HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02242004 - C87 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
,.� Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICPCosta�
CC1� MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR �.
onty
DATE. February 24, 2004 gra U
SUBJECT: Referral of Draft Richmond Community-Based Transportation Plan to the Transportation,
Water and Infrastructure Committee
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR. RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
REFER discussion and recommendations on the subject plan to the Transportation,Water
and Infrastructure Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT
NONE. The referral would enable the Transportation,Water and infrastructure Committee
to review and develop comments,for recommendation to the full Board of Supervisors, on
a draft plan developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has completed a planning effort
alined at improving local transportation services in the Richmond area, including the
unincorporated community of North Richmond. Participants in the planning effort included
staff from two County departments(the Employment and Human Services Department and
the Community Development Department), as well as staff of BART, AC Transit and the
West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee(WCCTAC), and representatives of
numerous Richmond-area community organizations. Outreach for the effort was managed
by Neighborhood House of North Richmond.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT; X YES SIGNATURE
,,,,-RECOMMENDATION CFCOUNTY ADMINISTRATOR R RECOMMENDAFON OF BOARDE
PPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE S F
ACTION OF B A ON ��s < .A }��; €� ,0, APPRC VED AS RECOMMENDED THER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
NANIMOUS A ENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERER ON THE MINUTES OF THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
Contact: John Greitzer (9251335-1201)
co: Community Development Department (CDD)
ATTESTED? .} :
P. Branson, Employment and Human Services JOHN SWEET, N, CLEAK 6F
S. Kowalewski, PWD THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
,"
BY DEPUTY
1-r�nennrrafinnlgait>cri,'1n rr•i d'Sre9nriTl—MR:rhmnnr?f`RT Rcafn<r�!rfnr
REFERRAL TO TRANSPORTATION,WATER AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 24, 2004
Page 2
BACKGROUND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (Confinue)
T he planning process led to publication in December of the Draft Richmond Commy
Based Transportation Plan. MTC has circulated the draft plan for review by interested
parties including the County. Exhibit A contains the Executive Summary from the
document.
As shown, in the exhibit, the draft plar, includes recommendations for various improvernents
such as bus shelters and benches, safety workshops for older drivers, new services for
local travel such as subsidized taxi services and neighborhood shuttles, and the creation of
a local transportation center or coordinator to help Richmond-area residents find the
IransDortation services that are available to them,
Staff recommends the Board refer the draft plan to the Transportation, Water and
infrastructure Committee for review, discussion and comments, The draft plan will, be
discussed with the Committee in the context of the County's own Welfare To Work
Transportation Action Plan, which covers some similar ground.
Pending Board approval of this referral, staff anticipates the item will be placed on the
March 81h
agenda of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee. Any
comments or recommendations resulting from the Committee discussions will be brought
to the full Board for consideration.
,. ;MS T ROPOI ITAN TRANSPORTATION
--OY. I MISSION
!,
Transportation
� � r
t t'
5
4
rt Al
i
yltPlan
�zf
r
3 5
r _ E .*,S€^ .�r 4 r-7 of i
DRAFTt
December 2003
A170917 IqyffHgFd
J--f consuiring associates
833 Markat Straat,Suite 900,San Francisca,CA 94103
415.284-1,544?hole 415-284.1 554 FAX
eOli%vi0O'D
0
°
Richmond Community Based Transportation Plan a Final Rapnrt _
-
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION' C o M M! S S \0 N
Table of Contents
PAGE
�� �
�
ExE{�U�VE SUKNMARY.........^.^~.`...~,~^^^~~^~^~^`~~`^~`^^`^`^~^~^^^^^^^^~`~~^``^^~~^``^~'^^~^^^^~`~^^^^^^ ~
(]ck��]U�rf......',...~.^-,~.........~..^~.~.~.,.^..^'~`.^.^.....^.....~.~.^,....'.......~.ES-11
_ ��-�
Richmond-Area �����O0(Jra��hkc5.........^....^~~....^.~....^^.-^...^`....'.~......'�~ ~
Community
Outreach
Meth{}rfsAnd Findings................... ........._...^^.....^.ES-5
Potenti{J} S~!Uti{3DsAnd TheirFeabiUtv,,,^,^..,,.^,,,,,',,,, ,,^....'...~..ES-8
RBcOOr-D1eMdafioDS . ...... .................... .........................^... ...............................ES-l2
.
r-UD<20g ............^^^^^^''^^~'^^^''~'`'^^^^'^—^'^''^^^^^^^'^''^~'`^'^^'^^'~'^^^^^^^^'^^''~S _
��O����Dl���fO�D� ..........~~.~............~...'~..~.~.....^.....-...........~-�S-l8
CHAPTER ). [INTRODUCTION ...~~...~,,.^~..~^.,.~.....~.~..~~.~~`.^~^,.^.~,...~..~..,~^.~..^.~~. ~
�
Background,.^...^^~.^^~~~`^~`~'^'^`''~'`^`-'—~^^^^^-~^^^`''~~'''^^~'~^~'^^'`~'^^^^^'^'~-~ -1
Richmond-Area Community-Based Tr,a n3DOrtafon PlCJD.......,.........~-....,]-�
CHAPTER 2. DEMOGRAPHICS OF STUDY AREA ............................. . ~. . ~
~..^. .' ^.'.~ .^.^, .~.^..2~i
�-1
>�f��(�U��fi{}n ��nH SUrO��(]p/..................-.....^....~.....^............^....~....
2-2[}G��{}��ra��hi�� P[O�i��............`^`...~.^.^—^.^.^.^^.....~..~...^~.....^.....-......
CHAPTER 3. OUTREACH AND COMMUNITY NEEDS ........................^..^.~..^^^..^...~^^^~`...........3~1 _
. �_�
SU�A��(][V ' ��Uf[ea��h Sf[Ote[%lBS ...........^.~~..^....,^...^..^.^.'^'^^^~^'~^'^'
�-�
��Ut�3C]Ch ��ndiD{]s^'^'~^^^^'~^^^—'^^'^^^^^' ^'^^^^^^^^^^^'`''^^^^^^^'—
CHAPTER 4[ SUMMARY OFFEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................^~,~,,~..4~1
4-1.FB[]3ibiUfu^',_,~,~,,,,^~,^,~,,.,._^..,^......-...~`^~.....'..~,,~`,,. ,,,.,.^,,,,,~~.
4-2
Evaluation �� PR]��DSB(� S[>iUt (JD3..~........-~....~,^~'..—.'..~..—.^~.—~'~—^—^'
4-5R���cO���OE}n����fiOns ......_..^.'.~~...~..^.....`.......~..-^,~..~.........._..^..'^^~—'
Detailed /\n{]|ysiS of Proposed SO|U�oDs ................... ........................`.^......... -4-7
CHAPTER 5. FUNDING..... ............. ..........................^~~^.,~...... ...........'....... ............
^... ~
��l
��OY���nrOBOfS(]UrceS.—..._,...........~..^......^............~_.~...~--~—.
P��[1!�� FC>U�(�{%�DDS ...................^.....^``.`....._..................^'.'.-.^^-~^~ '�-�
r1fhBFS(JUncGs ... ......... .^..'~^^'^'~^^^''`~`'^~''^^^^^^^`^~^`^^^^^^'^'^~^^~'^'~'^^'^'~^^^^5-l3
CHAPTER 6. IMPLEMENTATION .........................................................^..^'~..~~~^~`^^^'~'~6-1
Richmond.-Area TraDspnrtafiOD 4rfOD (`DmMlM�e8 ............... .........................^^6rl
�NeXfStBps,................^......,,,,,^~,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,.,.. ,_,,.,..,^,.~,,._6r1
APPENo[x A. SUMMARY of Ex\STING TRANSIT GAPS
APPENDIX B. LIST OpSTAKEHOLDERS
APPENDIX C, STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDix D. SURVEY RESULTS
APPENDix E. Focus GROUP RE8UL?s
Richmond Community mated Transportation Plan * Final epoor
METROPOL ;TAN TRA NSP °ORTA" ION yCli MISSION
Table of Figures
PAGE
Figure ES-- Richmond-Area Co.mrrunity-used Transportation Planning CommunitiesES-2
Figure ES-2 Lack of Vehicular Availability.............<,<.<.......................................<..................ES-4
Figure ES-3 Surnmary: Evaluation of Proposed So€utions............................................. ES-11
Figure ES-4 Potential Funding Sources....<......<.,,..,.,<.<......,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,>.........,,<.<,<...,.,.:...,.:ES-17
Figure 1 Richmond-Area Community-Based T ransportation Planning Communities 1-3
Figure 2-1 Total Population of Study Area as Percent of Total by Ace..................
Figure 2-2 Tot--I Population by Commur?ity as Percent of Total by Age........................2-3
Figure 2-3 Total Population of Study Area as Percent of Totes by Race ........................ 2-4
Figure 2-4 Total Population by Community as Percent of Total by Race...................... 2
Figure 2-5 Total Households of Study Area as Percent of Total by Income Group ......2-5
Figure 2-6 Total Households by Community as Percent of Total by income Group .... 2-6
Figure 2-7 Total Workers of Study Area as Percent of Tcto! by Noce of Work .............. 2-6
Figure 2-8 Total Workers by Community munity as Percent of Total by Place of Work........,.,, 2-7
Figure 2-9 Tota€ Workers of Shady Area as Percent of Tota; by Commute Mode._..... 2-7
Figure 2-10 Total Workers by Community as Percent of Total by Commute tVode....... 2-8
Figure 2-11 Tota: Workers of Study Area as Percent of Total by Commute Hour.,....,..... 2-8
icons 2-12 Tota° Workers of Study Area as Percent of Tota' by Cos.�muTe Length....,... 2-9
"Figure 2-13 Vehicle Availability by Household........<..............................................<.<...,.,..,., 2-9
Figure 2-14 Households without Vehicular Access.,...... ......................... 2-1 C
"Figure 3-' MTC Transportation: Survey Responses by Neighborhood...................<.,..<...< 3-2
Ffigure 4-1, Summary: Evoluat on or Proposed So€utEons................................................... 4-4
"Figure 4-2 Evaluation of AC Transit bus shelter-program:.............................I.................<., 4-8
Figure 4-3 Evaluation of oras stop seating>......
Figure 4-4 Evaluation of Guaranteed Ride Home Program ...... ............................... 4-1:3
Figure 4-5 Evaluation of rider DriverWorkshops..................... ......_.............................. 4-1
Figure 4-6 Evaluation of Subsidized Night Taxis....................
Figure 4-7 Evaluation of Auto !oar Program.,..<......................<.............1,..................,..<., 4-14
Figure 4-8 Evaluation of Local mransportation Information Center...............................4-15
Figure 4-9 Evaluation of Rides to Success Program ............................................<.,...,.....4-16
Fiore 4-10 E-valuation of Flex-route Night Bus ....... 4-18
"Figure 4-11 Evaluation of Neighborhood Shuttle......................................<...,.,......,.,......,<.4-19
"Figure 4-12 Evaluation of Trio Reimbursern`ent Program.....................................<.,........,., 4-20
Figure 4-13 Evaluation of Discounted Youth Pass Program ..................<,..................<...... 4-21
=icure 4-14 Evaluation of Children's Transportation Peograr? <..,.......<...<...,.>.,<,..,..<...<.,.,., 4-22
ricune 4-,5 Evaluation of Car-sharing ...............<..........................................,,.>.................. 4-24
Figure 4-16 Evaluation of Child Care at Richmond BART.................. 4:-25
rigure 4-17 Evaluation of AC Transit Improvements..........................................................4-26
Figure 4-18 Evaluation of Bikeways & Safe Routes to School .................. 4--"
}-icure 5-1 Potential Funding Sources......................... -°
Page it . Naiscwf lygaard Consulting Associates
Richmond Community Based Transportation Ptah Final Report
METROPG ?ITAN TRANSPORTA": ION COIMMISSION
Executive Summary
Background
Creation of the Richmond-Area Community-based Transportation Plan was a
resident-driven process to identify strategies that wi l close the transportation claps
in their neighborhoods. In April, 2003, the Metropolilan Transportation Commissloill
(MTC) contracted with Nelson\Ny aard Consulting Associates and its protect
partner, Neighborhood Nouse of North Richmond, for the first of five pi€ot
transportation planning programs in low-income Bay Area communities.
Nelsc n\ yagaard managed the overall project, while Neighborhood Nouse I e d
the community outreach. The planning effort took place between April and
December 2033. t was designed to build upon the findings off T 's 2001 Lifeline
'ransportation Network Report, which outlined a safety net of transit routes for
€ow-income people.
The target crea for this Plan Includes the neighborhoods of North Richmond, the
Iron Triangle, Coronado, Santa Fe, Old Town San Pcb'o and Parchester Village.
This area has fhe greatest density of residents In poverty in Contra Costa Count ,
I
as shown on maps bot' the L fe ine Report and the 2001 Env;~onmen tal Jus Tic'e
Report. Figure ES-1 is a map of the protect area.
P299 ES-1 a Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Richmond Community Based Transportation Ptah a Final Report
METRCPO ;a;TAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Figure S-1 Richmond-Area Community-Based Transportation
Planning Communities
R
4
�jParchester
# felag
3 �
IV
71 a
Old Torn ��h�,°d G �� + �+° a �� �•'
9 San Pablo
„
San Pa 0
{ j'Richmond
rs '� `�
�d
P r x,151 ; A ih
:4 IzSanta Fe
A �
rayon
a
F
0
6 a.
h
r rf F4
Iron Triang, y h, t
voi11 pp�
VR dr,
y
'Mon' p p� S
6.yq�$ _ EF�, erri o
,
��a s r� ,'a'�a �z "�r a "� Y' Q' e F.��',.��'3,��.kf t i.a'�.a
'_ �h��
incorporated M°unid�Y alftles ar'� � i4 94 �Leg
Pm CE RRIT
M,R!CH,.V LS D
=3 SAN PABLO
UNINCORPORATED
,��:ry �t�nrc a:s r Rink rcoa -._. .� � �• �'�
Page ES-2 b Naas ankNygaard Consulting Associates
Rich canci Community Based Transportation Plan o Final Report
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION CCMMUSION
Bch WrDemographicAs
* According to the 2000 Census, the study area is comprised of
approximately 33,000 residents. This represents about 4% of the total
948,816 people living in Contra Costa County.
* Overall, the study area's population ;s a °young" one, with 32% of the
population under the age of 18, and just 7% at or move the age of 65.
The study area is a "majority minorityl° area: with 34% Block, 12% Asian, and
27% "other" race according to the 2000 Census. Hispanics (who may be
any "race"! constitute 41% of the study area papulation.
e Household income in the study area is significantly below the $62,000
median for the Bay Area; the Iron Triangle, Forth Richmond and Santa Fe
ail have median incomes below $30,000.
a About :3,500 people, or slightly more than 3 % of the total residents in the
study area, are emp oyed, Of these, 56% trove' outside of Contra Costa
County for work.
o Seventy nine percent (797.) of workers commute by car, truck or vara, while
12% use public transportation. Compared to other comnr;unities within the
study area, workers in; the Iron Triangle rely ;most heavily on public
transportation (20%).
There is less of a reliance on driving and more on public transportation i
the study area compared to the Bay Area, when 37% of the population
commutes by car, truck or van and 110% use public transportation.
Sixty eight percent (63%) of the study area's workers have a commute that
exceeds 30 minutes, and 25% have a commute that exceeds one hour.
* Commute fength in the study area is longer compared to the Bay Area,
where average commute length in 2002 was 30 minutes.
In the study area: 13% of households have no access to an automobile,
with the highest rates in the Iron Triangle {26%) and North Richmond/Santa
Fe (24%). In contrast, only 6.5% of households in the County as a whole lack
access to a vehicle.
Access to vehicles is a particular issue among households headed by
individuals 65 year old or more, over 3C}% of such households lack access,
with the highest rates in the Iron Triangle.
Page Ss-3*NalsonNNygaard Consulting Assocgates
Richmond Community Based Transportation Plan + Fina! Report
'�IETROPOLJTAN TRANSPORTATION GOaMIMISSION
Fl ure ES-2 Lack of Vehicular Availability
30,00% —
25.00%
E
20,00%
f
10M%
�.00%
i
i
0.00
Parchester Old `rl own Coronado iron North Contra
Sar: Pablo Trianglia Richmond Costa
County
Page ES-a Nor€son\ ygaard Consulting Associates
Richmond Community Based Transportation Plan Final Report
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT .AT ?oN COMIM' ISSION
~ Findings
TheRichmond-Area Community-based Transportation Flan was developed with
the involvement of approX mately 25 neighborhood councils and community-
based organizations in collaboration with govern;;-mental agencies arld
transpartatio � providers. T o meetings with a Stakeholders Committee were
held, one to get initial direction and input on the planning process and the
second to get feedback on proposed strategies to salve transportation problems.
Organizations invited to participate on the Stakeholders Committee are 'listed
below:
Neighborhood & Community Organizations
Atchison Village Neighborhood Council Coronado Neighborhood Council
Belding goods Neighborhood Council Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council
Rarchester Village Neighborhood Coundl ShieldsmReld Neighborhood owrcil
Santa Fe Neighborhood Council Downtown Associatlon Of Richrnond
West County Toxics Coalition Robinson-'Weeks Scholarship Fund
United Laotlan Community Development Center For Health, North Richmond
Ma'an Youth academy Rubicon Programs
Laotian Organizing Project Richmond Imprmlement Association
Youth Service Bureau - Familias Nnidas
Multicultural Family/Senior for Cer!tvr Teen Resource Center
Greater Richmond Interfaith Program Brookside Community Health Center
North Riu"PnC"d Farnliy Sd vice Carter Neighborhood House Of North Richmond
Noah Richmond Community Career Center Council Of Industries-West Contra Costa County
No:-"h Richmond Municipal Advisory Committee
Government Agencies
BART
AC Transit
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Contra Costa County Community Development Dept.
Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Dep`,
West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee(WCCTACII
'neighborhood House of 'North Richmond ;NHNI conducted extensive
corr�rr,unity outreach. The following outlines the outreach methods and their
results.
Page ES-5 a Nalson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Richmond Community Based Transportation Plan a Final Report
Surveys
The consultant Learn developed a survey, which was tested with the Stakeholders
(_'ornmittee and revised based on their input before being broadly distributed by
Neighborhood Douse (l`iHNRI. NHNR received over 1,200 surveys from various
.communities in Richmond and San Pablo. The overall response rate from the
r dfing was 3%, with particularly high response rates in forth Richmond and
Santa Fe neighborhoods.
In-person surveys were distributed by interns on buses, at community and
senior centers, at ART stations, at the community college, at Shopping
malls, and at a homeless shelter.
Surveys were translated into Spanish and Lao, Spanish/English surveys were
.lied to eight neighborhood councils. aotian organizations distributed
the surveys to their members.
The survey was posted on Neighborhood House's website.
A rota' of 1,09 completed Surveys from reslaents in the target area were
analyzed. The left hand column `:lists the combined top priorities of ' all
respondents. The right hand column lists the top priorities by each target
neighbor-hood.
Page ES.6 Nalsonmygoard Consulting Associates
111th and Community= Based Transportation Pian Final Report
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Issas. Prioritized I st In:
BUSES FEED TO RUN:
1 . More often on weekends North Richmond, Iron Triangle, Parchester
Village,
Santa Fe
2. Late at night (from 9-12) Old Town San Pablo
3. Earle mornings (from 6-91 Coronado
1T'S MOST DIFFICULT TO CLT TO.
1 . Parks and recreation Coronado, Old Town San Pablo
2. Supermarket Parchester Village, iron Triangle
3. Health care Santa Fe
4. School/daycare North Richmond
MOST SEVERE PROBLEM:
sack of bus shelters North Richmond, Parchester Village, Santo Fe,
Old Town Sari Pablo, Coronado
2. 'geed for shuttles
3. Travel time is too long
Page ES-7 NeisonkNygaard Consulting Associates
fiIchmond Community Bossed Transportation Pias a Fka,I Report
METROPOLVAN TRANSPORTATION CCP, MOSION
Preliminary presentations describing the project and its goals were rade to five
neighborhood councils, the ,municipal Advisory Council, and two Laotian
organizations, A few of the planned presentations did not occur, when meetings
were cancelled due to sparse attendance during the summer months.
Focus Groups
A total of about 190 people participated in 10 separate focus groups. Focus
groups were held at neighborhood councils, churches, committee meetings, and
community-based organizations. The following list describes priorities that were
mentioned by at `east half of the groups. The list also incorporates the priorities of
the Stakeholders Committee.
# More affordable public transit
* More bus 1il!,ps and shelters
6 ChNdren's Transportation to day care
* Affordable public transit for youth attending school
0 sore courteous bus drivers
8 Better safety on transit for both riders and drivers
* More frequent service on weekends
Community Open Hansa
Approximately 35 people attended a community open house held in September
at the Nevin Plaza Senior lousing apartments, People who attended were asked
to both. confirm the findings of the outreach process and to prior€tlze potential
solutions.
Page ES-8 s Neison\Nygaard ConsuitIng associates
Richmond Community Based Transportation Pian} o Final Report
Ili E`
P 0 P 0 L �T A N 'T R A N S P 0 P T A T 10 N C0 W,MISSE0N
Potential Solutions it Feasibillity
The process of collecting input from the Richmond community produced a rich
list of potentiol transportation improvements to improve mobility. The list, which
was presented at the 'Community Caper: mouse and the Stakeholders Committee,
has been ;modified to include updated cast figures, craw, moderate, and high
cast solutions are described below.
Strategies To Meet Community Needs
LOW COST PROGRAMS h- 6-
AC
€ 6-ACS TRAN53 T BUS SHELTER PROGRAM X50,000
Advertising agency to install bus shelters with ads on busy streets with minirr;al
administrative cost to AC Transit: additional cast to install '0 neighborhood bus
shelters at $5,000 each. (Does not include ongoing maintenance cast of
neighborhood bus shelters.
BUS STOP SEATS $12,000
Two seats on a pole are installed at 20 neighborhood bus stops. An alternative's
recycled-co;Ment benches.
GUARANTEED RIDE HOMP PR GRAM (GRH) Program already funded
GRH program provides free taxi rides Dame from war l; in an emergency. Since
employer must be in program;, project involves the community working with
WCC-:AC- to `°.dentify employers of residents in study area for additional morketing
and program, membersh;r"
OL I-�7R DRIVER SAFETY AND MOBILITY WORKSHOPS $2,400
Six workshops to help 150 aider adults to continue driving safely for longer.
MODERATE COS`;" PROGRAMS ($51.000-$99,000)
SUBSIDIZEL) NIGHT TAXIS $66,000/yn
Taxi fare is subsidized for pre-qualified, low-income residents traveling frog, late
night buses and BART to home when. neighborhood buses are no longer running.
Cast is for 3,0,3 ;rips a year plus administration.
Fags ES-9 m elson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Richmond Community Based Transportation Plan Fins; Report
METROP0LITAIN T RANSPORT ATiON CO %IIMIsS ! ON
AUTO LOAN PROGRAM $60,000 start up, $20,0001yr.
Low interest loans for employed resints to purchase cars. Start-up cost would
create a revolving loan fund. Annual costs are for a,-4 ministration of the loan
pr;gram,
LC)CAL TRANSPORTATION CENTER 60,0001yr,
Phone number to call for information on local transportation and help with on-lire
grocery ordering, with translation available. Staff would hold travel training
classes and be a "bus buddy, for first-time riders, Cost includes full-time staff
located in an existing organizafion, and grocery delivery charge subsidies.
PILES TQ SUS(_-ESS PROGRAM X4,000/yr.
One bus would fake qualifying persons toob training or lob interviews. Funds 1120
one-way rides.
Ff �.E ROUTE NIGHT BUS $65,000-.$91-,000/yr.
One shuttle for evening and Tote night connections to BART. Nigher cost is for
weekend service.
NEIGHBORHOOD LAYTIM SHUTT,LE BUS $65,0001yr.
Shuttle services that complement fixed-route transit can be very helpful in filling
transit gags and serving ;rips to places like the Richmond BART station, A� Transit
cense~s, K111top Mail, medical centers and supermarkets. This cos- assumes service
three days a week. The route and destinations will need to be further defined by
th.e cornmuni;y,
TRIP REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM $75,5001yr.
to naive qualifying individuals. most incincludesVolun}tiers are reimbursed mileage
28 cents/1-rile plus program ad°rinistration.
HIGH COST PROGRAMS ($1,00,060 &
FR S QP DISCOUNTED YOUTH, BUS PASSES $314,000-, 1.5 m lzton/yr,
Students in `Fest Contra Costa School District would get $5 off AC Transit bus
Passes. Af $' ,5 million, low-income students would receive free bus passes.
CHILDREN'S TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM $170,0001yr.
Two buses would fake 20 qualifying low-income children to day care or school
Page ES-10. ode€sonkhlygatard Consulting Associates
Richmond Community Bassa Transportation Plan Final Reporlt ..
METROPOLIT61h TRAN SP0RTAT : ON C 0 W,V, ISS !ON
SUBSIDIZED 'AR-SHAR!N PROGRAM 100,0001yr.
Mtembers could rent cars at subsidized rates of 2/hour and 22 cents/mile
SUBSIDIZED CHILD CARE- AT RIC HA11 ND BART $X(0,00®/yr.
30 subsidized day care slots at a facility near Richmond BART station.
AC aTa'SA)V{S6eTIMPRL.JVEMENT y250a000—$1s000,000
The requests voiced most often during the community outreach involved
iMprover rents to A,%'-- Transit, including increased frequency, route changes, and
introduction of new routes. Any fixed route improvements that require AC Transit
to acquire one additional bus will cost a minimum of $250,000 for the bus, plus ars
average of $37.50/hour for operations. Cornmunity comments also indicated a
need for more driver training in courtesy.
Feasibility Analysis
Ta test the feasibility of implementing these improvements, each solution was
judged against a set of criteria proposed by the consultant team and confirmed
by the Stakeholders Con ml+tee. The eva uation criteria used to select the
Recomm--nded Solutions are as follows:
Financial
Overall Cost
* Cosi- Per beneficiary
* Funding availability and sustainability
Implementation
Do-able within reasonable "me-fl-lame
* Staging (doesn't require large fixed costs to get started)
Transportation Benefits
Salves multiple transportation problems
* Benefits relatively large number of residents
Easy to understand and access
* Effective and measurable (can quantify whether transportation usage has
increased)
Page ES-11 9 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Richmond C:ornrmunity Based `ransportatiOn Plana a ental Report
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Community
Has community support
Serves communities in the study area with the greatest need (degree of
transit dependency among 1ow7income va es—e.g„ depends on acre,
auto-ownership, current availability of transit)
* incorporates the needs of diverse communities in teras of language and
culture
Each of the suggested solutions was judged against each evaluation criterion.
Figure ES-3 summarizes the results of this evaluation for each broad category of
criteria. Evaluation of these Treasures is complicated by the fact that the
solutions cover a very broad range. Because there are doth quantitative
measures and qualitative assessments, the consultant team used our knowledge
and ;idgment to rank each major category in a range from "love" to "high". The
sur .mary table also includes a cumulative assessment, considering the rankings of
each of the categories
- - Page S-12 Nelsonk r ygaard Consulting Associates
Richmond Community Based Transportation Plan Final Report
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Figure € mmary: Evaluation of Proposed Solutions
Ranking. t4lgh (H) Ml'edre m (fvf) Low (L
Evaluation Category Cumulative i
Financial € mentation. Transportation Commu !! Evaluation
Bus shelters H
Sus stop seatsHill M
M
Guaranteed Ride
Haeme H s i L L-MI
Cider Driver Safety
and Mobility H H M L M I
i a
Subsidized taxis M M i M-H i M-H
Auto Lawn M H f LL � €
is Program } i
,
Local €
transportation ! M M Mt
' center
Rides to Success ? U M L-M L s L
Flex rete night � L � L H H
F bus
j Cay-time
f
shuttle 3
Trip
Reimbursement M M E H � L M
Program F
i Free or Discounted
youth pass L H € M H M �
program
Children's
Transportation L H € L H M3
Program a
expansion
;
i
Subsidized Car.
sharing Program L -' a L _
€ bid€xed
M
C -
are
, ,
t
9
AC Transit
i€ roye€nents t
L M H H
Bikeway and '
.eeetran paths x
Page S-13 s Nelson%Nygaard Consulting Associates
Richmond Community munity Based Transportation Plea * Proal Report
h9 ET R0 P0L !TA N TRAN SP0RoAT ! 0NCO MMiISS10N
Recommendations
The results of the summary table suggest that the community should focus on
affordable, effective and popular solutions in the short term, while perhaps
building momentum to implement more complex and expensive solutions in the
future.
Recommended Low Cost Solutions
• Bus shelfers
a Buis seats or benches
• Older [)river Safety and t�Aobility Workshops
Increasing the number of bus shelters would be a very popular program, and it
would also be affordable and yield real benefits, increasing the coWwt and
ease of transit use. While it is riot the so ut on '-hot will -have the greatest
transportation impacts, it is one that can produce real results in a short-timie
frame, and ;Or tha'- reason is worthy of support.
,the,, low cost solutions that may be considered are installing bus seats or
oenc;yes ;particularly in areas where utas shelters may no¢ be approprIatre', and
hosting Older Driver workshops. Both of these programs are very low cost, and
can develop momentum, and visibility for a neighborhood specific transportation
grogram.
Recommended Medium Cost Solutions
Subsidized Taxi
Richmond Community Based Transportation Plan R Final Report
11AETROPOL1 ; AN ' RAN SPORT AT10N COMMISSION
Neighborhood Daytime Shuttle program has a high level of benefit for the
lnvestmehtP as well as strong community support. However, the Daytime Shuttle
has not been well-defined by the community and, therefore, merits further
investigation on a list of feasible projects to pursue. Creating a Local
Transportation Center can benefit a large number of residents by providing ars
information clearinghouse -or existing transportation resources. It also has the
potential to focus community efforts on implementing the final Plan.
Recommended High Cost Solutions
The majority of the h`=.gh cost solutions also require involvement of a public
agency in their implementation. This fact, combined with their cast, means that
pursuing these solutions wall not reward the community with short-term, tangible
progress on their transportation problems. Nevertheless, the community has an
important advocacy role requiring immediate attention.
The time to strongly support the Yree Youth Bus Pass Program, as a priority is now,
since its lncusion in a proposed funding plan will, be decided in Spring 204.
W1'-CTAC has requested funding for Free Youth Bus Passes in its submittal to the
tvjeasure C reauthorization plan being developed by the Contra Costa
ironsportatior, Authority (OCTA), In -early 20904, the OCTA Board of Directors will
choose the projects that will go into the half-cent transportation sales tax
measure and be voted upon by the electorate in November 2004. Since . Nest
County schools do not have school buses, and since many children miss school
for lack of bus money, a compelling case can be wade for the Free youth Bus
Pass Program;, school busing or same other youth transportation program, despite
the high cast.
If Measure C is renewed by the voters, the new funds will not be available until
2009. however, if the pro ects in the Richmond-area Community-used
Transoortct on Plan are not broadly incorporated in the language now, they will
not be eligible later. Therefore, the cor munity should also advocate that the
Measure C language be written inclusively enough to encompass other high-cost
solutions, such as expansion of the Children's Transporiction Program and Safe
Routes to School, in the list of possible projects.
Nor should the community ignore some of the other most pressing transportation
issues, improvements to the frequency of AC Transit bus service, for instance,
have the highest level of transportation benefits and community support.
Therefore, the community should be diligent and articulate in advocating for
increased service. It is widely understood, however, that it is unlikely for any
improvement to be possible until regional and state economic conditions
improve, AC Transit will be conducting a route study in the area in 2004 and has
Page ES-15 * Nalson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Richmond Community Bassa Transportation Plan a Final Rep Iort
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMiSS4014
indicated an intention to incorporate the findings of this study as a starting point
far additional analysis.
While bikeways and pedestrian paths are projects that would need to be
construcfed by the city or county, community organizations can partner with their
pubic agency in applying for several competitive funding programs. dere again,
the community also needs to advocate to city and county leaders Scar its share of
rl: bl'c works and Measure � funis to corm eI bikeways and Safe Routes to
gid,
School i,:. the Richmond area and to urge decision-makers to apply for
appllca ble grants for these projects.
Funding
Most of +he funding ¢or public transit is derived from state and federal funds that
are dstribu+ed according to formulae based can papulation and ridership.
Therefore, this funding section focuses on source_ that are not -ormula funds but
are compefifive programs or revenues from non-traditional sources.
Government Sources
Current Funding Programs
Caw sl�?C l l E�X1 itt `JJag ice¢Ca6` Program (LIFT)
The Metrapal:tan Transportation Commission WiTC) partnered with local transit
and social services agencies to respond to the challenge of improving
transporfation services fbr residents of low-income communities by initiating the
Low Income Flexible Transportation (LIFT) Program. projects rewire a local
match. A new round of proposals for L1E=T funds will occur in 2004.
,ronsioO Eailon F r�rVable C i lf�rs�Jl l i s (TLC .
,V%TC created this innovative prograrn to fund coimmunity-oriented transportation
projects. TLC planning grants of up to $75,000 are awarded to help sponsors
refine and elaborate promising project ideas. The next cycle will be in Spring
2004. Capital grar;ts for projects 'hat directly support construction range in size
from; $150,000 to 2 million per project. However, the next capital grant cycle is
not scheduled until 2005.
Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA)
Through the Bicycle Transportation account, Caltrans provided $7.2 milNon In 2002
to local communities for capital projects Intended to improve and increase
bicycle corn muting.
Rage 65-16 m Ne€aonNygaard Consulting Associates
Richmond Community Based `transportation Pian Proal Report
M E T R 0 P 0 L I T A N T R A N S P 0 R T AT € 0N e0MMISS €0N'
Transportation Fund fol,Clean Air (TFCA)
The Transportation Fund for Clean Air is a grant program funded by a $4
surcharge on vehicles registered in the Bay Area, which generates about $20
million a year. The goal of TFCA is to decrease vehicle err:issions in order to
improve air quality. The find includes a wide range of project types, such as
shuttle and feeder bus service to train stations, rideshoring programs to
encourage carpool and transit use, bike lanes, and information projects to
enhance the availability of transit information, Only public agencies can apply
for TFCA funds.
SafeRoutes to School (SUS)
The State Department of Transportation (Caltrans; will be soliciting project
applications from cities and counties in California for Safe Routes to School (SR2S
funding next year. The application deadline is February 27, 2004, with approval of
selected projects by Fall 2004. SR2S is a construction program:, intended to
MI'DIrave and enhance the safety of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, The
maximum reimbursement for all projects will be $450,000, with the local agency
Providing a 10% local match.
Older Americans Act (OAA)
Transportation is a major service under the Older Americans Act, providing
needed access to nutrition, medical and other essential services. leo funding is
specifically designated -for transportation. However, funding can be used for
transportation under several secflons of the Act.
Community Development Bock Grants (CDBG
The CDBC program is a federal program of grants to local governments. Both
government agencies and nonprofit organizations are eligible for funding. The
Clty of Richmond and Contra Costa County allocate CDBG funds in a
competitive process to low income areas.
West Centra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority IWCCIWMAl
WCCNMA is a joint powers agency created by the Cities of E-1 Cerrito, Hercules,
Pinole, Richmond and San Pablo to implement a State law requiring a good fain°:
effort at reducing the amount of material going to landfill by 5 %. The Authority
sponsors a "mini-grant" program to fund efforts resulting in a reduction of waste
seat to the `west County landfill.
Page ES-17 a Nelso nNygsfard Consulting Associates
Richmond Community 02sed Transportation Plan a Fkal Report
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATa+ON COMMISSION
PcKe tial Future Government Funding Sources
Serrate B111916, Election for$1 Toff increase
Senator Don Perata has introduced Senate Bill (SB) 916, which will allow voters to
dedicate an additional $1 toll on all state-owned bridges (excluding the Golden
Gate Bridge) in, the Bay Area to fund projects in seven bridge corridors. The
Treasure, which requires a majority vote, will be placed on the March 2004 ballot.
Renewal of Contra Costa County's Measure C
,V.easure Cis the transportation halt-cent sales tax initiative that was approved by
the voters in 1933, Measure C sales tax receipts support transportation
irrprove men projects and growth management in Contra Costa County. The
current tax expires in 2009 and a renewal proposal to extend the sales tax is
planned for the November 2004 ballot. A two-thirds vote of approval is required.
Transportation 2030 (T2030)
,V,.TC is updating the Bay Area's long-range transportation plan for the years 200-
2030. Of the total $37.4 billion in transpolahon revenues that MTC anticipates
corning to the Bay Area during the next quarter century, 23% ($19.7 billion;
provides for new projects or system expansion. Although no direct funding is
provided from the regional transportation plan, projects ;rust be included in the
plan to be eligible for future funding allocations from VTC.
State Environment-af Justice and Community Based Transportation Manning
Grants (EJ)
Caltrans—the California Department of Tr ansportation—introduced two grant
programs in 200'-02 that would have applicability to the Richmond-area projects:
the Environmental Justice Grant Progrc n and the Community Based
Transportation Planning Grant Program. Because of the State's budget deficits, it
is unlikely that these grants will be available 0 the near term, although the
programs may be revived in the future.
Private FOUndatinis
Many small, focused projects that target low-income populations are eligible for
foundation: grants. This list of seven promising foundations is by no :means
exhaustive but is suggestive of the types of grants that May be available.
Foundation: grants are highly competitive and more research would be needed
before applying.
e Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Page ES-18 a Netson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Richmond Community Based Transportation Plan Fina! Report
ME 'rROr0L #TAN TRAISP0RTATION C0MMI 1SS10N
a 1\,iathan Curnmings Foundation
a William G. !resin Charity Foundation
a Zellerbach Family Foundation
a East Bay Community Foundation
* Surdna Foundation
aohs-Food 4 Less Foundation
Other Sources
Advertising Agency
AC Transit contracts with an advertising agency to install and maintain bus
shelters on rnaor streets throughout the district in return for placement of
advertising on the shelters.
Local retailers
Businesses that would benefit from increased customers, such as grocery stores
and shopping mails, might consider funding part of the coats of a shuttle.
Service clubs and fraternal organizations
Organizations such as the Rotary Club, Soroptomists, Kiwanis, and Lions often take
on special projects.
Employers
Employers who are in need of workers are sometimes w€Hing to underwrite
transpodation in order to fill their labor needs.
Developers
Residents should be alert to new projects proposed for their community as the
developers seek approval from the City of Richmond or contra Costa County.
Transportation impacts on the community can be mitigated by conditions on the
project's approval.
Figure S-4 suggests funding sources that may be applicable to each of the
oro='ects described in this Plan.
Page ES-19 * Nsis snkNygaarci Consulting Associates
Richmond Community Based Transportation Plan Papal Report
METROPOLITAN TRANSP0RTATION C0MIMISSION
Figure ES-4 Potential Funding Sources
ut tion Funding Agencies �
Bus shelters Ad agency, CDBO, Irwin Found,
nus stops seats/benches TLC, CDBC; WCCIWMA, Irwin Found., service clubs l
Gdarariteed Ride Home 9 Measure C
Older Driver Worksbopv OAA, Bast Bay Found.
Subsidized taxis CDBO
Auto Loaf program LIFT, CDBC
Local transportation: center LIFT, TFCA, CCB^G, Zellerbach Found., Fast Bay Found. i
3 Rides to Success program 1 LIFT, CDBC, Past Bay Found.
Rex route nigl"t bus LIFT,TFCA, T20310, FJ, Surdna Found.
Neighbor hood Oayti:a^e Depends on ci enteie; OAA; Measure C,T2030, EJ, Johnson Found,,
Day-t! i
Shuttle Cummings Found., Irwin Found., Zellerbach Found., Surdna Fouled.,
Raipbs Food 4 Less Found., retailers, service clubs
Trip RehbUrseme t program LIFT; OAA, CCBO, Measure C paratransit funds, service clubs
Q
Discounted youth AC `Transit Measure C, `I42030; Zel'erbach Found., Ra': hs Food 4 Less Found. I
I
passes I
Children's transportation 1 MFT, CIBC, MeasureC, lain Found,, ZellerbachFound., mast Bay I
program: E Fouad., Ralphs Fond 4 Less, service clubs
Subsldlzed carsbaring LIFT, TFCA; CCBC, —2030, Surdna Found.
i program
Subsidized ch';id care at BART Ralohs Food 4 Less Found.; Service clubs; TLC or Surdna Pound, for I
construction
AC Transit lrnprovements SB 916, Measure C, T2030
Bikeways I TLC, TFCA, BTA, SR2S, SB 916, Measure C, `€20310, Johnson Found,
I_
Legends
BTA: Bicycle Transporation Acco:urlt T2030: regional transportation plan
CDBC: Community Development Bloch Grant TFCA; Transportatl^^ Fund for Clean Air
EJ: Environmental Justice graft TLC:Transportation for Livable Comrnunities
LIFT: Low incorne Flexible Transportation Program, SB 916: proposed 1 bridge toll increase
Measure C: renewal of 112 cent sales tax WCCIWMA: best Contra Costa Waste Management
OAA: Older Ameft ns Act federal funds SR2S: Safe Routes to Sdhool funds
Page ES-20 .Nelsons Nygaard Consulting Associates
Richmond CO unity Based Transportation Plan e Final Report
.METROPOLITAN TRAINSPORTATION COMMiSSION
Implementation
This section discusses actions needed In order to move the. Richmond-area
Cornmunity-based Transportation Plan from the planning process into
implementation. Early implementation is important not, only to solve some of the
transportation problems faced by the residents but also to keep faith with the
comrnunity and blunt cynicism about this and future efforts.
Richmond-Area Transportation Action Committee
The key recommendation of this plan Is the formation of an ongoing committee
made up of community representatives committed to implementing this Plan.
Staff of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has indicated a willingness to
work with the community in the initial formation of this Tronspcytafion Action
Coi-nm ittee, Neighborhood House of North. Richmond, as the lead agency for
the West County Hecilth Initiative, has agreed to convene of least the first few
meetings of a new transportation subcOrnmittee, with the goo! of finalizing an
ongoing structure for fronspor-ration impliernenfaflon.
Funding
Beyond ;the formotion of a Transportation Action Committee, the next important
si--,o is to identify funding for the recommended projects. This first agenda item
H
for the Comrn, :fte-- will require immediate ai:-n+'on of the group, since inclusion of
projects to be funded by the Measure C golf-cert transportation sales tax
reauthorization and incorploratt=�protects I ed into the regional Transportation 2030
plan w;'I;.' be decided by Spring 2004.
AC Transit Improvements
AC Transit intends to initial,-- a route planning study of its service in the Richmond
area in, early 2004. The Transportation Action on Committee recommended by this
Plan;an could be a sounding board for strategies proposed by AC "Fronsit staff. The
Committee is also an approp(iolle forurn, for advocating that specific
lmDr;v--rr.,e,nfsid--nfii-'led by the community be implemented when regional and
state economic conditions improve.
Lead Agencies
As parl, of the Plan's development, Neighborhood House has already ,held
discussions with some of the stakeholders in order to identify orgonizctions or
individuals who might take the lead on various protects. The ;full Plan describes
initial ste-s these leaders should take to implement the recommended proiecfs,
once funding has been identified.
Page ES-21 6 Melson',Nygaard Consulting Associates