Co c N (D — ° N Nr ( o ip ;oO � to w C 2Gm 0o' v ON `D 0' *P2� m Oo� 3� m Nco 0 `° mm 4i0 � ° �' aOoo.SNro �a, �"o � � a-a � rp ('P CD N �� NO 90 w9C. �q o N� N � -.0 Z c w o Cl ;.A " 1C>o 4 a d 3• CCD t1 5 ':T �,� o- O tr CD +l in 6 i x Sow C) 'p n o 2 -'A m o- m N F `" o N o CA �.(A tf►O 6 w° ° o 0om �',,of.o N - 0, 03 0 ms 0.0 2 O so G w 4 ^ N N ` •''c O w O N ' 4, A N_ �-A 0-N °• F +� d 0 J n CDi 0 O N 2r (f��Z O Ao tT 0mwm mwo �6a � w> a�?wG COp,- N .. OQ -a 93, CD °0 N OOF�N CT ; NcAa ° In � Wi� Cm 130D A p•9�► ° G C c �0orG.� �N � n ° m � Zx • No cOyo- m p � m a- C)tp o li c° s� ao0 � a P ` ° OD CD 0 S D 03� N� P m oy °LO CD PFC� ° O:z� G NN 0• 00 a O 4 �0�° y0 r Nw N� o N G'w@ h ri �', OCD ? O N ff .� N 0 o 133 N N FF-A N �� ONO a O N N (!1 N y O w o N G 91 w f7 O N U) -0 N. N .G O w �-1 w w S O O-A N w" G • C) NOC(D 0. (P ,. w �« o (o O -• p0a W () �' " " o no .0 w a .w CD N N.•O ` •O O• t; O Z 0 a O O N.t?: s s N fn _ ro G O co 0 yNm �o g1 .s N,g.Fw,d N w ac° CD cn,-` 7 O@ m w O � N ° OyON awassaLo -n : o � Cl .G O w G C%.) c) w�,.A O w CD O1 CD @ o•.S 0 'O CT 0. 0 CD • D„'O•�,:..tx0 N O s'O afflaS-O• faN"G �.O w;. •o• G-oa•ON a tO' '• w° N !Nin NO . '• O wp O w O s o•G CD CD Sr 0- 20 N F ° o %� xq G0 � 6 m 'e- m3I osw CD V- �0C ,NOn o � nO N CD 0 CDSO, N Op. x too 0 ? CD - N � ON a O N .• ..tC5D '% CD .• W O a o�m �� m G) 0- FDG �wNO .dZ 4s0 o a ao N N c CD m ��a o m --r W p o -o No w�°p ms° �Nw �N= a � j� tOip G� N g 3 $ � o, �°0 tl maw W N � CO. ✓�O.-- °t3 CD m O � a-5 a. -A cn c Nis c9- 9D NCDCr CD 0 _ La X`G�'' `� s' 'T •w N N ° p d o Op (D7CD S ' oenar+ NOr�tC0D CO NCDCDtCD D co p 0C � G51- 0 ° (P CDc� n n 1-7NO 0 CD CD QQ CD s3 �-cr ° � O m � ^0 - ay o ° ° w n, � Ooo OO� N-q •.•A � th 4. c6 L c vmw sil *N CD � 1CD 3 k ? sm9N °' fl {AoCDa oCD m% N N. ' O �. d e a a CD ft O ,+ C a Np. 0 wr• � c�o� 7 � � � � rn 'Y CCD sem- O;W w LO IP a "A 1p o d 0- O O 00 O CD 7 n, _, 7 G0 p G, G to :k 0 p �. N 4 N 4 7A N ?1 CD (� N CCD 1 C� N � N N O 7 T- U1 N .,{ qt N N OO 36 CD ��. CD CCD 'W N ' QG 3Q y '0m m . �. N . v E m . Z . R § p $_ $ Q = w/ 2 R m » > 0 Q- = w2 e o0 = .> � £ E / a_ c 2 m , o 0 c 2 _/ / \ � w £/ 92§ R k = Q � o $ n Q o = o E w 0 c co S \ ƒ 0 k m@ k q cu / / 2 c e g Z c E � @ ? a) cr E k < k � f 2 § c L @ : c o . / W Cts § / / $ LU U � k o � \ z + m E m < . 0 o % < 0R 3 U E_ ¢ > c _ 7 Z 0 / � / / % . m % 0 o § c � w 5 cuk. O � o o 2 \ Q 2 ¥ y o < 2 / Z k/ R U j 0 C LU ch / co 2 k \ 'a k X § . I � / & � � \ k / � � u / � EC) / £/ 0 0ig 0 ƒ k 6 $ 0c 00 k � � < \ � 0E R OL z CU $ _§ 2 L 0 f ƒ f + ucr / % o L 0 k � � k ƒ � 0 E < � a � 3k U) U- ¥ L § c CO c � 5 co VQ 00 710 03 m m SO o 0 0 13 03 - CL Nm r- :13 opt` it:z CD 03 0"ff -A C) 00 C) ID 0 W r ,n CL (P -M 0 C 0 CL G) 0 0 CD rp r- - + 00 m 001- a m 0 0- rn 0 m C-)0 U) U) 0 Cl 0 0 M 0 o (1) 0) CD 70 C) -ja < t:z :k 30 CD -n 0 M CL. C) rn 1+ , rn 0 0 (1) -n 03 U3 • 0 CD 30 1 . - ��'rn 00 0 3 r- 0 r- 3 o 09 C)0 0- - ol � o w 0) - 0 CD 0 3 :3 - M U) 0 C) 0 :3 3 o T (P cn > - 0) W cn .0 - 0 Z (1) - U) 0 CD CD 0 p r- cr .:3 ia, 3 1350 ro o m 0 0 0 - (1) 00 :) ID W 0 _< S 03 -4 0 1+ 0 :3 + CD -' 3. C-) n CD Z 0 0 0 CD 0 co rn -n D- Z-0 1* �l -1 U) 03 U) i - � 0) 0 0 030 D o 0 0 F (P 033 0 0 OR O'�3 Cl) rp, %e_ 0 1 0 (p 0 CD -0 -0 . O ..l CL - CD 0 r CD 0 ,3 c �, —1 . 50 c) 03 rp* 0,-, 0 CD I- 0 C37 0 I=. Z -D r- -3 o 3 o In CD a) 0 C6,z on CD CD 0l 0 0 0 : 0 0 0 0 o W-5 m 1 10 z ? 0 0 CD CD CD k aCL :) D) CD co 0 Ts CD 0) 0 -0 w CD 03 CD a is z 0. 0 U)CD (1) 0 0 0 0 0 CD Lo CD CD 0 rp, 0 CD 0 0 M (1) 0 0 U) 0 CD 0 CD CD 0 -n .4 '33 -M r G) M < > 0 rn 03 o 0 w Z CD G) �o m C- r- > :5 0 -n -n T z �o 13 CD -< U' A m -% . rn CD rn o, (P 0 P r- SI) CD 0 0 m rn 00 13 .4 )K r- ;7-: r :0 )> CD 0 0 c 0 m 0 4 p � :33- 0 C- 013 0 C) 0 Z m 0 (D - )> - - 0 CD 0 G) (n -4 (1) 0-4 CD - o )) a Z- c 0 0 co G) -0 cr CD 0 )> T (p U) -W w 15.-0 0 - 0 CD 0 C: 20 m C: 50 :k 6.rn 0 -4 0 ch Cf) 10 cr + 0 oo 0.7o ::� =: �; 03 U) 03 (D U) (1) CD c 0 0 D) Iz �� z :3 CD 0 rn rn 0 0 -4 0 w CD 0 �� (J) :3 :1 (1) > B M own c 0 -4 �+ 0 0 03 0 G) 5z 0 , 30 03 cf) 0) :1 0 0 --4 tz ID 03 0 0 cn CD C: D) rn Ui' ::) ? 3 CD CD T.,z < -3 =$ M CD 0 0 03-, 0 0 CD - 0 )> - 0) 0 oCL U) 0 0 CD CD 0, 5 SI) 0 CD 0 CL ;k- 0 CD ::3 c CD CD 03 :30 3. Z;;- 0 0 0 U) CD 0 0 0 0 > @o (P CD CD CL O 2. 0 0 CD 0 U) o0 CD ct 0 • LU CL Q) co co 0 0WC = C: Q) 0 < C) .0 LU 0 0 < C: Lu 0 CO Q) 0 ca W, CL CL (n U. -a. -CL a) co 0 (0 W 0 (3) CID M 'm 0 S-- CL 0- '01 o) o cc a� 0 Lij CL cr- 0 o ij — cr- 3, U) 0. S-- 0 < CL In -i z -- m --j -1 a-Lu 0 ,c LU c In .- < LU t m (.) LU Ul -43) U) CO LL an W ul Y. 0 CC Cr cc o cr- LU ILJJ acr- cvn �w LUCDLULU19)W7- cru Jco 4t u- LU 0 -1 (n CD ao CD cun 4 , =4 CC cr ILL. - aci 0- 0 cts 0 c al to CA c cc < 0 C O .2 U-1 m z C 0 0 ca 0 — a 0 o 43) 0 LU 6 0 r. (1) Co co 0) 4) (1) CO co 0,— c (-) m C c to b. 10) m C LL, -C� 0 0 a) ca ca m 3� co c c < 70 .- CO co C)) E '�8 — 0 C) < o rm (J) j5 c -0 -t 0 co < 0 C 0 CO 0 Cts Co co c c) cc C 5 :i L- 40 ,;- C-) ILL. I� c Q) — 0) CID CL 0 LL *0 CO 0 (A 0 0 3� .- 3 0 to c c Cl lw- U) 0 c CO Q) = = c *- < < m (D '71 Qc) —0 —0 Cc) a: .5- m m 0) 0 a! -3 b. a) LU 0 .0 Q) m ul 0) LLI :tl_ co c cc (D o 0 LU CC 0 CA Z CC Z o 0 0 Lu < ui o o cc: a) 0 (n 0 z 7 Lu 17 0 n u e 0 U) UJ V-- -1 0 m Lu 0 cc 7- 0 0 c 0 2 0 LU (J) o 1�- Lu 0 < 0 m O� 0 4) LU m (D cD uj co :r: . 0 d) W. z UJ to (f) -::) =) 0 (f) 0 b. CID In Z 0 CC �i 0 jo V-) 0 Lu u c cr- v cc z o o o < z 0 to (f) (1) 0 Co -J �- c �4 C:j m Lu :r: ACL 0 o 7- Lu uj cc W 2 LU 0 L5 0- 0 LL. c 0 CL, m LU Z z 3; cr LL 0 m < 0 (J) mom CC --r CC a: -u Ij U3 �- c LLI U. Z Z 54; cr 4) Uj T T C D cr- (1) ul cr- ,- c 00 C() CD 2 ca cc 5 cr uj 4 v -1 CO C) -, o 0 In cr (n Cc 4 ICE 3:1 -J .4c 0 0 4 cc CO U- In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California February 22, , 19 77 In the Matter of AMTRAK Discount Fares for Senior Citizens Supervisor Kenny called the Board's attention to a Resolution enacted by the Richmond City Council supporting a request by senior citizens for dis- count fares on AMTRAK, and he requested that the Resolution be referred to the Public Works Director for review and recommendation. The Public Works Director advised the Board that the trend over the last few years has been to grant special discounts to senior citizens on most surface transportation systems and extension of such discounts to passenger rail service would be logical . On the recommendation of the Public Works Director, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Board express its support to the senior citizens in obtaining discount fares on AMTRAK facilities , and further that the Clerk be directed to send copies to Mr. Reedie Bonner, 1457 Kelsey, Richmond, California 94801 , and to the Administrator of AMTRAK. PASSED by the Board on February 22, 1977. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Originator: Public Works Department Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Administration Supervisors affixed this 22nd day of February 1977 cc: Public Works Director Mr. Reedie Bonner 1457 Kelsey, Richmond, CA 94801 R. OLSSON, Clerk Administrator of AMTRAK BY Clerk City of Richmond _ f H -24 3/76 15m In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California January 25 , 1977 In the Matter of AMTRAK Discount Fares for Senior Citizens Supervisor J. P . Kenny having advised the Board that on October 4 , 1976 , the Richmond City Council adopted its resolution 138-76 supporting a program which would have AMTRAK provide discount fares to Senior Citizen passengers ; and Supervisor Kenny having recommended that said resolution be referred to the Public Works Director for review and recom- mendation as to whether this Board should support said program; I°T IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of Supervisor Kenny is APPROVED. PASSED by the Board on January 25 , 1977 . I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc, Public Works Director Supervisors County Administrator affixed ts2Sth City of Richmond dhi day of January 19 77 J. R. OLSSON, Clerk Deputy Clerk Jamie L. Johnson I H -24 3/76 15m fWN :• Assistal.t City Attorney I�. f=, � . ,.R. _(j V• , E e�\� S -A�),�5j � � I+1� �� r ; �•r1 RESOLUTIONNO , 138-76 t � az `RESQLUTION OI' 'THE` CITY COUNCIL OF THE .,CITY 'OF` RI,CHMOND,:CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF..AMTRAK •PROVIDING' DISCOUNT FARES TO SENIOR'CITIZEN ' " PASSENGERS. 3 WHEREAS ; the City Council -of"the City of Richmond, California;" -is 'in support' of a program which would have AMTRAK,`provide discount .� fares . to Senior Citizen' passengers; and ` h } 1:'-WHEREAS , the City Council recognizes .and appreciates, the >: k'•• ri4 ;y ,'efforts of Mr. Reedie Bonner in supporting such a 'program; and ,, ; i'4 ; WHEREAS ,. ,said Council desires to communicate their support of" f f,: such a program to various interested parties and concerned bodies yob both--private and public; xo- NOW, -THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the'City ., -i r of Richmond, California, that they do hereby express their support of `a program whereby AMTRAK would provide discount fares to Senior ;td ..:,Citizen passengers. r e xar a. •:'I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond, California, at a regular :"� `'' `meeting thereof held October 4 , 1976 , by the'-.following vote: kF . Ayes:-, Councilmen Allen, Silva, Nelson, Fernandez, Wagerman, Grydyk, Corcoran, Campbell and Bates Noes: None ` s Absent: None Clerk of the%-City Richmond . ik Approved: Cr�' VE t Approved as jEtk, form: JAN , 5 1977 U Assis ant City Attorney J. jiF*1U'PERV1S01RSLCLFR OAP P Co STA 1 , Y i ill:' •; O . V rA OZ O 00 G? W > n ter'+ -- - —_ _— -- -- jeas'Pue azau.xuay o " 0400. ❑� a ° v°° ? ❑ ❑ 8(n u i � a m El � ° °8o v aUA 71 �, � a x o x IG t, ,z , •� o. _ �. G n. G a 6S a �# � y v � iv 7 � cf Z cl i3 � 5 0 • o � gra ❑� ❑r b G. El x � O - I a N 3 nagHDS MHOM o " 11�iOLLdY�R103M 3NIOH .' f MOI Ld"y1t2I031�II HHOM ' ' 'IV WHOM NOUNWHOPO 3.L[1WWOZ) . H m co, a . a s - r y76b, a �c oA $$ WA ° O'ws tR �D 6 .i V •gr � r�l oOr- 9�Q � (o� " w " � �, � � o. o (. wo o , �o � WO � Oony O ,o O (D (D (n Q••`C A O 0 A O (D, S1. 0-(D . 7C C .O d O m.'Ly CT`0 '.T C17 I (D O i o' O rt C'M /� `C (D• rt rt O. ��„O '* (n Fo+ (�D (D C', (D`C3 `y+ . m A '� AL* ' ,.�^f a ,rt .0-.. ¢I .� n{ r�• Q A rt. F.. fA• Q. ,• _ rt, 0 (/� p). .� i ,i-t. w (A (D C/1 w C (D O OQ 0 r C w -0 o-r1 r*� w. O •>p¢i w CD n � w o rt O oro + o .O `C rt p. .;? w! fD a, o (D Cl O w O G t7d < ro O „ C 0 0 O n 'w � a+w, � owo' Ort �y oOQO ,�' 0 CD\� n Q �• ' n `C. . 0 (D �J:L ; d'7D n �. 0 A' w 'p '.! '0•e (D '�b � Q � (D. p er,� � O w w (D w — . � q „r c n w w . o �. O a (D (D (o � .O.ID 7C w ,w. �o' c �w M O � CD � w ' Z) � (D �. n 'p fOD X 2) (,,p •� .0 0 C a' F+• GM. p '(XD O O (D (D .•O w �t t tj Vit : cin (CD v >✓, .�. C O 0 �� O. `C.O ,.' O (D O C m r(D .� `C3" n ,a„$r 0 Q x Off' . 0 . ... m w O. (�� 'OQ C3 ?'' LD . w .m O�q.0: o •�i ��" a(Di .* y" •�w U~i (�9 w O �S`= �. O 'A rt.w / ..BUD b , tZ 0 A 0 A` .(D (-D r+(D, (D O : , "CsrtC w w w (D (D "� 0 (D OQ y .`i` �s A >? w w 0.,(D �. dQ C (D 0 O (/] w. `C w o : °� � q� .. win (D ¢ q'� " p. Q ° m 0 n W � o• 00, p (n't3 o ... 0 m. . O C O n O o rt p w .(D'�3 �.� a.M' oro, o ' O ,O . o o w -�7c . rt tz (D D) g 0 O O .w o-nQ4 O m 0000, _ 0 o..fDow'F3 � ( > �• O 0 0 / M. Ul N0 Qn,UQ [D rt w A w O ' rapp OC tD (n ch Ln CL CD c tom' CS < (D, ro+ rt \ (D C �P W W �.m p O ... w Z 5 m ,eL(D ' O A O ON !1 ..rte* A o (D (D (D ;f 0+�' �D. r �� -CrliO(� ' 0 n.C7x1 — .� ;xtil AU) xCnCri A ' "' p D p! w w \�o n �• n. Q-' (OD (fin' G .�`C' m C C' 'O (� C. Fi J < ` m O vOi ai 0 OQ w M .s O y w (p + '(p p A� C O o 00 D ` �o (oi ,0 ►d 'L3 � r� _.x m w cn� ,� .. '* � rQ ow (D. O. Q,.(n w O O (� p w , 00 Or. w�C w rj (D (D o-�j• �•t 1 �+ �+. rt ? p O ..: C Q (p ►e �.(D m 'd_. C' .(D tD (D, Y f1In ,00 3 .. (D, `� O •d o n �. .. C. �. O(D M �. OOR w l J C fA 0 �:$CD -gr, O P� O 0 fD 0 '* ;.K7' A X O (D m 'wr P (D (D. O eD •. 'w io m (o O o / Q O.� ti`G C n F 0 rt O 0._ (D R - 0 0, O (D • En •n (D •v (D ¢ '�1 '(D t u (D d0 (n N o.• o a a u ;G r W y Y N iA o obG .p.... ,� o G In�' '' ;e. N �,s� 7_ �' °'tom Q., °•' pr � , � .�,�°,�. .5.,G w O �, � x � w�:r c°�,•,o cd v O . bo G t, y p N � U ' O d cl— w.rs ,G W cd W A Ups O A .. .�y ipN Q v+ G cd p td N d O by O N 5-0 C6Ad 6° 0 PAW tb v to a O• 00 d dG TbD � 0 0 oob�P+Gcd 'tribD R$ PA bz ecd o N�W m vs Ti ew tD RE o °oW o o 4.1 p N � � � -- p 08 IPA 0 oAIn. op � G W oW � � � � 4 damcd Op � ON•cb d �749 VA .PA 4A � w B. d Us Gf xpw N 0 F—7 IJ ; (D 0 0 O K P. , rb �1. D �� W Pj O U) O ,fir A Q (D n M `C O m two t � •�n O- � p�`C + w 10 eD (D cj �� a '` d�-��; - � � r� �, �. rye" C3 �• Mme'+. O ' z3 PO rD rD Oto cp _ s -t `C (DD m �.`tsp� C �� 0 000 (D M O 0 (D lil s -o� d •s Vis. II sv � O � �. O ^ � Cn rD n 0� (D rt X r II (Dt rt `� X 0 ((DD ID IIJ ,fir (D Cn � N• (D CD �. w W rt b '� En b O O n -� n C O 0 W `OUR rn rD n oro rD Z (D a W'C3 > s O rD Zr rD 0 y tv O O ID rD C O rt �' O' O~CS ~" 0 p m o Q' O cn 7 d O O O n (D C 0 (D (D ,, a) d W rD y rt O (D t n rD M, O `� ID tT7 O n 0`C O Q n (D (n rt '* X �t rt 0 m ¢' O rt'Cf O Cn 0 0 "C7 0CrQ Cn Q 0 0 x � y 'd A� 0 W , `C lD (D C 0 �t 0R y UD rt `C 0 d�(D S] `� `C C7 C Q n p'C3 O �. r (D0 Cf fit' �' y cn d rp O Cn'i3 \ rD�C 2) rD W O. .n�. v sv r7 ` a Ki rD �• 0 a) rD-n a' A� �e O Q0q 0 I tD r' ,moi 0 �� C� �? �.,. n O �'• fy O C '� +-t i"S r� ¢1 rt n �„• i Cn (D `" 0 fD ¢ O 0 x. (D rD rnD F„ rD 'D0 (D r' n• fD O rt 0' rt,Cn •t n O (D (UTq XD tv ¢ 6 O ACi X m \� "" A� "' O " 0 O C O p m 0 -j SUR m 0: ("D cn cQ'n O 0. � �' �, �C (D U04 n T (D O 0 Cl. (gyp rt A7 CS 0 tv C0a O O 0 �! �"' ' C0a c! rt C 0 A) O (D t rt `� O .r (D rt (D (D .-• m N O -t �- O 'O �. r* O. A� (D 0 O (D 0 `t "• rD Sv G "' n O (D O y 0 M �'� 0 h A0i C 0 LS A. (�D p (D M Q1 rt rt m � W• m O F0t Q- '� O '(Dt �. `� 0 C rt h rt 0 O 0R (D rD 0 �� cn`C 00 (D `� `� 0 ' C (D (DO Ort 0 w En O O rD � - — — , - r--JJaJJ` 0{ rpt+ r. a .. 1,4 m r' rte. F ah• , I v t' rt , u (D rt (D`D 0 G0..4 s K O O p O O O O rt � rD Cif co ro rD ..• p, �• n N n r7 (D rt (� '+ C � (D a Aa tp A a+ ¢. O tD O �" C 0 rD O O y '-'• (p cn' "� m fzD 00R � � � p � a�DO �° Op � ID `� p ,��.� m 'C3 d A 9' � ►� � n m � i' t coo 0fD 0 H (D O 0 O L" ►s r?. O DCD 6 C 'Cf O C�O �• O O C3' cm rD 0 (D �� � m n C A ob FO•r FNS '- O d O 0 �� C �• 0 . n rt v 11j, a 0 0 0 �• O N 0 m Z-2O 0Aa 0 s i 2 tazela a�eso�l u�1saP s�ntdes`31. � o � o x off% , � ° �' � • 06 to 0 o o o C) b6 bo R C) r tY� ao bA 0 ooQ ° ,oNoo v � u �z W as N ow COu cd ami G p wtd G 0) bt) LO LO � O O -�F, N S� �i by �+ p tA Ln W � p aiy � G • `� in � ¢ � Wj 3d Baa � ' 30 41 q -A ',.� Q`'' COO � O Q N •� 0 ca pZ � w 6. 00 w p aN� d O `C n 0 n N 0 0 Z w 00 n i 0 0 P Cn 00 \ice . 4%p \\ice MoUg � 0 _ x o� ��� 441p� � 8