MEETING AGENDA 6:00 p.m., STA Board Regular Wednesday ... · 4/10/2019 · The complete STA Board Meeting Packet is available on STA’s Website at (Note: STA Board Meetings are

The complete STA Board Meeting Packet is available on STA’s Website at www.sta.ca.gov(Note: STA Board Meetings are held at Suisun City Hall, 6:00 p.m. on the 2nd Wednesday of every month

except August (Board Summer Recess) and November (Annual Awards Ceremony.)

MEETING AGENDA

6:00 p.m., STA Board Regular Wednesday, April 10, 2019

Suisun City Hall Council Chambers 701 Civic Center Drive Suisun City, CA 94585

Mission Statement: To improve the quality of life in Solano County by delivering transportation system projects to ensure mobility, travel safety, and economic vitality.

Public Comment: Pursuant to the Brown Act, the public has an opportunity to speak on any matter on the agenda or, for matters not on the agenda, issues within the subject matter jurisdiction of the agency. Comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes per speaker unless modified by the Board Chair, Gov’t Code § 54954.3(a). By law, no action may be taken on any item raised during the public comment period although informational answers to questions may be given and matters may be referred to staff for placement on a future agenda of the agency. Speaker cards are required in order to provide public comment. Speaker cards are on the table at the entry in the meeting room and should be handed to the STA Clerk of the Board. Public comments are limited to 3 minutes or less.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): This agenda is available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the ADA of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Govt. Code §54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation should contact Johanna Masiclat, Clerk of the Board, at (707) 399-3203 during regular business hours at least 24 hours prior to the time of the meeting.

Translation Services: For document translation please call: Para la llamada de traducción de documentos: 對於文檔翻譯電話

Đối với tài liệu gọi dịch: Para sa mga dokumento tawag sa pagsasalin: 707-399-3239

Staff Reports: Staff reports are available for inspection at the STA Offices, One Harbor Center, Suite 130, Suisun City during regular business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday-Friday. You may also contact the Clerk of the Board via email at [email protected] Supplemental Reports: Any reports or other materials that are issued after the agenda has been distributed may be reviewed by contacting the STA Clerk of the Board and copies of any such supplemental materials will be available on the table at the entry to the meeting room.

Agenda Times: Times set forth on the agenda are estimates. Items may be heard before or after the times shown.

ITEM BOARD/STAFF PERSON

1. CALL TO ORDER/ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE(6:00 p.m.)

Chair Price

2. CONFIRM QUORUM/ STATEMENT OF CONFLICT Chair Price An official who has a conflict must, prior to consideration of the decision; (1) publicly identify in detail the financial interest that causes the conflict; (2) recuse himself/herself from discussing and voting on the matter; (3) leave the room until after the decision has been made. Cal. Gov’t Code § 87200.

3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

4. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT(6:05 – 6:10 p.m.)

STA BOARD MEMBERS Jim Spering Lori Wilson Elizabeth Patterson Thom Bogue

(Vice Chair) Harry Price

(Chair) Ronald Kott Ron Rowlett Bob Sampayan

County of Solano City of Suisun City City of Benicia City of Dixon City of Fairfield City of Rio Vista City of Vacaville City of Vallejo

STA BOARD ALTERNATES Erin Hannigan Mike Segala Lionel Largaespada Steve Bird Chuck Timm Donald Roos Dilenna Harris Robert McConnell

1

http://www.sta.ca.gov/

mailto:[email protected]



Daryl Halls

Jim Spering, MTC Commissioner

5. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT – Pg. 7(6:10 – 6:15 p.m.)

6. REPORT FROM THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC)(6:15 – 6:20 p.m.)

7. REPORT FROM CALTRANS(6:20 – 6:25 p.m.)

8. STA PRESENTATIONS(6:25 – 6:50 p.m.)A. Solano PCA Plan Implementation UpdateB. Solano PDA Implementation UpdateC. ABAG/MTC Perspective Paper #3 - Regional Growth

Strategies – Options for Solano County to ConsiderD. Assessment of CASA Compact Legislation

E. Directors Reports:1. Planning2. Projects – SR 12/SR 113 Groundbreaking Event3. Programs – Update on Solano Mobility Programs

Matt Tuggle, Solano County Robert Guerrero

Daryl Halls

Sean Quinn, Consultant/ Daryl Halls

Robert Guerrero Janet Adams

Ron Grassi

Johanna Masiclat

Johanna Masiclat

9. CONSENT CALENDARRecommendation:Approve the following consent items in one motion.(Note: Items under consent calendar may be removed for separate discussion.)(6:50 – 6:55 p.m.)

A. Draft Minutes of the STA Board Meeting of March 13, 2019 Recommendation:Approve the Minutes of the STA Board Meeting of March 13, 2019. Pg. 13

B. Draft Minutes of the STA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting of March 27, 2019Recommendation:Receive and file.Pg. 21

C. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) Bylaws Revisions Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve the BAC By-laws revisions as shown in Attachment A. Pg. 25

Triana Crighton

D. Appointment to Solano County Transit (SolTrans) PublicAdvisory Committee (PAC) Recommendation: Appoint LaGuan Lea, Jr. to the SolTrans PAC as the STA representative for a three (3) year term. Pg. 31

Brandon Thomson

2




Lloyd Nadal E. Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Micro-Grant Pilot Program Recommendation:Authorize the Executive Director to implement the Safe Routes to School Micro-Grant Pilot Program with an initial budget of $40,000 during Fiscal Year 2019-20.Pg. 33

F. Funding Resolution with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for the Bay/Vine Trail for the 2019 Pilot Trip Reduction Grant ProgramRecommendation:Approve the following:

1. STA Resolution of Local Support No. 2019-04 committing STA and the City of Vallejo to delivering the Bay/Vine Trail project; and

2. Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a funding agreement with the City of Vallejo for The Bay/Vine Trail Project.

Pg. 35

Anthony Adams

G. STA Resolution Revising the Agency’s Conflict of Interest CodeRecommendation:Adopt the attached Resolution No. 2019-05 revising the Agency's Conflict of Interest Code for designated positions.Pg. 41

Bernadette Curry, Legal Counsel

10. ACTION NON-FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. 2018 SolanoExpress Ridership Survey and Analysis StudyRecommendation:Approve the following:

1. The 2018 SolanoExpress Ridership Survey and AnalysisStudy as shown in Attachment B; and

2. Authorize the Executive Director to update the IntercityFunding formula for SolanoExpress Service based upon theresidency information gathered from the 2018 SolanoExpressRidership Survey.

(6:55 – 7:05 p.m.) Pg. 47

Brandon Thomson and Veronica Raymonda,

Quantum

B. STA Legislative UpdateRecommendation:Approve the following positions:

• Support Senate Bill 152 (Beall) - Active TransportationProgram Reform Act

• Support Assembly Bill 1413 (Gloria) - Transportation: localtransportation authorities: transactions and use taxes.

• Oppose Assembly Bill 1568 (McCarty) - General plans:housing element: production report: withholding of SB1transportation funds

Vincent Ma

3




• Monitor:o Senate Bill 4 (McGuire) Housingo Senate Bill 5 (Beall) Affordable Housing and

Community Development Investment Programo Senate Bill 50 (Wiener) Planning and zoning:

housing development: incentives.o Assembly Bill 148 (Quirk-Silva) Regional

transportation plans: sustainable communitiesstrategies

o Assembly Bill 185 (Grayson) CaliforniaTransportation Commission: transportation policies:joint meetings,

o Assembly Bill 847 (Grayson) Transportation finance:priorities: housing.

o Assembly Bill 1487 (Chiu) Land use: housingelement.

(7:05 – 7:15 p.m.) Pg. 123

11. ACTION FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. Development of Update Coordinated Short Range Transit Plans(SRTPs)Recommendation:Approve the following:

1. Authorize the Executive Director to proceed with developmentof an update of Coordinated Short Range Transit Plans forSolano County transit operators in Fiscal Year 2019-20, perMTC Resolution No. 4364;

2. Allocate $70,000 of State Transit Assistance Funds (STAF)towards the Coordinated Short Range Transit Plans;

3. Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a fundingagreement with MTC to receive $130,000 of FTA 5303 fundsfor development of the Coordinated SRTPs; and

4. Authorize the Executive Director to issue an RFP and enter intoa contract for the Coordinated Short Range Transit Plans forSolano County transit operators for an amount not-to-exceed$200,000.

(7:15 – 7:25 p.m.) Pg. 135

Brandon Thomson

Robert Guerrero

12. INFORMATIONAL – NO DISCUSSION ITEMS

A. Transportation and Land Use Activities UpdatePg. 159

B. Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) – 2st Quarter Update for FY 2018-19Pg. 163

Anthony Adams

4




Triana Crighton C. Summary of Funding OpportunitiesPg. 165

D. 2019 STA Board and Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule Pg. 169

Johanna Masiclat

13. BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS

14. ADJOURNMENTThe next regularly scheduled meeting of the STA Board is at 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 8, 2019,at the Suisun Council Chambers.

STA Board Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2019 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, January 9, 2019

6:00 p.m., Wednesday, February 13, 2019 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 13, 2019 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 10, 2019 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 8, 2019

6:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 12, 2019 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, July 10, 2019

NO MEETING IN AUGUST – BOARD RECESS 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, September 11, 2019

6:00 p.m., Wednesday, October 9, 2019 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 13, 2019 (STA’s 22nd Annual Awards – City of Fairfield)

6:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 11, 2019

5


This page intentionally left blank.

6

Agenda Item 5 April 10, 2019

DATE: April 2, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Daryl K. Halls RE: Executive Director’s Report – April 2019

The following is a brief status report on some of the major issues and projects currently being advanced by the Solano Transportation Authority (STA). An asterisk (*) notes items included in this month’s Board agenda.

Status of PDA and PCA Implementation in Solano County * Later this year, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) are scheduled to reopen the opportunity for the nine Bay Area counties to re-designate, add, amend or modify Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Priority Conversation Areas (PCAs) boundaries. This will provide an opportunity for each of the seven cities to review and potentially revise their PDA boundaries based on the updated regional criteria proposed by ABAG/MTC and for the County to review and potentially revise the PCA boundaries.

In 2016, the STA, in partnership with the County of Solano, completed a countywide PCA Plan that identified nine PCAs of which five were adopted by the County of Solano. At the STA Board meeting, County of Solano Resource Management Agency staff has been invited to provide an update on the status of the implementation of two Priority Conservation Area (PCA) projects funded by the STA through rounds 1 and 2 of the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) process.

In parallel, STA has been working for the past seven years with each of the seven cities to plan and implement a series of PDAs throughout Solano County. Last year, five of the cities provided the STA Board with presentations on the status of nine of these PDAs. The PDAs are the focus of future federal OBAG funds that will be provided to STA by MTC.

In parallel to ABAG/MTC’s PDA and PCA update efforts, ABAG/MTC has also proposed to develop Priority Production Areas (PPAs) that focuses on future jobs growth. Solano County is well positioned for this effort with the recently completed “Moving Solano Forward” Economic Strategy completed by Solano Economic Development Corporation (EDC) in partnership with the County and the seven cities.

ABAG/MTC Perspective Paper #3 – Regional Growth Strategies – Options for Solano County to Consider * In preparation for the development of the Plan Bay Area 2050, staff from ABAG/MTC is preparing a series of perspective papers to help frame the consideration and discussion of various regional policies issues. Perspective paper #3 – pertaining to Regional Growth Strategies was released at the end of February. This paper focuses on the status of the region’s efforts to focus

7

Executive Director’s Memo April 2, 2019

Page 2 of 3 future growth through PDAs, investigates options for meeting regional housing needs, reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and aligning with the five guiding principles of ABAG/MTC’s Horizons process. The five guiding principles are Affordable, Connected, Diverse, Healthy and Vibrant. Follow Up to City County Coordinating Council (4 Cs) Summit on Housing* In follow up to the City County Coordinating Council (4Cs) hosted Summit on Housing held on February 25th, STA has been working with interested cities on a series of tasks that include distributing information pertaining to Senate Bill 2’s housing planning funds, meeting with various city staffs to discuss the status of their Regional Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA) targets, tracking state housing legislation that may impact transportation funding, and monitoring regional housing discussions at ABAG and MTC. This past month, an initial review and analysis of the regional CASA Compact proposal and its list of enabling legislation has been completed. Staff has prepare an initial set of recommended STA positions under the legislative staff report (Agenda Item 10.B.). Plan Bay Area 2050 Call for Project Public Hearing Scheduled for May 8th In parallel to the regional discussion about housing, MTC/ABAG has requested STA and the other Bay Area County Transportation Agencies issue calls for transportation projects for Plan Bay Area 2050. Staff is recommending the Board utilize the May 8th STA Board meeting to receive both input from STA’s various citizens and technical committees on priorities to be submitted for Plan Bay Area 2050 and to hold a public hearing providing an opportunity for the public to comment. The deadline for STA to submit Solano County transportation projects to MTC/ABAG is by the end of June of 2019. To be eligible for future state and federal transportation funds, projects must be included in this Plan are and the Plan must be fiscally constrained. SR 12/SR 113 Project Groundbreaking Event Caltrans District 4 is preparing to start the construction of the State Route (SR) 12/SR 113 Round-About Project in the late April/early May time frame. The Event is proposed to be held at the Railroad Museum. STA is working with Caltrans to officially announce the start of construction of this $4.6 million State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) Project. This Project was a near term implementation priority identified by STA and Caltrans in both the SR 12 Major Investment Study (MIS) and SR 113 MIS. Solano Express Ridership Survey Results * Earlier this fiscal year, STA contracted with Quantum Market Research to update the ridership survey for Solano Express. Over 2,500 on board surveys were conducted on the five Solano Express Routes (80, 85, Blue, Green, and Yellow). The consultant will provide a summary of the results as the Board meeting. The ridership results by route helps to inform future service changes and is part of the formula for determining the amount of local transit operator’s contribution for the next fiscal year’s Intercity Transit Funding Agreement that helps fund the Solano Express service.

8

Executive Director’s Memo

April 2, 2019 Page 3 of 3

Development of Coordinated Short Range Transit Plans * MTC has allocated STA federal transit funding to work with Solano County’s five transit operators to update the Coordinated Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). Three recommended priorities for this Coordinated SRTP are; access to medical trips, connectivity of local transit services to regional transit services (Ferry, Rail and Solano Express), and access to PDAs. Support for TFCA Grant Request for Bay Trail/Vine Trail Funding * STA successfully obtained a regional competitive Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant of $4.6 million for the City of Vallejo to implement the segments of the Bay Trail/Vine Trail located in the City of Vallejo. This trail when completed, will connect the Bay Trail/Vine Trail from Napa County to the Vallejo Waterfront, ferry, and PDA. During the environmental clearance process, the City of Vallejo identified that additional funding is needed to fully fund the design and construction of the project. STA has submitted a request to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for regional Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) to complete the funding for the project. The BAAQMD has requested that STA officially convey its support for this funding request. Solano Mobility Program Updates * STA’s Solano Mobility Programs continue to make progress. Staff updates are provided for the Employer Program and the Intercity Taxi Program. The Employer Program includes the First Last Mile Program with LYFT, the new Ride Amigos Online Platform, and the Amtrak/LYFT incentive. The Intercity Taxi Program continues to transition countywide from the use of paper taxi scrip to the PEX card and to expand the program to provide non-ambulatory service. This service is now in place in Benicia, Dixon, Rio Vista and Vallejo. At the end of April, the service will expand to Fairfield and Suisun City, and in July to Vacaville. Attachment A is a summary of countywide and regional meetings that I attended on behalf of STA during the month of March 2019. Attachments:

A. Summary of Countywide and Regional Meetings (Month of March 2019) B. STA Acronyms List of Transportation Terms

9

ATTACHMENT A

SUMMARY OF COUNTYWIDE AND REGIONAL MEETINGS IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2019

March 1

- Hosted meeting and project tour with MTC staff

March 4 - Staffed meeting of STA Board’s Executive Committee

March 5 - Attended meetings in Sacramento with STA Board Members to discuss housing legislation’s potential impact on transportation funding

- March 6 - Briefed new Suisun City Council Member Wanda Williams

- Attended Vallejo State of the City Luncheon hosted by Vallejo Chamber of Commerce

March 7

- Attended SR 37 Policy Committee meeting in Novato - Conference call with three Solano Transit Operators to discuss status of transit

pilot application - Attended State Senator Bill Dodd’s open house event in Vacaville

March 11 - Meeting with County CAO Birgitta Corsello to discuss 4 Cs follow up tasks - Attended meeting with SolTrans to discuss Solano Express service costs

March 12 - Conference call with Benicia City Manager Lori Tinfow to discuss priority

projects - Board briefing meeting with Supervisor Erin Hannigan - Conference call with Vacaville City Manager, Jeremy Craig to discuss housing

legislation

March 13 - Attended kick off meeting for Equity Subcommittee and Equity Chapter in Suisun City

- Attended STA Board meeting in Suisun City -

March 15 - Attended with briefing with BAAQMD representative Jim Spering and Lori Wilson

- March 20 - Attended ABAG/MTC Horizon’s Workshop in Vallejo

- March 21 - Conference call with consultant to review Solano Express Ridership survey

results - Meeting with Gerry Raycraft, Habitat for Humanity, to discuss emerging

housing issues -

March 22 - Attended meeting to discuss Tom Hannigan’s memorial plague - Attended coordination meeting with Beth Kranda and SolTrans staff in Vallejo -

March 29 - Moderated monthly meeting of the BACTA Executive Directors in Oakland - Attended meeting with new ABAG/MTC Executive Director, Therese McMillan

10

STA ACRONYMS LIST OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS Last Updated by JM: October 2018

A AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACTC Alameda County Transportation Commission ADA American Disabilities Act ADT Average Daily Traffic APDE Advanced Project Development Element (STIP) AQMD Air Quality Management District ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ATP Active Transportation Program ATWG Active Transportation Working Group AVA Abandoned Vehicle Abatement B BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAC Bicycle Advisory Committee BACTA Bay Area Counties Transportation Agencies BAIFA Bay Area Infrastructure Financing Authority BART Bay Area Rapid Transit BATA Bay Area Toll Authority BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BUILD Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development C CAF Clean Air Funds CalSTA California State Transportation Agency CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CCAG City-County Association of Governments (San Mateo) CCCC (4’Cs) City County Coordinating Council CCCTA (3CTA) Central Contra Costa Transit Authority CCJPA Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CHP California Highway Patrol CIP Capital Improvement Program CMA Congestion Management Agency CMIA Corridor Mobility Improvement Account CMAQ Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Program CMGC Construction Manager/General Contractor CMP Congestion Management Plan CNG Compressed Natural Gas CPI Consumer Price Index CTA California Transit Agency CTC California Transportation Commission CTP Comprehensive Transportation Plan CTSA Consolidated Transportation Services Agency D DBE Disadvantaged Business Enterprise DOT Department of Transportation E ECMAQ Eastern Solano Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency EV Electric Vehicle F FAST Fairfield and Suisun Transit FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act FASTLANE Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report

FHWA Federal Highway Administration FPI Freeway Performance Initiative FTA Federal Transit Administration G GARVEE Grant Anticipating Revenue Vehicle GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System H HIP Housing Incentive Program HOT High Occupancy Toll HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Plan I INFRA Infrastructure for Rebuilding America ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ITIP Interregional Transportation Improvement Program ITS Intelligent Transportation System J JARC Jobs Access Reverse Commute Program JPA Joint Powers Agreement L LATIP Local Area Transportation Improvement Program LCTOP Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) LEV Low Emission Vehicle LIFT Low Income Flexible Transportation Program LOS Level of Service LS&R Local Streets & Roads LTR Local Transportation Funds M MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century MAZ Micro Analysis Zone MIS Major Investment Study MLIP Managed Lanes Implementation Plan MOU Memorandum of Understanding MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MTAC Model Technical Advisory Committee MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission MTS Metropolitan Transportation System N NCTPA Napa County Transportation & Planning Agency NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHS National Highway System NOP Notice of Preparation NVTA Napa Valley Transportation Authority O OBAG One Bay Area Grant OPR Office of Planning and Research OTS Office of Traffic Safety P PAC Pedestrian Advisory Committee PCA Priority Conservation Area PCC Paratransit Coordinating Council PCI Pavement Condition Index PCRP Planning & Congestion Relief Program PDS Project Development Support PDA Priority Development Area PDT Project Delivery Team PDWG Project Delivery Working Group PMP Pavement Management Program PMS Pavement Management System 11

STA ACRONYMS LIST OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS Last Updated by JM: October 2018

PNR Park & Ride POP Program of Projects PPA Priority Production Area PPM Planning, Programming & Monitoring PPP (P3) Public Private Partnership PS&E Plans, Specifications & Estimate PSR Project Study Report PTA Public Transportation Account PTAC Partnership Technical Advisory Committee (MTC) R RABA Revenue Alignment Budget Authority REPEG Regional Environmental Public Education Group RFP Request for Proposal RFQ Request for Qualification RM 1/2/3 Regional Measure 1/2/3 (Bridge Toll) RMRP Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program RORS Routes of Regional Significance RPC Regional Pedestrian Committee RRP Regional Rideshare Program RTEP Regional Transit Expansion Policy RTIF Regional Transportation Impact Fee RTP Regional Transportation Plan RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program RTMC Regional Transit Marketing Committee RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency S SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equality Act-a Legacy for Users SATP Solano Active Transportation Plan SCS Sustainable Community Strategy SCTA Sonoma County Transportation Authority SFCTA San Francisco County Transportation Authority SGC Strategic Growth Council SJCOG San Joaquin Council of Governments SHOPP State Highway Operations & Protection Program SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SMART Sonoma Marin Area Rapid Transit SMART Safety, Mobility and Automated Real-time SMCCAG San Mateo City-County Association of Governments SNABM Solano-Napa Activity-Based Model SNCI Solano Napa Commuter Information SoHip Solano Highway Partnership SolTrans Solano County Transit SOV Single Occupant Vehicle SPOT Solano Projects Online Tracking SP&R State Planning & Research SR State Route SR2S Safe Routes to School SR2T Safe Routes to Transit SRTP Short Range Transit Plan SSARP Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program SSPWD TAC Solano Seniors & People with Disabilities Transportation

Advisory Committee STAF State Transit Assistance Fund STA Solano Transportation Authority STBG Federal Surface Transportation Block Grant Program STIA Solano Transportation Improvement Authority STIP State Transportation Improvement Program

STP Federal Surface Transportation Program T TAC Technical Advisory Committee TAM Transportation Authority of Marin TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone TCI Transportation Capital Improvement TCIF Trade Corridor Improvement Fund TCM Transportation Control Measure TCRP Transportation Congestion Relief Program TDA Transportation Development Act TDM Transportation Demand Management TE Transportation Enhancement TEA Transportation Enhancement Activity TEA-21 Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century TFCA Transportation Funds for Clean Air TIF Transportation Investment Fund TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery TIP Transportation Improvement Program TIRCP Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program TLC Transportation for Livable Communities TMA Transportation Management Association TMP Transportation Management Plan TMS Transportation Management System TMTAC Transportation Management Technical Advisory Committee TNC Transportation Network Company TOD Transportation Operations Systems TOD Transit Oriented Development TOS Traffic Operation System T-Plus Transportation Planning and Land Use Solutions TRAC Trails Advisory Committee TSMO Transportation System Management and Operations U, V, W UZA Urbanized Area USDOT United States Department of Transportation VHD Vehicle Hours of Delay VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VTA Valley Transportation Authority (Santa Clara) W2W Welfare to Work WCCCTAC West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority Y, Z YCTD Yolo County Transit District YSAQMD Yolo/Solano Air Quality Management DistrictZ ZEV Zero Emission Vehicle

12

Agenda Item 9.A

April 10, 2019

SOLANO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Draft Board Minutes for Meeting of

March 13, 2018

1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Price called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. A quorum was confirmed.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Harry Price, Chair

City of Fairfield

Thom Bogue, Vice Chair City of Dixon Elizabeth Patterson City of Benicia Ron Kott City of Rio Vista Lori Wilson City of Suisun City Ron Rowlett City of Vacaville Bob Sampayan City of Vallejo Erin Hannigan (Alternate) County of Solano MEMBERS

ABSENT: Jim Spering

County of Solano

STAFF PRESENT:

(In alphabetical order by last name.)

Janet Adams Deputy Executive Director/Director of Projects Amy Antunano Solano Mobility Call Center Program Coordinator Karin Bloesch Senior Safe Routes to Schools Program Coordinator Katelyn Costa Employer Program Coordinator Triana Crighton Planning Assistant Bernadette Curry Legal Counsel Susan Furtado Accounting and Administrative Services Manager Ron Grassi Director of Programs Robert Guerrero Director of Planning Daryl Halls Executive Director Vincent Ma Marketing & Legislative Program Manager Johanna Masiclat Office Manager/Clerk of the Board Lloyd Nadal Program Svcs. Division Manager Cory Peterson Planning Assistant ALSO PRESENT: (In alphabetical order by last name.) Jack Batchelor District Rep. for Congressman John Garamendi Shawn Cunningham City of Vacaville George Gwynn City of Suisun City Resident Beth Kranda Solano County Transit (SolTrans) Nick Lozano City of Suisun City

13

Eric Schen Caltrans District 4 William Tarbox City of Benicia Matt Tuggle County of Solano

2. CONFIRM QUORUM/STATEMENT OF CONFLICT A quorum was confirmed by the Clerk of the Board, Johanna Masiclat. There was no Statement of Conflict declared at this time.

3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA On a motion by Board Member Bogue, and a second by Board Patterson, the STA Board approved the agenda. (8 Ayes)

4. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT George Gwynn commented on various local and regional transportation issues.

5. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT Daryl Halls provided an update on the following items:

• Call for Solano County Projects for Plan Bay Area 2050 • Caltrans to Preview Current and Future SHOPP Projects in Solano County • Large Crowd Attend City County Coordinating Council (4 Cs) Summit on Housing • STA to Partner with Area Agency on Aging to Provide Medical Trips Program • Express Bus Replacement for SolTrans and Low Carbon Transit Operations Program

(LCTOP) Funding Allocations • Solano Mobility Program Updates

6. REPORT FROM THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC)

None presented.

7. REPORT FROM CALTRANS Eric Schen, Caltrans District 4, presented the list of current State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) funded priority projects located in Solano County.

8. A. Solano Housing Summit Follow-up Daryl Halls presented an update of the February 25th Housing Summit organized by STA and the County of Solano on behalf of the Solano City County Coordinating Council.

B. Directors Reports: 1. Planning 2. Projects 3. Programs

a. National Bike Month - Activity being planned by Solano Mobility was presented by Amy Antunano

9. CONSENT CALENDAR

Recommendation: Approve the following consent items in one motion. On a motion by Board Member Rowlett, and a second by Vice Chair Bogue, the STA Board approved the recommendation. (8 Ayes)

A. Draft Minutes of the STA Board Meeting of February 13, 2019 Recommendation: Approve the Minutes of the STA Board Meeting of February 13, 2019. 14

B. Draft Minutes of the STA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting of February 27, 2019 Recommendation: Receive and file.

C. Solano Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) Member Appointment Recommendation: Appoint Aaron Trudeau (City of Suisun City) to the PAC for a 3-year term to expire December 31, 2021.

D. Solano County Transit (SolTrans) Repayment Under Intercity Bus Replacement Capital Plan Recommendation: Authorize the repayment to SolTrans in the amount of $1,259,653 and for SolTrans to claim bus replacement funds in the amount of $599,509 for a total of $1,859,162 towards 2 years of repayment per the Intercity Bus Replacement Plan.

E. Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 Funding Recommendation: Approve the following:

1. Allocation of Solano County FY 2018-19 LCTOP Population Based Funds for SolTrans ($546,815) and FAST ($287,598); and

2. Swap of SolTrans TDA funds with Cities of Dixon ($40,166), Rio Vista ($18,569), and Vacaville ($202,964) for LCTOP funds as shown in Attachment C.

F. Employer Program Update

Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to release a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for an on-demand provider of Consumer-Directed Benefits (CDBs) to make transportation related programs and commuter benefits easier to access.

G. Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) – Project Allocation Recommendation for Dixon Area Advanced Traffic and Rail Safety Study Recommendation: Approve the following:

1. Allocation of $150,000 in RTIF funds for the Solano County/City of Dixon Railroad Safety Corridor Study, with 40% coming from District 5 and 60% coming from District 7; and

2. Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a Funding Agreement between the STA, Solano County and the City of Dixon for a Dixon Area Advanced Traffic and Rail Safety Study not-to-exceed $150,000 of RTIF funds.

H. Contract Amendment - Solano Mobility Travel Training Program –

Independent Living Resource Center and Connections for Life Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to execute a contract amendment for travel training services with:

1. Independent Living Resource Center for Travel Training Services for an amount not-to-exceed $30,000 until May 31, 2019; and

2. Connections for Life for Travel Training Services for an amount not-to-exceed $30,000 until May 31, 2019.

15

I. STA Office Building – Project Management Contract Amendment Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to amend Gilbane’s contract for an amount not-to-exceed $158,000 for project management during the design build contract award phase.

J. Addition of Coach-Air as a Participating Service Provider to the Solano Intercity Taxi Card Program Recommendation: Approve Coach-Air Transportation as an authorized participating service provider under the terms of the Solano County Intercity Taxi Card Program.

10. ACTION – FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. STA’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 Proposed Budget Revisions Susan Furtado summarized the STA’s FY 2018-19 proposed budget revisions. She noted that the FY 2018-19 budget revision is balanced with the proposed changes modified from $25.29 million to $26.74 million. She noted the budget increase of $1,453 million is due to the addition of the Intercity Bus Replacement Plan, the new funding for the Vehicle Share/Medical Transports Program, and the funding allocation of State Transit Assistance Fund (STAF) for the Countywide Parking & Transit Study.

Board/Public Comments: Board Member Patterson asked how often does staff bring the STA Budget Report to the STA Board? Susan Furtado responded that STA’s Policy is to adopt a two-year budget on an annual basis in July and a mid-year report in December, however, if and when funding is awarded to certain programs then additional revisions to STA Budget are brought forward to the STA Board for approval on an as needed basis. Board Member Patterson expressed her support and appreciation for the funding and the need of the Older Adults Medical Trip Concierge Call Center Pilot Program.

Recommendation: Adopt the STA’s FY 2018-19 Proposed Budget Revisions as shown in Attachment A.

On a motion by Board Member Patterson, and a second by Board Member Rowlett, the STA Board approved the recommendation. (8 Ayes)

B. Solano Older Adults Medical Trip Concierge Call Center Program Ron Grassi presented the Solano Older Adults Medical Trip Concierge Services Pilot Program. He reported that the top mobility challenge in all seven cities reported at last year’s Countywide Mobility Summit (held in October 2018) was travelling to medical appointments. He continued by noting that staff is proposing a pilot program for implementation as soon as Spring 2019. He also noted that in order to offer flexibility, the term of the contract is proposed to be one year with two one-year optional extensions thereafter. He added that the program would be monitored and evaluated throughout the year and modified as needed, and that funding needs for future years will be based on the program’s usage and additional funding partners will be sought.

16

Board/Public Comments: Several Board Members asked various questions regarding community outreach and implementation efforts to medical facilities and how priority issues are being identified. Ron Grassi responded that the new pilot program will be a partnership between the STA and medical and transportation providers, and that case managers will be trained to use the concierge call center to arrange rides for eligible patients 60 years and older.

Recommendation: Approve the following:

1. Authorize the Executive Director to enter into an agreement with GoGoGrandparent for concierge call center services in the amount not-to-exceed $150,000;

2. Authorize the Executive Director to enter into agreements with Solano medical providers to partner with the STA and the concierge call center;

3. Allocate $75,000 of STAF to the Solano Older Adults Medical Trip Concierge Call Center Pilot Program; and

4. Approve a budget amendment to receive $75,000 in revenue from County of Solano/Area Agency on Aging to fund the Solano Older Adults Medical Trip Concierge Call Center Pilot Program in FY 2018-19.

On a motion by Board Member Patterson, and a second by Vice Chair Bogue, the STA

Board approved the recommendation. (8 Ayes)

11. ACTION – NON FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. Legislative Update Vincent Ma reported that at the February 2019 Board meeting, the STA Board adopted the 2019 Draft Legislative Platform with staff recommended amendments. He also introduced Assembly Bill (AB) 252, which would extend the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) authority to participate in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Assignment indefinitely. This also requires Caltrans to assume associated financial impacts and liability; however, the NEPA assignment streamlines the review process, which would allow Caltrans to reduce project costs and accelerate project delivery for transportation projects. Staff is recommending that the Board Support AB 252 as it aligns with STA 2019 Legislative Platform.

Board/Public Comments: None presented.

Recommendation: Support Assembly Bill 252 (Daly) Department of Transportation: Environmental Review Process: Federal Program.

On a motion by Vice Chair Bogue, and a second by Board Member Lori Wilson, the STA Board approved the recommendation. (8 Ayes)

17

B. Plan Bay Area 2050 Call for Projects Robert Guerrero reviewed the process of the call for projects for Plan Bay Area 2050. He cited that this process will begin in March with a deadline for STA to submit Solano County transportation projects to MTC/ABAG by June 30, 2019. He outlined the schedule and process for STA, the seven cities and the County, advisory committees, and the public to participate in the review, update and approval of this list of Solano County transportation projects to be submitted for Plan Bay Area 2050. He concluded by noting that the projects included in this Plan are eligible for future state and federal transportation funds.

Board/Public Comments: Board Member Patterson requested for staff to apply the seven criteria in the selection and approval process of transportation projects to be submitted for consideration in Solano County.

Recommendation: Issue a Call for Projects for the Plan Bay Area 2050.

On a motion by Board Member Ron Rowlett, and a second by Board Member Patterson, the STA Board approved the recommendation. (8 Ayes)

C. 2019 Ten-Year State Highway Operations & Protection Program (SHOPP) Priorities for Solano County Janet Adams recapped the SHOPP list of project priorities for Solano County as presented earlier at the meeting by Eric Schen, Caltrans District 4. She noted that projects included on the current 10-Year SHOPP list are the pavement rehabilitation on SR 29 and SR 113 and that staff is planning on having a formal SHOPP request finalized to Caltrans by June/July 2019.

Board/Public Comments: None presented.

Recommendation: Authorize the STA Board Chair to send a letter to Caltrans requesting to advance project delivery of the pavement rehabilitation on SR 29 within the SHOPP program and to include SR 29 as a complete street project for future SHOPP funds.

On a motion by Board Member Sampayan, and a second by Vice Chair Bogue, the STA Board approved the recommendation. (8 Ayes)

12. INFORMATIONAL – NO DISCUSSION

A. Local Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Members Contributions for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20

B. Solano County Pedestrian Safety Symposium Recap

C. Summary of Funding Opportunities

D. 2019 STA Board and Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule

18

13. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS

14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. The next STA Board meeting is scheduled at 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 10, 2019, Suisun Council Chambers.

Attested by: ___________________________ Johanna Masiclat Clerk of the Board

19


20

Agenda Item 9.B April 10, 2019

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT Minutes for the Meeting of

March 27, 2019

1.

CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the STA’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order by Janet Adams at approximately 1:30 p.m. in the Solano Transportation Authority (STA)’s Conference Room 1.

TAC Members Present:

William Tarbox

City of Benicia

Joe Leach City of Dixon Julie Lucido City of Fairfield Robin Borre City of Rio Vista Matt Medill City of Suisun City *Shawn Cunningham City of Vacaville Terrance Davis City of Vallejo *Matt Tuggle County of Solano

*Indicates that member arrived during Agenda Item 7.B

TAC Members Absent:

None.

STA Staff and

Others Present: (In Alphabetical Order by Last Name)

Anthony Adams STA Janet Adams STA Karin Bloesch STA Ron Grassi STA Robert Guerrero STA Johanna Masiclat STA John McKenzie Caltrans District 4 Erika McLitus STA Cory Peterson STA Brandon Thomson STA

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA On a motion by Joe Leach, and a second by Terrance Davis, the STA TAC approved the agenda with the exception to table agenda item 6.A Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 County Program Manager Funds at the request of STA staff until a future meeting. (6 Ayes)

3.

OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT None presented.

21

4. REPORTS FROM MTC, STA, AND OTHER AGENCIES Robert Guerrero provided an update to the designation process of Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and future Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs) as part of the Employment Growth Perspective Paper anticipated in the next few months. He noted that although the specific process is still to be determined, MTC anticipates updates to the PDA, PCA and PPAs will begin in August with approvals anticipated in December of this year. STA staff will continue to monitor this and inform the STA TAC and Solano County Planning Directors Group as information becomes available. Anthony Adams provided an update to the development of a Demand Parking Study.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR On a motion by Julie Lucido, and a second by Terrance Davis, the STA TAC approved Items A through D. (6 Ayes)

A. Minutes of the TAC Meeting of February 27, 2019 Recommendation: Approve TAC Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2019.

B. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) Bylaws Revisions Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve the BAC By-laws revisions as shown in Attachment A.

C. Development of Update Coordinated Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to:

1. Proceed with development of an update of Coordinated Short Range Transit Plans for Solano County transit operators, per MTC Resolution No. 4364;

2. Allocate $70,000 of State Transit Assistance Funds (STAF) towards the Coordinated Short Range Transit Plans;

3. Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a funding agreement with MTC to receive $130,000 of FTA 5303 funds for development of the Coordinated SRTPs; and

4. Authorize the Executive Director to issue an RFP and enter into a contract for the Coordinated Short Range Transit Plans for an amount not-to-exceed $200,000.

D. Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Micro-Grant Pilot Program

Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to authorize the Executive Director to pilot the Safe Routes to School Micro-Grant Program with an initial budget of $40,000 during Fiscal Year 2019-20.

6. ACTION FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. This item was tabled until a future meeting at the request of STA staff. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 County Program Manager Funds

22

B. 2018 SolanoExpress Ridership and Analysis Study Brandon Thomson reported that the SolanoExpress Ridership survey was conducted during October, November and December of 2018, by Quantum Market Research (QMR). He cited that QMR was able to conduct 2,598 on-board surveys throughout the five route SolanoExpress system. He summarized the findings from the survey stating that the routes are an important transportation resource, both for Solano County residents and others, and serve a valuable function in providing an alternative to the automobile for commuters on I-80/I-680 and I-780.

Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve the following:

1. Approve the 2018 SolanoExpress Ridership and Analysis Study as shown in Attachment B; and

2. Update the Intercity Funding formula based upon the residency information gathered.

On a motion by Terrance Davis, and a second by Julie Lucido, the STA TAC unanimously

approved the recommendation. (6 Ayes)

7. ACTION NON FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. STA Legislative Update Janet Adams summarized the legislation bills and requested to forward the recommendation to the STA Board to take the following positions as noted below.

Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to:

• Support Assembly Bill 1413 (Gloria) Transportation: local transportation authorities: transactions and use taxes.

• Oppose Assembly Bill 1568 (McCarty) General plans: housing element: production report: withholding of transportation funds

• Monitor: o Senate Bill 4 (McGuire) Housing o Senate Bill 5 (Beall) Affordable Housing and Community Development

Investment Program o Senate Bill 50 (Wiener) Planning and zoning: housing development:

incentives. o Assembly Bill 148 (Quirk-Silva) Regional transportation plans: sustainable

communities strategies o Assembly Bill 185 (Grayson) California Transportation Commission:

transportation policies: joint meetings, o Assembly Bill 847 (Grayson) Transportation finance: priorities: housing. o Assembly Bill 1487 (Chiu) Land use: housing element.

On a motion by Julie Lucido, and a second by William Tarbox, the STA TAC unanimously

approved the recommendation. (6 Ayes)

Shawn Cunningham, City of Vacaville, and Matt Tuggle, County of Solano, arrived at the meeting.

23

B. Solano Active Transportation Plan: Draft Goals Cory Peterson summarized the proposed Goals and Policies for the Solano ATP. He commented that STA staff has received comments on the document from the Cities of Benicia, Fairfield, and Vacaville, as well as members from the PAC and BAC, and that most of the comments were incorporated into a revised version of the goals and policies. He concluded by stating that staff is asking for feedback and a recommendation on the draft Goals to be provided to the Active Transportation Committee and STA Board.

Recommendation: Forward a recommendation regarding draft Solano ATP Goals to Active Transportation Committee and STA Board.

On a motion by Julie Lucido, and a second by Robin Borre, the STA TAC unanimously approved the recommendation. (8 Ayes)

8. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS – DISCUSSION

A. Transportation and Land Use Activities Update Robert Guerrero provided an update under Item 4, Reports from STA staff.

B. Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) – 2st Quarter Update FY 2018-19 Anthony Adams provided an update to the revenue collected by each district for the second quarter of the RTIF for FY 2018-19. He noted that a total of $405,839 has been collected during that quarter and a total of $6,265,471 since the inception of the program.

C. Project Delivery Update Erika McLitus provided a project delivery update and identified OBAG Cycle 1 projects that were obligated in FY 2016-17 and six OBAG 2 projects scheduled for obligation in FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20.

NO DISCUSSION

D. Summary of Funding Opportunities

E. Draft Meeting Minutes of STA Board & Advisory Committees

E. STA Board and Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2019

9. UPCOMING TAC AGENDA ITEMS

April/May 2019 A. STA’s Draft Overall Work Plan for FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21 B. Travel Model Validation C. Water Transit Feasibility Study and Conceptual Plan

10. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

The next regular meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee is scheduled at, 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 24, 2019.

24

Agenda Item 9.C April 10, 2019

DATE: March 29, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Triana Crighton, Planning Assistant RE: Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) By-Laws Revisions Background: The Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) operates under a set of bylaws that were created by STA and are amended and adopted by the Committee with the concurrence of the STA Board. The bylaws play an important role in defining the roles, duties/responsibilities, and membership terms, of the BAC. The last time the BAC By-Laws were revised was March 2008. The BAC By-laws are comprised of ten articles that define and describe the various working attributes of the BAC. The first three articles establish the name, authorizing agency, and duties/responsibilities of the BAC – including the proper review process. Article 4 works to design the membership’s representation, voting, appointments/vacancies, and the role of the STA Staff. Article 5 describes the officers, election process of officers, and the role of the chair and vice-chair. Article 6 is dedicated to meetings while Article 7 is dedicated to subcommittees. Article 8 defines the Committee’s parliamentary authority. The final two articles are for by-laws and the BAC letter writing policy. Discussion: At the January BAC Meeting, BAC Committee Chair Mike Segala requested that a review of the BAC By-laws be including as an action item at the March BAC Meeting. As it has been over ten years since the last update, in addition to there being multiple new BAC members, a review of the by-laws seemed appropriate. The BAC members were provided an electronic copy of the by-laws via email a week prior to the March 7th meeting. At the March 7th meeting, which had full attendance, the members went through the by-laws Article by Article together to review the language and discuss potential changes. This was an opportunity for the Committee to refine their roles and discuss and desired changes related to definitions, terms, and conditions. As a result, the BAC members decided to recommend a few changes to the language of the by-laws – no technical changes to any formal processes was suggested (Attachment A). The proposed changes suggested are as follows:

• Article III, Section 1: changed “participate in” to “advocate for” • Article III, Section 2: reworded to include emphasize encouraging bicycling for

recreation and as an alternative to vehicular travel • Article IV, Section 2: clarifies language regarding voting power of a member on both the

PAC and the BAC (one vote per committee, not two votes). • Article VI, Section 4: changed “then appointed” to “then-appointed”.

The recommended changes have been approved by the BAC at the March 7th meeting and concurred with at the March 27th TAC meeting.

25

Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Approve the BAC By-laws revisions as shown in Attachment A. Attachment:

A. BAC By-laws Revisions March 2019

26

Adopted by STA Board on March 12, 2008

SOLANO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE BY-LAWS

ARTICLE I. NAME OF ORGANIZATION

The name of this organization shall be the Solano Transportation Authority Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC), hereafter called the BAC.

ARTICLE II. AUTHORIZING AGENCY

The Solano Transportation Authority (STA), as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) of Solano County, pursuant to California State Transportation Control Measure (STCM #9), adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) on November 28, 1990, MTC Resolution No. 2179, Revised, authorizes the establishment of the BAC and shall approve all appointments to the BAC, the BAC by-laws, and all amendments to the BAC by-laws.

ARTICLE III. PURPOSE

Section 1. Duties/Responsibilities The BAC shall act to advise the STA on the development of bicycle facilities as an alternative mode of transportation. The BAC shall review and prioritize Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 bicycle projects, Solano Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Program (SBPP) projects, and participate inadvocate for the development and review of comprehensive bicycle plans.

Section 2. Review Process The BAC review process shall ensure that bicycle projects within the seven (7) Cities (Benicia, Dixon, Fairfield, Rio Vista, Suisun City, Vacaville, and Vallejo) and County of Solano promote and encourage bicycle use for: commuting, shopping, and other personal trips; reducing motor vehicle trips; reducing motor vehicle miles traveled; reducing motor vehicle congestion; increasing safety and access to transit; and promoting health and air quality benefits .recreation and as an alternative to vehicular transportation, e.g. commuting to work/school; personal trips and leisure; health and air quality benefits etc.

ARTICLE IV. MEMBERSHIP

Section 1. Representation The BAC shall be composed of bicycle enthusiasts who live or work in the Cities and County of Solano. The BAC shall include: one representative from each of the seven (7) Cities (Benicia, Dixon, Fairfield, Rio Vista, Suisun City, Vacaville, and Vallejo), the County of Solano, and one (1) member at large for a total membership of nine (9). Members of the BAC shall be approvedby majority vote of the STA Board of Directors. Preference should be given to non-electedcitizens and who are not employed by member agencies. Each representative shall be a residentof the jurisdiction they represent.

ATTACHMENT A

27


Section 2. Voting Members Voting privileges are vested exclusively in the BAC members or their alternates. Voting members of the BAC shall be the aforementioned nine (9) members representing the incorporated Cities, the County, and community at large as stated in Article IV, Section 1. Each member of the BAC shall have one (1) vote, however, an individual may be appointed to both the BAC and the Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC); in such a circumstance, the Member shall have two votestwo votes ( one vote per committee) when the committees meet together. If the Member is attending a meeting as the representative of one committee only (such as may occur for meetings of sub-committees or ad hoc committees), then the Member will have a single vote in that instance. Section 3. Non-Voting Members Non-voting members of the BAC may consist of representatives from each jurisdiction’s planning and public works staff, MTC, Caltrans, and the public at large. Section 4. Appointments Appointments to the BAC Board shall be derived from an eligibility list provided by each jurisdiction and appointed to the BAC by the STA Board. To provide for staggered terms, each member shall be appointed for a period of up to three (3) years per term. Jurisdictions may appoint an alternate. Section 5. Vacancies If and when vacancies occur, they must be filled according to Article IV, Sections 2 and 4. Section 6. Role of STA Staff The STA shall, under direction of the STA Board of Directors, provide staff and organizational support to the BAC. ARTICLE V. OFFICERS Section 1. Elected Officers The elected officers of the BAC shall be the Chair and Vice-Chair. Section 2. Election of Officers The BAC shall, at the last meeting of each calendar year, nominate and elect the Chair and the Vice-Chair for one (1) calendar year term. No officer shall serve more than two (2) consecutive terms in a given office. Section 3. Role of Chair The Chair shall preside over all BAC meetings, coordinate the meeting agendas with STA staff, represent the BAC’s actions to appropriate agencies or designate a representative(s) to do so, and have general direction and control over the activities of the BAC.

28


Section 4. Role of Vice-Chair The Vice-Chair shall assist the Chair in the execution of the duties of the Chair office. In the absence of the Chair, the Vice-Chair shall preside over the meetings, and when so acting, shall have all the powers of the Chair. Section 5. Vacancy in the Office of Chair In the event of a vacancy in the office of the Chair, the Vice-chair shall be elevated to the office of Chair for the remainder of the calendar year term, and the BAC shall nominate and elect a new Vice-chair. ARTICLE VI. MEETINGS Section 1. Meetings/Attendance The BAC shall hold a regular meeting at least once a calendar year quarter and as necessary to fulfill the mandate of Article III, Sections 1 and 2. Members of the BAC that do not attend three scheduled meetings in succession and do not contact staff to indicate that they will not be present is considered to be an ‘un-contacted absence’ which may have their position declared vacant by the STA Board. Absence after contacting staff is considered a ‘contacted absence.’ Contacted absences and un-contacted absences shall be documented in the minutes of each meeting. If a BAC member has missed a combination of four contacted and un-contacted absences in any one-year period, he or she will be sent a written notice of intent to declare the position vacant. If there is no adequate response before or at the next scheduled meeting, and based upon a recommendation from the BAC, the position may be declared vacant by the STA Board. Section 2. Special Meetings The BAC may convene special meetings as necessary to conduct its business. Section 3. Public Process All meetings shall be posted public meetings conducted in compliance with the Brown Act. Section 4. Definition of a Quorum A quorum shall consist of the majority of the then- appointed BAC members of the Cities, the County and member at large. Section 5. Actions Actions of the BAC require a quorum and the majority vote of the voting members present. ARTICLE VII. SUBCOMMITTEES The Chair may establish subcommittees or special task forces when they are deemed necessary to carry out the BAC’s mandate. ARTICLE VIII. PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY

29


The BAC shall use “Robert’s Rules of Order” as a general guide for meeting procedures when they are consistent with the BAC by-laws. When applicable and consistent with STA Board policies, the BAC may use any rules of order the Committee may adopt. ARTICLE IX. ADOPTION AND AMENDMENTS TO THE BY-LAWS Section 1. Adoption of the BAC By-laws Adoption of the BAC by-laws will be by a majority vote of the STA Board of Directors. Section 2. Amendments to the BAC By-laws The BAC may take action, by two-thirds vote, to propose amendments to the by-laws at any regular meeting of the BAC, provided that the amendment has been submitted in writing for the BAC to review prior to voting. Suggested amendments to the BAC by-laws by the BAC shall be forwarded to the STA Board of Directors via the STA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Section 3. Approval of Amendments to BAC By-laws Official amendments to the BAC by-laws will be by a majority vote of the STA Board of Directors. ARTICLE X. BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE LETTER WRITING POLICY Letters written by the Bicycle Advisory Committee that are directed outside the Authority must be reviewed by the Executive Director. If in the opinion of the STA Executive Director, the contents and intent of the letter is either non-controversial or is consistent with STA Board policies, the letter will be sent out. In all other cases the letter must be approved by STA Board action.

30

Agenda Item 9.D April 10, 2019

DATE: March 25, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM : Brandon Thomson, Transit Mobility Coordinator RE: Appointment to Solano County Transit (SolTrans) Public Advisory Committee (PAC) Background/Discussion: Solano County Transit’s (SolTrans) Public Advisory Committee (PAC) By-Laws stipulate that there are nine members of the public with demonstrated expertise or special interest in transit issues and who reside within the boundaries of the agencies that they represent. Three are appointed by each of the three members of the SolTrans JPA, Benicia, Vallejo and STA. There are currently two vacancies for representatives of STA. The SolTrans PAC reviews and comments to the SolTrans Board on the following matters:

1. Service and fare adjustments, 2. Development of Short Range Transit Plans, and 3. Review of SolTrans’ annual work plan

STA staff received a SolTrans PAC interest form from LaGuan Lea, Jr., a Vallejo resident (Attachment A). LaGuan strongly supports public transportation and utilizes public transportation for the majority of his travels. LaGuan is a regular SolTrans rider, and is interested in supporting the growth of the service and would like to give back to his community. Recommendation: Appoint LaGuan Lea, Jr. to the SolTrans PAC as the STA representative for a three (3) year term. Attachments:

A. LaGuan Lea, Jr.’s SolTrans PAC Interest Form

31

Solano Transportation Authority

Member Agencies:

Benicia Dixon Fairfield Rio Vista Suisun City Vacaville Vallejo Solano County

One Harbor Center, Suite 130, Suisun City, CA 94585-2473 Telephone (707) 424-6075 / Fax (707) 424-6074 Email: [email protected] Website: sta.ca.gov

SolTrans Public Advisory Committee Interest Form

Purpose

The Public Advisory Committee (PAC) consists of nine members of the public with demonstrated expertise or special

interest in transit issues and who reside within the boundaries of the agencies that they represent. Each Member Agency

(the City of Benicia, Solano Transportation Authority, and the City of Vallejo) appoints three members of the public to

serve on this committee. The PAC reviews and comments to the SolTrans Board on the following matters:

i. Service and fare adjustments,

ii. ii. Development of Short Range Transit Plans, and

iii. iii. Review of SolTrans’ annual work plan.

Contact Information

Name:

Street Address:

City, State, & Zip:

Home Phone: ( Work Phone: (

Email Address:

Agreement and Signature

By submitting this application, I affirm that the facts set forth are true and complete. I understand that if I am

accepted as a volunteer, any statements, omissions, or other misrepresentation made by me on this application may

result in my immediate dismissal.

Signature Date

For questions or more information, please contact Brandon Thomson at (707) 399-3234 [email protected].

Please complete this form and return it to: Solano Transportation Authority

Attn: Brandon Thomson

One Harbor Center, Ste. #130

Suisun City, CA 94585

LaGuan Lea, Jr. XXX Kentucky Street

Vallejo, CA 94590 ) 415 XXX-9156 707) XXX-3587

[email protected]

Letter of Intent/Interest to Serve on This Committee

Summarize the reason you would like to participate in the SolTrans Public Advisory Committee. Include what

experience (work or otherwise) qualifies you: I would like to participate in the SolTrans Public Advisory Committee because I have been utilizing Sol Trans for over five years. My avg. usage being

With these years of experience I have a lot of feedback, suggestions and questions that I have collected from myself and speaking with fellow passengers that can be used to improve the overall pulic transportation experience for current and future riders to come.

March 13, 2019

4-6x per week and covers moring, day and night rides in various types of weather and times.

32


mailto:[email protected].

Agenda Item 9.E April 10, 2019

DATE: March 21, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Lloyd Nadal, Program Services Division Manager RE: Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Micro-Grant Pilot Program Background: In 2008, the STA Board adopted Solano's first Safe Routes to School Plan (Plan) and authorized STA staff to create a Safe Routes to School Program in Solano County. This Plan provided the direction for the SR2S Program through 2012 when the STA and the SR2S Advisory Committee began the process of updating the 2008 Plan. The updated Plan was adopted by the STA Board in October 2013 and since then, 29 SR2S engineering projects have been implemented across the County - 7 more are scheduled to be completed through Active Transportation Program (ATP) 2 funding this year. The strong collaboration between all seven cities, school districts, police departments, city engineers, public health, and STA has made the Solano SR2S projects more competitive and successful in receiving funds and implementing projects. SR2S staff is currently meeting with each city’s SR2S Community Task Force, working with STA’s Planning department on the Countywide Active Transportation Plan and city staff to identify future SR2S projects around schools. Without a dedicated funding source, these SR2S projects are primarily funded with grants which staff would look to pursue after their inclusion in the Plan. Discussion: Based on the needs and feedback from cities and schools for small-scale project support, SR2S staff is proposing to pilot a SR2S Micro-Grant Pilot Program to support small-scale SR2S projects or equipment that encourage bike and pedestrian usage and improves bike and pedestrian safety around schools in Solano County. The SR2S Micro-Grant Pilot Program is funded through Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds and High Occupany Vehicle (HOV) fines received by the STA. The grants would be open to Solano County cities, schools, school districts, community organizations and youth groups to apply. These projects could include (but not limited to): installing bike racks and safety-related signage; creating green bike lanes; and providing safety equipment like helmets, vests, reflectors and/or activities that could help improve a school’s bike/ped infrastructure. For example, both the Vacaville Unified and Benicia Unified School Districts gave the okay to install bike racks at Browns Valley Elementary and Mary Farmar Elementary respectively, however both school districts don’t have funding to buy and install these racks. SR2S staff presented this item at the February SR2S Advisory Committee in which they provided feedback on the feasibility, policy and procedures, process, timeline and

33

implementation of the program. They also voted to forward a recommendation to the STA Board to authorization and initiate the SR2S Micro Grant Pilot Program this year. At their meeting on March 27, 2019, the STA TAC approved to forward staff’s recommendation to the STA Board to authorize the Executive Director to pilot the Safe Routes to School Micro-Grant Program with an initial budget of $40,000 during Fiscal Year 2019-20. Fiscal Impact: Funding for the SR2S Micro-Grant Pilot Program will come from a combination of HOV fines and TDA funds. There’s currently $11,000 in HOV fines which is collected each year by STA and approximately $37,000 in TDA Article 3 funding available. The Solano SR2S Program receives a TDA allocation of roughly $75,000 every two years. Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to implement the Safe Routes to School Micro-Grant Pilot Program with an initial budget of $40,000 during Fiscal Year 2019-20.

34

Agenda Item 9.F April 10, 2019

DATE: April 1, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Anthony Adams, Project Manager RE: Funding Resolution with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)

for the Bay/Vine Trail for the 2019 Pilot Trip Reduction Grant Program Background: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) is collected from a $4 fee on all vehicle registrations within the Air District’s boundaries. 60% of these funds are applied to the TFCA Regional Program, which is administered by BAAQMD. The remaining 40% is distributed to each Bay Area County Transportation Agencies (BACTA), and is called County Program Manager Funds. Southwestern portions of Solano County are eligible to apply for these funds. This area includes the cities of Benicia, Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo, as well as the surrounding unincorporated areas. The Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District provides similar funding (i.e. Clean Air Funds through a different process) for the remaining cities of Dixon, Rio Vista, Vacaville, and the surrounding unincorporated areas. STA staff has been working with the City of Vallejo to identify potential issues regarding the environmental mitigation and additional design elements for the Bay/Vine Trail. This effort has resulted in the identification of substantial additional work required to design and construct this project; estimated funding shortfall at $2M+. In Winter of 2019, the BAAQMD opened their call for projects for the FY 2019 Pilot Trip Reduction Grant Program. Based on a suggestion from BAAQMD staff, STA applied for funding in the amount of $2,200,000 to fill the estimated Construction funding shortfall for the Bay/Vine Trail project in Vallejo. Discussion: BAAQMD is requesting a resolution of support from STA for this project that states the following:

• Authorize the submittal of the application; • Identify the individual authorized to submit and carry out/execute the project; and • Commit to providing all necessary funds to undertake the project including matching

funds The local match for this BAAQMD program is 10% of the award amount, meaning a local match of up to $220k would be required. The Bay/Vine Trail project is currently funded with Active Transportation Plan (ATP) Cycle 3 funding in the amount of $4.2M and $912K in local match funding. In FY 2018/19, the STA allocated $200k in TDA Article 3 funds to the Project for Plans Specification & Estimate (PS&E); bringing local match funding to $1.1M. These local funds will be enough to satisfy both ATP and BAAQMD requirements.

35

The resolution shown in Attachment A satisfies all of the BAAQMD requirements and further illustrated STA’s and the City of Vallejo’s commitment to deliver a quality Bay/Vine Trail project. Fiscal Impact: No Fiscal Impact to STA’s budget. If awarded, the project sponsor, the City of Vallejo, would receive the BAAQMD funds to construct the project. Recommendation: Approve the following:

1. STA Resolution of Local Support No. 2019-04 committing STA and the City of Vallejo to delivering the Bay/Vine Trail project; and

2. Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a funding agreement with the City of Vallejo for The Bay/Vine Trail Project.

Attachment:

A. STA Resolution of Local Support No. 2019-04

36

ATTACHMENT A

SOLANO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

RESOLUTION 2019-04

RESOLUTION OF LOCAL SUPPORT OF THE SOLANO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDING ASSIGEND TO BAAQMD AND COMMITTING ANY NECESSARY MATCHING FUNDS AND

STATING ASSURANCE TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT

WHEREAS, (The Solano Transportation Authority) (herein referred to as APPLICANT), on behalf of the City of Vallejo, is submitting an application to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for ($2,200,000) in funding for programming discretion (herein referred to as REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING), for the (The Bay/Vine Trail Project in Vallejo) (herein referred to as PROJECT) for the (FYE 2019 Pilot Trip Reduction Grant Program) (herein referred to as PROGRAM); and

WHEREAS, APPLICANT is an eligible sponsor for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY

FUNDING; and

WHEREAS, as part of the application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING, BAAQMD requires a resolution adopted by the responsible implementing agency, or their designee, stating the following:

• the commitment of any required matching funds; and • that the sponsor understands that the REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING is

fixed at the programmed amount, and therefore any cost increase cannot be expected to be funded with additional REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and

• that the PROJECT will comply with the procedures, delivery milestones and funding deadlines specified in the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised); and

• the assurance of the sponsor to complete the PROJECT as described in the application, subject to environmental clearance, and if approved, as included in MTC's federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and

• that the PROJECT will have adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the PROJECT within the schedule submitted with the project application; and

• that the PROJECT will comply with all project-specific requirements as set forth in the PROGRAM; and

WHEREAS, that APPLICANT is authorized to submit an application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, there is no legal impediment to APPLICANT making applications for the funds; and WHEREAS, there is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and

37

WHEREAS, APPLICANT authorizes its Executive Director, General Manager, or designee to execute and file an application with BAAQMD for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT as referenced in this resolution; and

WHEREAS, BAAQMD requires that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the BAAQMD in conjunction with the filing of the application.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the APPLICANT is authorized to

execute and file an application for funding for the PROJECT for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING under the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT or continued funding; and be it further

RESOLVED that APPLICANT will provide any required matching funds; and be it

further RESOLVED that APPLICANT understands that the REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY

FUNDING for the project is fixed at the BAAQMD approved programmed amount, and that any cost increases must be funded by the APPLICANT from other funds, and that APPLICANT does not expect any cost increases to be funded with additional REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and be it further

RESOLVED that APPLICANT understands the funding deadlines associated with these

funds and will comply with the provisions and requirements of the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised) and APPLICANT has, and will retain the expertise, knowledge and resources necessary to deliver PROJECT; and be it further

RESOLVED that PROJECT will be implemented as described in the complete

application and in this resolution, subject to environmental clearance, and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT has reviewed the PROJECT and has adequate staffing

resources to deliver and complete the PROJECT within the schedule submitted with the project application; and be it further

RESOLVED that, in the case of a transit project, APPLICANT agrees to comply with

the requirements of MTC’s Transit Coordination Implementation Plan as set forth in MTC Resolution No. 3866, revised; and be it further

RESOLVED that APPLICANT is an eligible sponsor of REGIONAL

DISCRETIONARY FUNDING funded projects; and be it further

RESOLVED that APPLICANT is authorized to submit an application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT; and be it further RESOLVED that there is no legal impediment to APPLICANT making applications for the funds; and be it further RESOLVED that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and be it further

38

RESOLVED that APPLICANT authorizes its Executive Director, General Manager, City Manager, or designee to execute and file an application with BAAQMD for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT as referenced in this resolution; and be it further

RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution will be transmitted to the BAAQMD in conjunction with the filing of the application; and be it further

RESOLVED that the BAAQMD is requested to support the application for the

PROJECT described in the resolution, and if approved, to include the PROJECT in MTC's federal TIP upon submittal by the project sponsor for TIP programming.

I CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and passed at a regular meeting of the Board of the Solano Transportation Authority, held on the 10th day April, 2019, by the following vote: Ayes: __________ Nos: __________ Absent: __________ Abstain: __________ ______________________________ Harry Price, Chair Solano Transportation Authority Attest by: _________________________________ Johanna Masiclat Clerk of the Board I, Daryl K. Halls, the Solano Transportation Authority Executive Director, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution was introduced, passed, and adopted by said Authority at a regular meeting thereof held this the day of April 10, 2019. ______________________________ Daryl K. Halls, Executive Director Solano Transportation Authority

39


40

Agenda Item 9.G April 10, 2019

DATE: April 3, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Bernadette Curry, STA Legal Counsel RE: STA Resolution Revising the Agency’s Conflict of Interest Code Background/Discussion: Public agencies are required to review and, if necessary, revise their Conflict of Interest Code to reflect changes in designated positions who are subject to the disclosure filing requirements. Solano Transportation Authority (STA)’s Conflict of Interest Code needs revisions to update current job titles that have been changed since the Code’s original adoption and subsequent amendments. In summary, the changes are:

1. Change certain titles of positions that already file reports. a. Clerk of the Board/Administrative Assistant position has been renamed as

Clerk of the Board/Office Manager b. Deputy Executive Director/Director of Planning position has been renamed

as the Director of Planning. c. Director of Projects position has been renamed as the Deputy Executive

Director/Director of Projects. d. SNCI Program Director position has been renamed to the Director of

Programs. e. Marketing and Legislative Program Director has been renamed to Marketing

and Legislative Program Manager f. Financial Analyst/Accountant position has been renamed to Accounting and

Administrative Services Manager. g. The definition of Miscellaneous has been renamed to Consultants and the

limitations revised. 2. Modify the rules for which consultants need file Statements of Economic Interest to

those consultants involved in commitment of Agency funds. Attached is a Resolution to effectuate those changes. Recommendation: Adopt the attached Resolution No. 2019-05 revising the Agency's Conflict of Interest Code for designated positions. Attachment:

A. Resolution No. 2019-05 – Resolution Amending and Readopting the Conflict of Interest Code for the Solano Transportation Authority

B. Revised Conflict of Interest Code for the Solano Transportation Authority 41


RESOLUTION NO. 2019-05

RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE SOLANO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000, et seq., requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes; and

WHEREAS, the Solano Transportation Authority has adopted a conflict of interest code which now needs to be amended; and

WHEREAS, the employee organizational structure and job titles have changed which requires an amendment to the Conflict of Interest Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the attached Conflict of Interest Code for the Solano Transportation Authority is adopted along with:

Exhibit “A” (the Designated Positions), Exhibit “B” (the Disclosure Categories); and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution and the Conflict of Interest Code shall be transmitted to the Solano County Board of Supervisors as the code reviewing body for Solano Transportation Authority.

Passed by the Solano Transportation Authority (STA) Board on this 10th day of April, 2019, by the following vote:

Ayes: __________ Nos: __________ Absent: __________ Abstain: __________

___________________________ Harry Price, Chair Solano Transportation Authority

Attest by: ______________________ Johanna Masiclat Clerk of the Board

I, Daryl K. Halls, the Solano Transportation Authority Executive Director, certify that the above and foregoing resolution was introduced, passed, and adopted by said Authority at a regular meeting thereof held this the day of April 10, 2019.

____________________________ Daryl K. Halls, Executive Director Solano Transportation Authority

ATTACHMENT A

42

Exhibit A

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE SOLANO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

The Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000, et seq.) requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation (2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730) that contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code, which can be incorporated by reference in an agency’s code. After public notice and hearing, the standard code may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act. Therefore, the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference. This regulation and the attached Appendix [or Appendices], designating positions and establishing disclosure categories, shall constitute the conflict of interest code of the Solano Transportation Authority (STA).

Individuals holding designated positions shall file their statements of economic interests with the STA, which will make the statements available for public inspection and reproduction (Gov. Code Sec. 81008). Upon receipt of the statements, the District shall make and retain copies and forward the originals to the Solano County Registrar of Voters. All other statements will be retained by the STA.

Adopted: December 13, 2006 Amended: April 10, 2019

43

1

EXHIBIT “A” DESIGNATED POSITIONS

Position Disclosure Category Agency Board 1 through 4

• Board Members • Alternate Board Members

Executive Director 1 through 4 Legal Counsel 1 through 4 Clerk of the Board/Office Manager 1 through 4 Deputy Executive Director/Director of Projects 1 through 4 Director of Planning 1 through 4 Director of Programs 1 through 4 Marketing and Legislative Program Manager 1 through 4 Accounting and Administrative Services Manager 1 through 4 Consultants** 1 through 4 **Consultants are included in the list of designated positions and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code, subject to the following limitation:

The Executive Director may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a “designated position,” is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements described in this section. Such written determination shall include a description of the consultant’s duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The Executive Director’s determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this conflict-of-interest code. • Clerk of the Board/Administrative Assistant position has been renamed as Clerk of the Board/Office

Manager • Deputy Executive Director/Director of Planning position has been renamed as the Director of

Planning. • Director of Projects position has been renamed as the Deputy Executive Director/Director of

Projects. • SNCI Program Director position has been renamed to the Director of Programs. • Marketing and Legislative Program Director has been renamed to Marketing and Legislative

Program Manager • The Financial Analyst/Accountant position has been renamed to Accounting and Administrative

Services Manager. • The definition of Miscellaneous has been renamed to Consultants and the limitations revised.

44

2

EXHIBIT B

DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES

Category 1 Persons in this category shall disclose all interests in real property within the jurisdiction. Real property shall be deemed to be within the jurisdiction if it is located within Solano County and would otherwise be required to be disclosed on Form 700. Thus, for purposes of disclosure only (not disqualification), an interest in real property does not include the principal residence of the filer or any other property which the filer utilizes exclusively as the personal residence of the filer. Category 2 Persons in this category shall disclose all investments. Investment means: Any financial interest in or security issued by a business entity, including but riot limited to common stock, preferred stock, rights, warrants, options, debt instruments and any partnership or other ownership interest, if the business entity or any parent, subsidiary or otherwise related business entity has an interest in real property in the jurisdiction, or does business or plans to do business in the jurisdiction, or has done business within the jurisdiction at any time during the two years prior to the time any statement or other action is required under this Code. No asset shall be deemed an investment unless its fair market value exceeds one thousand dollars ($1,000). The term “investment” does not include a time or demand deposit in a financial institution, shares in a credit union, any insurance policy, or any bond or other debt instrument issued by any government or government agency. Investments of an individual or spouse owns, directly, indirectly or beneficially, a ten percent (10%) interest or greater. Category 3 Persons in this category shall disclose all income, including loans, aggregating $250 or more in value during the reporting period, received from any source located or doing business within the jurisdiction or expecting to do business within the jurisdiction. Gifts in excess of the FPPC discloser limit received during the period from any source shall be disclosed. Income received from a public agency need not be disclosed. Income of persons in this category also includes a pro rata share of any income of any business entity located or doing business within the jurisdiction in which the person or spouse owns, directly, indirectly or beneficially, a ten percent (10%) interest or greater. Category 4 Persons in this category shall disclose all income from and investments in any business that manufacturers or sells services and/or supplies of the type annually purchased or utilized by the Solano Transportation Authority and of which the annual purchases by the Authority exceeds $5,000.

45

3

Category 5 Persons in this category shall disclose all investments in and income from all banks, savings, and loan association, insurance companies, investment companies, stockbrokers, title companies, financial consultants, data processing firms or consultants. Category 6 Persons in this category shall disclose all income from and investments in business entities in the construction or building industry.

46

Agenda Item 10.A April 10, 2019

DATE: March 27, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Brandon Thomson, Transit Mobility Coordinator RE: 2018 SolanoExpress Ridership Survey and Analysis Study Background: The intercity transit routes that serve Solano County are operated by the two largest transit operators in the County: Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) and Solano County Transit (SolTrans), through contracts with STA. Although operated by two transit operators, they are funded by a combination of funding contributions from six cities (Benicia, Dixon, Fairfield, Suisun City, Vacaville, and Vallejo) and the County of Solano, Regional Measure 2 (RM 2) funds determined by the STA Board, and several of funding sources obtained by STA. The STA has been working with local transit operators through the Intercity Transit Funding (ITF) Working Group over the past fifteen years and developed an ITF Agreement to stabilize the funding for these services. The cost-sharing for each route is based on residence of the ridership (80%) and population share (20%). An initial ridership survey was conducted in the fall of 2006 The last ridership update was in 2014 which consisted of SolanoExpress seven (7) intercity routes, and per transit operator's request, FAST local routes, Napa Vine 21 and SolTrans local routes were also surveyed. Dixon Readi-Ride, Rio Vista Delta Breeze and Vacaville City Coach opted out of having their local system surveyed. Due to the amount of time since the last survey and the new service plan, STA commissioned a comprehensive ridership survey of SolanoExpress routes. On July 11, 2018 the STA Board approved the SolanoExpress 2018 Ridership Survey and Analysis Study. The 2018 SolanoExpress Ridership Survey and Analysis Study will be used to help calculate the new Intercity Funding Agreement formula based upon rider residency (Attachment A). In addition to meeting the needs of the ITF Agreement, the 2018 Study included an on-board passenger survey and analysis, on-time performance, and on and off counts at the various bus stops. With the new SolanoExpress service changes, this information will be informative to help make any necessary adjustments to the new system in the future. Discussion: The SolanoExpress Ridership survey was conducted during October, November and December of 2018, by Quantum Market Research (QMR). QMR was able to conduct 2,598 on-board surveys throughout the five route SolanoExpress system (80, 85, Blue, Green Express, and Yellow). The results were weighted according to the weekly ridership of each route as estimated from the on-off counts. Overall, the survey results indicate that these routes are an important transportation resource, both for Solano County residents and others, and serve a valuable function in providing an alternative to the automobile for commuters on I-80/I-680 and I-780. A summary of findings from the survey include the following:

47

• Approximately ¼ of surveyed riders depend on the bus for transportation; 23.4% of respondents said they would not have made the trip if their bus had not been available. In addition, 28% of respondents do not have a driver’s license.

• More than 50% of riders say they ride at least 5 days a week and more than 85% ride at

least weekly. Most are also long-term users: almost two-thirds have been using their current route for at least a year, with 23.5% having been riders for 6 years or more. These bus lines buses also continue to attract new riders, however: 26% of respondents said they had been riding for less than 6 months, including 5% who were riding for the first time

• Riders travel primarily between home and work, but also to and from a variety of other destinations. More than 90% of respondents either began or planned to end their current trip at home, while almost 75% were coming from or going to work, about 12% to or from sports/social/recreational activities and 9% to or from school or college.

• Riders use the buses as one of several links in their commute or other travel, with roughly half using other public transportation methods (BART, other buses) both to get to their bus stop and to reach their final destination. Cars and walking were primarily used by the other half of riders.

• Demographically, these bus lines serve a diverse ridership, with almost 40% of riders

African-American, 22.7% white/Caucasian and 19.1% Asian. More than 17% of riders described themselves as Hispanic or Latino. In addition, 31.5% of respondents speak a language other than English at home, mostly Spanish (30%) or Tagalog/Filipino (27%), but also more than a dozen other languages.

• More than 88% of surveyed riders are within the age range of working adults (18 to 64), with only 3.5% under 18 and 8.4% age 65 and older. Similarly, more than 81% of riders are employed full time or part time.

• Surveyed riders gave good ratings to most service elements, with an overall service rating

of 3.03, where 3.0 represents a “good” rating on a 1-to-4 scale. About half of service elements received ratings of 3.0 or higher, while the average rating for fares was lowest at 2.75. GreenExpress riders had the lowest satisfaction with overall service (2.84), with almost one-third rating it poor or fair.

• There is very strong interest in earlier and later service across the routes surveyed. When asked whether they would use earlier or later buses on their route if those were available, more than 90% of respondents said they would always or sometimes use earlier (36.6% always, 56.2% sometimes) or later buses (33.8% always, 56.4% sometimes.). Comments offered by riders also confirm their desire for earlier and later operation.

• When asked how they currently receive transit information, the Transit website and

Transit Center together were mentioned by more than 58% of riders, followed by three websites/apps (511.org, NextBus, myStop) that together w

• ere cited by almost 40% of respondents. (Multiple responses were accepted.) About 20% of respondents cited more traditional non-digital information sources: information at stops (10.8%), printed schedules (7.8%) and asking a friend or bus driver (1.8%). Taken together, some form of online information was cited by 88% of riders.

48

• This interest in online tools is confirmed by a relatively high interest in a mobile payment app. Just over half of respondents indicated they would use such an app, and only 21.2% said they would not, with 28% replying they were not sure. In addition, 17 riders offered comments saying an app would be very helpful.

• While these results consistently show a ridership that relies on buses on a regular basis to commute between home and work as well as reach other destinations, there are differences among individual routes in terms of the age, employment status, income, ethnic background and access to alternative methods of transportation of their riders.

A series of narrative reports have been prepared summarizing the on-board survey. These are grouped by SolanoExpress routes and can be viewed in Attachment B. In general, the survey found transit services are an integral mobility option for many Solano residents. Among services there is varying needs for transit. For many riders who are low income, transit is a key component of everyday life transporting them to jobs, school and other locations. For long-distance commuters, using transit is a daily choice they have selected. The reports offer a wealth of information about the variety of SolanoExpress riders in Solano County. At their meetings on March 26th the SolanoExpress Intercity Transit Consortium asked STA staff to provide more information regarding the origin and destinations. Specifically, the SolanoExpress Intercity Transit Consortium would like to see the origin and destinations broken down into a.m. and p.m. trips. STA staff will provide this information at a future SolanoExpress Intercity Transit Consortium meeting. The Consortium also voted to forward the Study to the TAC and Board as recommended. At the March 27, 2019 STA TAC (Technical Advisory Committee) the committee voted unanimously to forward to the STA Board to approve the following:

1. Approve the 2018 SolanoExpress Ridership and Analysis Study as shown in Attachment B; and

2. Update the Intercity Funding formula based upon the updated SolanoExpress Ridership by City.

Fiscal Impact: There is no additional financial impact at this time. The Study was funded by STA with $122,013 of State Transit Assistance Funds (STAF). Recommendation: Approve the following:

1. The 2018 SolanoExpress Ridership Survey and Analysis Study as shown in Attachment B; and

2. Authorize the Executive Director to update the Intercity Funding formula for SolanoExpress Service based upon the residency information gathered from the 2018 SolanoExpress Ridership Survey.

Attachments:

A. Executive Summary of 2014 Ridership Survey B. 2018 SolanoExpress Draft Ridership Report C. City of Residency-Individual Routes

49


50

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (2014 Survey)

This report presents the results of an on-board survey of 2,394 riders on intercity routes in

the Solano Transportation Authority system. Results were weighted according to the

weekly ridership of each route as estimated from on-off counts summarized below.

Figure ES-1. Ridership by Route and Survey Weights

Overall, the survey results indicate that intercity routes are an important transportation

resource (both for Solano County residents and others) that serve a valuable function in

providing an alternative to the automobile for commuters. As summarized in the

conclusions at the end of this report, findings include:

Intercity riders rely on the bus for transportation.

- About 57% have no car or one car, and 46% said no car was available for this

trip.

- In addition, 31% of respondents do not have a driver’s license. Among those

without a license, almost one-third said they would not have made their

current trip if the bus had not been available.

Most riders use their intercity bus frequently, with 70% reporting that they ride at

least 3 days a week and almost 85% riding at least weekly.

Most riders are also long-term users.

- More than 60% of intercity riders have been using their current route for at

least a year, with 22% having been riders for 6 years or more.

- Intercity buses do continue to attract new riders, with almost one-fourth of

respondents riding for less than 6 months and 5% riding for the first time.

Riders use intercity routes for travel primarily between home and work, but also

to and from a variety of other destinations. More than 90% of respondents either

A B C 5A+B+C= Number

Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekly of Surveys Survey

Line Count Count Count Riders Completed Weights

FAST 20 225 83 1,208 111 0.053

FAST 30 275 13 1,388 122 0.060

FAST 40 200 1,000 98 0.043

FAST 90 1,031 5,155 434 0.224

Napa Vine 21 43 215 29 0.009

SolTrans 76 36 180 19 0.008

SolTrans 78 366 115 1,945 209 0.085

SolTrans 80 1,670 851 9,201 1,049 0.400

SolTrans 80S 145 145 67 0.006

SolTrans 85 470 215 2,565 256 0.112

TOTALS 4,316 1,277 145 23,002 2,394 1.00

ATTACHMENT A

51

3

began or planned to end their current trip at home, while more than 67% were

coming from or going to work, about 10% to or from school, and about 6% to or

from shopping/errands or sports/social/recreational events.

Riders also use the intercity routes as one of several links in their commute or

other travel, with roughly half using other public transportation methods (BART,

other buses) both to get to their bus stop and to get to their final destination.

Demographically, intercity routes serve a diverse ridership, with almost 44%

African American, 26% white/Caucasian and 17% Asian riders. More than 13%

of riders described themselves as Hispanic or Latino. In addition, 31% of

respondents said they speak a language other than English at home, mostly

Spanish (31%) or Tagalog/Filipino (27%), but also more than a dozen other

languages.

Intercity routes primarily serve riders of working age (more than 91% of

respondents are 18 to 64 years old.) Similarly, more than 75% of riders are

employed full time or part time.

Intercity riders gave good ratings to most service elements, with an overall service

rating of 3.07, where 3.0 represents a “good” rating. Most service elements

received average ratings of about 3.0 or higher, with driver courtesy receiving the

highest rating of 3.26. While availability of intercity connections, frequency of

service and rider information all received ratings slightly below 3.0, the average

rating for fares was lowest, at 2.62.

More than 20% of riders said there were no changes they would like to see to the

route they were on, while 7% offered no suggestions. The most frequently offered

change was for more frequent service (34% of those who offered suggestions),

while almost as many respondents suggested more Sunday service (33%) or more

Saturday service (27%). Another 23% suggested later evening service – more than

twice as many as the 10% who would like to see earlier morning service. Note

that totals exceed 100% because multiple suggestions were accepted.

When asked how they want to receive transit information, more than 35% of

respondents said their preference was for information at bus stops, while another

24% mentioned notices on the buses themselves. Other popular information

sources included electronic media such as the transit website (28%) and email

(19%).

While the Intercity results consistently show a ridership that relies on buses on a

regular basis to commute between home and work as well as reach other

destinations, there are significant differences among individual routes in terms of

the age, employment status, income, ethnic background and access to alternative

methods of transportation of their riders.

52

4

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of an on-board survey of riders on intercity routes in the

Solano Transportation Authority system. A total of 2,394 passengers on the following

intercity routes were surveyed:

FAST, surveyed between April 8 and April 15

Route 20 – 111 riders surveyed




Napa VINE, surveyed April 3


SolTrans, surveyed between April 1 and April 17



Route 80 – 1,049 riders surveyed

Route 80S – 67 riders surveyed


Results presented in this report are weighted to accurately represent the overall intercity

rider population; that is, results from each intercity route are weighted according to the

estimated number of riders per week, based on the weekday and weekend on-off counts

conducted as part of this study. The results of these counts and the resulting estimates of

weekly ridership that were used to develop weights are presented below.

Figure 1. Ridership by Route and Survey Weights

For each set of findings, results are presented in graphic form for the overall population

of all intercity riders. For most questions, results are also presented for individual routes.

The remainder of this report presents results for all intercity riders. First, characteristics

of trips being taken by surveyed riders are assessed, followed by an analysis of rider

A B C 5A+B+C= Number

Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekly of Surveys Survey

Line Count Count Count Riders Completed Weights

FAST 20 225 83 1,208 111 0.053

FAST 30 275 13 1,388 122 0.060

FAST 40 200 1,000 98 0.043

FAST 90 1,031 5,155 434 0.224

Napa Vine 21 43 215 29 0.009

SolTrans 76 36 180 19 0.008

SolTrans 78 366 115 1,945 209 0.085

SolTrans 80 1,670 851 9,201 1,049 0.400

SolTrans 80S 145 145 67 0.006

SolTrans 85 470 215 2,565 256 0.112

TOTALS 4,316 1,277 145 23,002 2,394 1.00

53

5

demographics. Rider perception of the quality of service and suggested improvement are

then discussed. Finally, brief conclusions are drawn regarding the characteristics of riders

and their use of the Solano Transportation Authority intercity routes.

TRIP CHARACTERISTICS The following section is about how intercity riders were using the bus at the time they

were surveyed. Riders were asked to describe how often they rode and for what purpose,

where they were traveling to and from, how they got to and from stops, how they paid

their fare and how they would have made this trip if the bus had not been available.

Frequency of Ridership

Most riders use their intercity bus frequently, with about 70% reporting that they ride at

least 3 days a week and almost 85% riding at least weekly. As shown by the individual

route results, both FAST Routes 40 and 90 have the highest share of riders using the bus

5-7 times a week, while SolTrans 80S has the lowest share. These results indicate that

riders make the intercity routes an integral part of their transportation strategy.

Figure 2. Ridership Frequency – All Intercity

Figure 3. Ridership Frequency – Individual Intercity

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE

Route Number Intercity 20 30 40 90 21 76 78 80 80S 85

Frequency Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

5 to 7 days a week 50.3% 33.0% 54.6% 66.0% 64.1% 41.4% 36.8% 52.3% 48.0% 27.4% 31.8%

3 to 4 days a week 19.9% 20.8% 21.8% 18.6% 20.7% 27.6% 36.8% 16.6% 18.6% 14.5% 22.9%

1 to 2 times a week 14.5% 22.6% 7.6% 11.3% 8.7% 17.2% 15.8% 17.1% 16.5% 29.0% 17.4%

Once a month or less 10.4% 17.0% 10.9% 4.1% 5.2% 6.9% 10.5% 8.0% 12.2% 22.6% 15.3%

First time riding 4.9% 6.6% 5.0% 1.4% 6.9% 6.0% 4.7% 6.5% 12.7%

SolTrans

54

6

Length of Ridership

Survey results indicate that more than 60% of intercity riders have been using their

current route for at least a year, with 22.4% having been riders for 6 years or more. At the

other extreme, 24% of respondents said they had been riding for less than 6 months.

FAST Route 90 had the highest percentage of respondents who had been riding for at

least 6 years, while Napa VINE 21 and SolTrans 85 had more than half riding less than

one year.

Figure 4. How Long Riding – All Intercity

Figure 5. How Long Riding – Individual Intercity

Round/One Way Trip

Almost three-fourths of respondents said their ride on the bus was part of a round-trip,

while 23.8% said they did not intend to make a round trip on the bus and fewer than 3%

did not yet know whether they would be making a return trip on the same route. More

than 80% of FAST 30, 40 and 90 riders expected to make round trips. The high

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE


How long riding? Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

Less than 6 months 24.0% 29.6% 26.1% 19.8% 12.6% 48.3% 27.8% 26.8% 24.2% 32.3% 38.6%

6 to 12 months 14.0% 13.0% 21.0% 19.8% 12.2% 37.9% 16.7% 15.7% 12.9% 6.5% 13.1%

1 to 2 years 19.6% 24.1% 14.3% 26.0% 19.3% 13.8% 44.4% 22.7% 19.3% 24.2% 16.1%

3 to 5 years 19.9% 11.1% 16.0% 14.6% 26.7% 11.1% 22.2% 20.3% 21.0% 14.0%

6 to 9 years 9.7% 4.6% 16.8% 10.4% 15.0% 5.6% 8.5% 9.7% 6.4%

10 or more years 12.7% 17.6% 5.9% 9.4% 14.1% 7.1% 14.8% 6.5% 11.9%

SolTrans

55

7

percentage of riders on round trips supports the hypothesis that many riders on intercity

buses are on a regular commute.

Figure 6. This Trip is Part of a Round Trip on the Bus – All Intercity

Figure 7. This Trip is Part of a Round Trip on the Bus – Individual Intercity

Trip Purpose—Where Are You Coming From and Where Are You Going?

Passengers were asked where they were coming from and where they were going on this

trip. The results show that riders are using intercity routes for travel primarily between

home and work, but also to and from a variety of other destinations. More than 90% of

respondents either began or planned to end their current trip at home, while more than

67% were coming from or going to work, about 10% to or from school, and about 6% to

or from shopping/errands or sports/social/recreational events. No other origin or

destination accounted for as much as 5%.

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE


Round trip? Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

Yes 73.3% 59.0% 80.8% 83.5% 85.2% 82.8% 47.4% 74.3% 69.1% 44.6% 64.8%

No 23.8% 34.3% 17.5% 14.4% 14.4% 17.2% 36.8% 22.8% 27.9% 52.3% 28.9%

Don't know 2.9% 6.7% 1.7% 2.1% 0.5% 15.8% 2.9% 3.0% 3.1% 6.3%

SolTrans

56

8

More than 80% of intercity riders said they were coming from either home (56.4%) or

work (28.1%) on their current trip, while 4.0% said they were returning from school or

college and 2.8% were returning from sports, social or recreational events. All FAST

Route 40 respondents were coming from home or work, compared to less than half of

those on SolTrans76.

Figure 8. Trip Origins – All Intercity

Figure 9. Trip Origins – Individual Intercity

Work was the most often mentioned destination (39.3%), followed by home (36.6%),

school/college (6.4%) sports, social or recreational (4.6%) and shopping/errands (4.3%).

Various other destinations each accounted for less than 3% of responses. FAST Route 40

had more than 90% of riders heading for work or home. In contrast, FAST 20 had fewer

than 60% of riders with home or work as a destination, and more than 20% of riders

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE


Coming from Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

Home 56.4% 58.7% 73.1% 79.4% 56.6% 55.2% 26.3% 67.2% 49.2% 50.8% 57.3%

Work 28.1% 16.5% 14.3% 20.6% 36.4% 17.2% 21.1% 22.5% 34.0% 23.1% 11.8%

School or college 4.0% 5.5% 8.4% 1.9% 17.2% 36.8% 4.4% 3.2% 1.5% 5.7%

Sports/social/ recreational 2.8% 0.9% 2.5% 0.9% 6.9% 2.5% 4.6% 7.7% 2.0%

Shopping/errands 2.3% 8.3% 0.8% 0.9% 5.3% 1.5% 1.8% 3.1% 6.1%

Bus. apptmt./job interview 1.9% 3.7% 1.2% 5.3% 1.0% 1.9% 1.5% 4.9%

Visiting friends or relatives 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 3.4% 0.5% 1.6% 6.2% 1.2%

Medical 0.7% 3.7% 0.8% 1.6%

Other 2.8% 1.8% 0.8% 1.2% 5.3% 0.5% 3.0% 6.2% 9.3%

SolTrans

57

9

either going to school (12.4%) or going shopping (8.6%). These results show the

importance of intercity routes both in serving commuters and in providing access to other

activities.

Figure 10. Trip Destinations – All Intercity

Figure 11. Trip Destinations – Individual Intercity

Places of Origin and Destination

Respondents were also asked where they had started their current trip and where they

planned to end it. Results indicate that almost 46% of intercity riders are starting their trip

in either Vallejo or Fairfield, and almost 40% are ending their trip at one of those two

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE


Going to Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

Home 36.6% 28.6% 19.3% 19.6% 38.7% 39.3% 68.4% 28.3% 44.8% 40.9% 26.0%

Work 39.2% 29.5% 58.8% 73.2% 48.8% 21.4% 47.5% 32.8% 22.7% 22.7%

School or college 6.4% 12.4% 10.9% 5.2% 3.5% 21.4% 21.1% 4.0% 3.5% 9.1% 16.5%

Sports/social/ recreational 4.6% 6.7% 5.9% 2.1% 6.6% 5.2% 6.1% 7.0%

Shopping/errands 4.3% 8.6% 1.7% 2.4% 3.6% 3.5% 3.6% 4.5% 12.4%

Bus. apptmt./job interview 2.4% 3.8% 0.8% 2.1% 3.6% 3.5% 2.0% 3.0% 5.0%

Visiting friends or relatives 2.7% 2.9% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 3.6% 2.5% 3.7% 6.1% 3.3%

Medical 1.2% 5.7% 7.1% 5.3% 1.5% 1.3% 1.7%

Other 2.5% 1.9% 1.7% 1.2% 5.3% 2.5% 2.9% 7.6% 5.4%

SolTrans

58

10

destinations. San Francisco was the only other city accounting for more than 10% of both

origins (11.6%) and destinations (11.0%).

Figure 12. City of Origin and Destination – All Intercity

Among individual routes, FAST Route 20 had more than 80% of riders coming from or

going to Vacaville and Fairfield, while SolTrans 85 had more than 80% coming from and

going to Vallejo and Fairfield.

59

11

Figure 13. City of Origin – Individual Intercity

Figure 14. City of Destination – Individual Intercity

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE


City coming from Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

Vallejo 29.1% 1.9% 3.3% 0.2% 18.8% 37.4% 47.6% 39.0% 55.3%

Fairfield 16.3% 39.6% 17.5% 34.1% 35.4% 28.6% 1.5% 1.2% 26.2%

San Francisco 11.6% 2.8% 4.4% 12.8% 5.4% 19.3% 5.1% 2.1%

Oakland 8.3% 0.9% 3.3% 14.0% 2.0% 11.4% 16.9% 1.3%

Vacaville 7.7% 48.1% 27.5% 24.2% 8.7% 3.6% 0.2% 3.4%

Suisun City 4.3% 1.9% 4.2% 11.0% 12.8% 14.3% 0.1% 3.8%

Benicia 3.6% 3.3% 25.0% 30.5% 1.2% 5.1% 1.3%

Berkeley 2.6% 0.8% 1.1% 5.1% 1.0% 2.9% 1.7% 0.8%

Richmond 2.2% 0.9% 2.2% 1.7% 1.5% 3.8% 1.7% 0.4%

Dixon 1.5% 0.9% 20.8% 0.2% 3.6% 1.0% 0.4%

Sacramento 1.3% 17.5% 0.7% 1.7% 0.4%

Napa or Napa County 1.1% 1.1% 0.2% 42.9% 1.3% 1.7% 0.8%

American Canyon 0.9% 1.7% 1.8% 0.4%

Walnut Creek 0.9% 0.8% 5.5% 0.5% 4.4% 6.8% 0.4%

Concord 0.7% 0.9% 2.2% 25.0% 3.4% 1.7% 0.4%

Emeryville 0.5% 0.5% 1.0%

El Cerrito 0.4% 1.1% 0.5% 0.5% 1.7%

San Leandro 0.4% 0.7% 0.5%

Other 6.6% 1.9% 5.8% 6.6% 5.8% 7.1% 31.3% 11.8% 7.1% 16.9% 2.5%

SolTrans

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE


City going to Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

Vallejo 24.1% 2.0% 0.7% 47.4% 21.0% 43.7% 42.9% 35.2%

Fairfield 15.1% 47.0% 7.6% 14.3% 24.5% 40.7% 0.5% 1.5% 1.8% 45.2%

Oakland 11.2% 2.0% 4.4% 19.6% 5.6% 14.7% 14.3% 0.4%

San Francisco 11.1% 0.8% 7.7% 15.9% 8.7% 15.3% 10.7% 1.7%

Vacaville 5.4% 41.0% 15.3% 7.7% 6.4% 5.2%

Berkeley 4.5% 2.2% 8.6% 2.1% 5.4% 1.8% 1.3%

Sacramento 3.4% 1.0% 51.7% 0.7% 3.7% 0.1%

Benicia 3.1% 5.5% 31.6% 24.1% 1.3% 1.8% 0.9%

Richmond 2.9% 1.0% 3.2% 0.5% 4.8% 1.8% 1.3%

Suisun City 3.0% 1.0% 2.5% 4.4% 9.3% 0.2% 3.5%

Walnut Creek 2.5% 0.8% 24.2% 14.9% 0.1% 3.6% 0.4%

El Cerrito 1.3% 2.0% 2.0% 0.5% 1.6% 1.8% 0.9%

Napa or Napa County 1.2% 0.5% 48.1% 0.5% 0.8% 3.6% 2.2%

Concord 0.9% 4.4% 6.7% 0.2% 1.8%

Dixon 0.6% 1.0% 5.9% 0.7%

American Canyon 0.4% 1.1%

Other 9.4% 2.0% 15.3% 25.3% 7.8% 7.4% 21.1% 14.9% 9.2% 14.3% 1.7%

SolTrans

60

12

Where Did You Board and Will You Leave the Bus?

When asked where they had boarded the bus, about 58% of intercity riders said they had

boarded either in Vallejo or El Cerrito and the same percentage of riders planned to leave

in these cities, in part reflecting the high volume of passengers connecting to BART.

About 20% of passengers boarded and planned to exit their bus in Fairfield; Vacaville

accounted for 5.8% of boardings, but no other city accounted for as much as 5% of either

boarding or departing riders.

Figure 15. Where Did You Board/Will You Leave – All Intercity

Where Did Where Will

City You Board You Leave

Vallejo 31.4% 28.1%

El Cerrito 26.5% 30.2%

Fairfield 20.7% 19.9%

Vacaville 5.8% 3.4%

Benicia 3.6% 2.6%

Walnut Creek 2.1% 3.2%

Pleasant Hill 1.6% 4.4%

Sacramento 1.1% 3.0%

Richmond 1.5% 2.2%

Other 5.9% 2.9%

61

13

Among individual routes, FAST 20 had all riders boarding in Fairfield or Vacaville,

while SolTrans 85 had 65% of respondents boarding in Vallejo.

Figure 16. Where Did You Board – Individual Intercity

More than 94% of SolTrans 80 riders said they planned to leave the bus in Vallejo or El

Cerrito, while all but 4% of FAST 90 riders planned to leave in El Cerrito or Fairfield.

Figure 17. Where Will You Leave the Bus – Individual Intercity

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE


Where did you board Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

Vallejo 31.4% 21.1% 35.8% 51.6% 46.2% 65.0%

Fairfield 20.7% 50.0% 23.3% 42.6% 47.6% 37.9% 33.8%

El Cerrito 26.5% 39.0% 44.3%

Walnut Creek 2.1% 5.3% 22.4%

Vacaville 5.8% 50.0% 32.5% 26.6% 0.4%

Benicia 3.6% 7.4% 26.3% 35.8%


Suisun City 2.3% 9.7% 10.3% 0.4%

Pleasant Hill 1.6% 18.1% 36.8% 6.0%

Dixon 1.4% 22.5%

Richmond 1.5% 3.9%

Napa 0.5% 51.7%

Other 1.3% 4.2% 3.7% 15.8% 0.2% 1.5% 0.4%

SolTrans

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE


Where will you leave Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

El Cerrito 30.2% 56.7% 43.7%

Vallejo 28.1% 1.0% 47.4% 23.7% 50.8% 44.8% 45.6%

Fairfield 19.9% 57.7% 9.9% 25.8% 39.4% 42.9% 53.1%

Vacaville 3.4% 41.3% 17.4% 5.2%

Benicia 2.6% 6.2% 31.6% 24.7% 1.5%

Pleasant Hill 4.4% 39.2% 21.1% 29.8%


Walnut Creek 3.2% 23.7% 21.2% 53.7%

Richmond 2.2% 0.5% 5.3%

Napa 0.5% 57.1%

Davis 0.9% 14.9%

Dixon 0.5% 7.4% 0.5%

Other 1.0% 3.5% 0.1% 1.2%

SolTrans

62

14

Access to Bus Stop

About half of riders reached the bus stop using BART or by bus, with 48.4% responding

that they used public transportation to get to their stop. Another 29% reached their stop

by car, as driver (18.3%) or as passenger (11.3%), while 20.3% said they walked at least

part of the way to their stop (note that some riders provided more than one response).

Figure 18. How Did You Get to the Bus? – All Intercity

* Totals exceed 100% because more than one response was accepted.

Figure 19. How Did You Get to the Bus? – Individual Intercity

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE


Mode to bus stop* Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

BART 28.3% 2.9% 16.7% 37.6% 14.6% 41.9% 46.6% 6.3%

Walked 20.3% 28.8% 27.0% 7.3% 4.7% 32.0% 78.9% 38.7% 15.4% 24.1% 47.3%

Bus 20.1% 54.8% 10.4% 8.3% 10.6% 28.0% 10.5% 22.6% 18.7% 8.6% 36.6%

Car as driver 18.3% 1.0% 38.3% 47.9% 36.4% 12.0% 9.0% 11.0% 3.4% 3.6%

Car as passenger 11.3% 6.7% 15.7% 14.6% 11.1% 16.0% 10.5% 12.1% 11.0% 15.5% 9.8%

Bicycle 2.3% 6.7% 4.3% 5.2% 0.9% 8.0% 5.3% 4.5% 1.4% 3.4% 1.3%

Taxi 0.7% 1.7% 0.5% 1.2% 0.4%

Ferry 0.2% 0.5% 0.1% 1.3%

Capitol Corridor/AMTRAK/RT 0.2% 2.6% 0.4%

Other 1.7% 1.0% 0.9% 3.1% 1.2% 4.0% 1.0% 2.0% 2.7%

* More than one mode may have been used

SolTrans

63

15

Riders who walked to reach their bus stop were asked approximately how long the walk

took. Mid-points of ranges (e.g., 8 minutes for 6-10 minutes) were used to calculate an

average time of 12.9 minutes for the 338 intercity riders who walked to their bus stop.

Most riders who reached their stop by bus used other STA operators, with SolTrans and

FAST accounting for more than two-thirds of the total. In addition to AC Transit

(11.2%), buses from several of other transit systems were used to reach intercity stops,

including Vacaville City Coach (4.4%), Contra Costa County Connection (3.6%) and

Napa Vine (3.1%).

Figure 20. If by Bus, What Transit Operator? – All Intercity

Access to Final Destination

Riders were also asked how they planned to reach their final destination. More than half

planned to rely on public transportation, primarily BART (28.1%) and other buses

(22.4%). More than 20% included walking in their plans and over 20% would use cars

(13.3% as driver; 8.6% as passenger). SolTrans 80S riders were most likely to rely on

BART (44.8%) and FAST 20 respondents had the highest percentage indicating they

would use another bus (67.3%).

64

16

Figure 21. How Will You Get to Your Final Destination? – All Intercity


Figure 22. How Will You Get to Your Final Destination? – Individual Intercity

The 328 intercity riders who provided an estimate of how long they would take to walk to

their destination reported that they would take an average of 13.3 minutes.

For intercity riders who planned to reach their final destination by bus, about 60% said

they would travel on SolTrans or FAST, while 13.2% planned to use AC Transit. Some

14% of respondents said they would use County Connection (7.9%) or Vacaville City

Coach (6.2%).

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE


Mode to destination* Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

BART 28.1% 4.0% 0.8% 27.1% 41.1% 3.4% 24.2% 36.3% 44.8% 5.1%

Bus 22.4% 67.3% 13.6% 21.9% 13.6% 34.5% 16.7% 26.8% 20.2% 13.4% 28.1%

Walk 20.6% 16.8% 56.8% 16.7% 9.3% 41.4% 50.0% 34.3% 14.1% 19.4% 36.3%

Car as driver 13.3% 1.0% 11.0% 25.0% 24.0% 6.9% 5.6% 6.1% 13.3% 1.2%

Car as passenger 8.6% 5.9% 5.1% 12.5% 6.9% 10.3% 22.2% 8.1% 10.9% 6.0% 5.1%

Bicycle 2.0% 5.9% 5.1% 1.0% 0.9% 3.4% 5.6% 2.5% 1.7% 1.5% 1.6%

Taxi 0.7% 0.8% 1.0% 0.5% 1.0% 4.5% 0.8%

Capitol Corridor/AMTRAK/RT 0.7% 8.5% 3.4% 0.5% 0.2% 1.5%

Ferry 0.2% 1.0% 1.5%

Other 2.2% 1.0% 0.8% 4.2% 4.2% 1.5% 1.3% 4.5% 2.3%

* More than one mode may have been mentioned

SolTrans

65

17

Figure 23. If Bus to Destination, What Transit Operator? – All Intercity

How Trip Would Have Been Made Without the Bus

Slightly less than one-fourth (23.4%) of respondents said they would not have made the

trip if their intercity bus had not been available – indicating both that most riders have

alternative ways of making this trip and that the trip must be made (e.g., for getting to

work). Automobiles were mentioned as an alternative, either by driving alone (35.5%),

by getting a ride (23.6%) or through a planned or casual carpool (15.7%). Since intercity

trips are typically longer than those made by local riders, fewer respondents said they

would have walked (3.2%) or ridden a bike (1.5%).

SolTrans 76 and 80S both had more than 40% of riders reporting that they would not

have made the trip without this bus available, while FAST Route 30, 40 and 90 all had

fewer than 20% who would not have made the trip, with more than half of these FAST

riders saying they would have driven alone. In contrast, fewer than 10% of SolTrans 80S

or 85 respondents would have driven alone.

66

18

Figure 24. How Trip Made if Bus Not Available? – All Intercity

Figure 25. How Trip Made if Bus Not Available? – Individual Intercity

How Fare Paid

Riders were also asked how they had paid their fare, and whether they had paid an adult,

senior/disabled, or student fare. Over half (50.7%) of intercity riders said they paid cash,

while 36.8% paid with a monthly pass. Far fewer said they used multi-ride/punch passes

(8.1%) or transfers (3.4%). Among individual routes, SolTrans Route 80S had the highest

percentage who paid cash (85.9%), while FAST 30, 40 and 90 all had more than 60% of

riders using a monthly pass.

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE SolTrans


If no bus available Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

Would not have made this trip 23.4% 35.3% 17.5% 8.2% 10.6% 21.4% 42.1% 31.2% 26.3% 46.8% 34.2%

Drive alone 35.5% 12.7% 57.5% 65.3% 53.1% 46.4% 10.5% 33.7% 30.3% 9.7% 9.7%

Get a ride 23.6% 45.1% 14.2% 17.3% 9.7% 28.6% 42.1% 26.8% 24.2% 21.0% 43.0%

Casual carpool 9.0% 5.9% 4.2% 4.1% 14.1% 3.6% 2.0% 11.0% 5.1%

Carpool/vanpool 6.7% 1.0% 10.0% 7.1% 12.0% 3.6% 3.9% 5.5% 4.8% 3.8%

Train or BART 3.7% 1.0% 8.3% 2.0% 9.0% 2.9% 1.5% 8.1% 1.7%

Taxi 3.2% 3.9% 0.9% 3.6% 5.3% 3.9% 4.2% 8.1% 6.3%

Walk 3.2% 11.8% 0.8% 2.0% 0.5% 2.4% 2.5% 3.2% 9.7%

Bicycle 1.5% 5.9% 3.3% 2.0% 0.2% 3.6% 2.9% 1.2% 3.2% 0.8%

Other 4.8% 2.0% 4.2% 1.0% 3.7% 2.4% 7.3% 3.8%

67

19

Figure 26. How Did You Pay Your Fare for this Trip? – All Intercity

Figure 27. How Did You Pay Your Fare for this Trip? – Individual Intercity

Type of Fare

Adult fares accounted for over 70% of those paid by intercity riders, while 23.5% paid

senior/disabled fares and 6.4% paid student fares. FAST Route 40 had more than 80% of

respondents who said they paid adult fares, but none who paid student fares, while Napa

VINE 21 had more than 30% of riders paying student fares.

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE SolTrans


How paid Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

Cash 50.7% 67.9% 28.1% 26.3% 27.8% 55.2% 52.6% 53.9% 61.6% 85.9% 65.8%

Monthly Pass 36.8% 12.8% 60.2% 62.6% 63.0% 41.4% 31.6% 35.6% 25.9% 7.8% 14.8%

Multi Ride/Punch Pass 8.1% 4.7% 9.1% 5.3% 15.8% 7.9% 9.4% 6.3% 14.3%

Transfer 3.4% 19.3% 3.1% 2.0% 3.4% 1.6% 1.8% 4.2%

Other 1.1% 3.9% 0.5% 3.4% 1.0% 1.3% 0.8%

68

20

Figure 28. Type of Fare – All Intercity

Figure 29. Type of Fare – Individual Intercity

RIDER DEMOGRAPHICS The following section examines the demographics, or basic characteristics, of intercity

riders. These include gender, ethnicity, age, employment status, and household income,

and help to determine the characteristics of riders on the intercity routes.

Gender

Intercity riders are predominantly female, with males accounting for 45.8% of ridership.

SolTrans 80S had a nearly equal mix of male and female riders, while SolTrans 76

ridership was 55% male and FAST 20 was 52.8% male.

Operator All FAST Napa SolTrans

Route Number Intercity 20 30 40 90 21 76 78 80 80S

Fare type Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67

Adult 70.1% 73.3% 75.6% 81.6% 73.4% 53.8% 75.0% 65.6% 68.9% 63.6%

Senior/Disabled 23.5% 24.4% 14.6% 18.4% 26.6% 15.4% 12.5% 25.0% 23.7% 22.7%

Student 6.4% 2.2% 9.8% 30.8% 12.5% 9.4% 7.3% 13.6%

69

21

Figure 30. Gender – All Intercity

Figure 31. Gender – Individual Intercity

Age

More than 91% of Intercity riders are within the age range of working adults (18 to 64),

with only 1.8% under 18 and 6.6% age 65 and older. FAST Route 40 had no respondents

under 18, while SolTrans 76 had 100% of respondents in the 18-64 range. (It should be

noted that minors appearing to be under the age of 13 were not asked to complete a

questionnaire.)

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE


Gender Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

Male 45.8% 52.8% 37.0% 48.0% 43.7% 37.9% 55.6% 47.0% 46.3% 50.0% 47.9%

Female 54.2% 47.2% 63.0% 52.0% 56.3% 62.1% 44.4% 53.0% 53.7% 50.0% 52.1%

SolTrans

70

22

Figure 32. Age – All Intercity

Figure 33. Age – Individual Intercity

Employment Status

More than 76% of intercity riders are employed full time (62.2%) or part time (13.9%),

while 10.4% are students and 6.7% are unemployed. The remaining 6.8% of riders

comprised retirees and homemakers. FAST Routes 40 and 90 had over 80% of riders who

were employed fulltime, while SolTrans 76 had 20% and SolTrans 85 had 30.9%.

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE


Age Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

17 and younger 1.8% 5.9% 2.1% 0.3% 3.8% 1.2% 1.9% 3.8% 3.5%

18 - 24 15.7% 20.0% 15.6% 4.9% 8.4% 26.9% 62.5% 13.4% 17.3% 17.0% 24.1%

25 - 34 19.0% 22.4% 24.0% 17.1% 13.5% 11.5% 15.2% 19.5% 28.3% 29.1%

35 - 49 25.9% 31.8% 22.9% 25.6% 30.5% 3.8% 12.5% 26.8% 25.9% 20.8% 18.1%

50 - 64 30.9% 16.5% 33.3% 48.8% 40.7% 38.5% 25.0% 33.5% 27.7% 22.6% 19.6%

65 and older 6.6% 3.5% 2.1% 3.7% 6.6% 15.4% 9.8% 7.6% 7.5% 5.5%

SolTrans

71

23

Figure 34. Employment Status – All Intercity

Figure 35. Employment Status – Individual Intercity

Race and Ethnicity

The intercity routes have a diverse ridership, with almost 44% of riders African-

American, 25.8% white/Caucasian and one-sixth Asian. SolTrans 85 had the highest

percentage of African-American respondents (57.5%), while FAST 30 had the highest

percentage white/Caucasian (48.5%) and SolTrans 76 and 78 both had 20% or more

Asian riders.

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE


Employment Status Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

Fulltime 62.2% 37.6% 66.4% 90.7% 81.5% 44.8% 20.0% 62.4% 61.1% 41.0% 30.9%

Part time 13.9% 22.8% 6.9% 4.1% 7.5% 10.3% 6.7% 14.2% 15.9% 21.3% 22.9%

Student 10.4% 17.8% 15.5% 5.2% 4.8% 24.1% 60.0% 7.6% 8.1% 14.8% 22.0%

Unemployed 6.7% 9.9% 6.9% 2.9% 3.4% 6.1% 7.3% 9.8% 14.4%

Retired 5.1% 6.9% 3.4% 2.6% 17.2% 13.3% 8.6% 5.6% 11.5% 6.4%

Homemaker 1.7% 5.0% 0.9% 0.7% 1.0% 1.9% 1.6% 3.4%

SolTrans

72

24

Figure 36. Race and Ethnicity – All Intercity

Figure 37. Race and Ethnicity – Individual Intercity

Respondents were asked several other questions about their cultural background. When

asked if they considered themselves Spanish, Hispanic or Latino, 13.5% of riders

surveyed responded in the affirmative. The survey also asked if the respondent spoke a

language other than English at home: 30.6% of riders said they did so. Among those who

specified what language they spoke, about 60% mentioned either Spanish (31.2%) or

Filipino/Tagalog (27.3%), with the remainder comprising French (4.6%), Chinese

(2.9%), German (2.2%), Thai (2.0%) and more than a dozen other languages. (Surveys

were available in English and Spanish only, so results regarding languages spoken at

home, as well as race, should be reviewed with that in mind.)

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE SolTrans


Race/ethnicity Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

Black/African American 43.7% 40.0% 22.7% 26.8% 45.4% 37.5% 35.3% 36.7% 46.3% 39.7% 57.5%

White/Caucasian 25.8% 40.0% 48.5% 40.2% 24.8% 41.7% 41.2% 32.2% 19.6% 28.6% 17.9%

Asian 16.7% 3.5% 16.5% 19.5% 14.0% 8.3% 23.5% 20.0% 19.3% 17.5% 15.5%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 3.4% 2.4% 3.1% 6.1% 4.5% 2.8% 3.3% 1.6% 2.4%

American Indian or Alaska Native 1.2% 1.2% 1.0% 1.3% 2.2% 1.4% 1.6% 0.5%

Mixed and Other 9.2% 12.9% 8.2% 7.3% 10.0% 12.5% 6.1% 10.1% 11.1% 6.3%

73

25

Household Size

About 40% of intercity riders live in one- or two-person households, and 63% live in

households with 3 people or fewer. The percentage of riders in 4-person households

(18.4%) is about the same as the combined total of the percentage of households with 5,

6, 7 and 8 or more.

FAST Route 40 and SolTrans 76 both had fewer than 7% single family households – less

than one-third the percentage of SolTrans 80S, which had 21.1%. FAST 20 and Napa

VINE 21 both had about 30% of respondents in households with 5 or more people.

Figure 38. Household Size – All Intercity

Figure 39. Household Size – Individual Intercity

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE


Household size Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

1 13.1% 16.0% 9.9% 6.7% 10.9% 11.5% 5.9% 14.3% 14.9% 21.1% 13.7%

2 27.5% 18.1% 27.7% 33.7% 28.9% 23.1% 29.4% 25.9% 28.7% 15.8% 24.7%

3 22.4% 20.2% 27.7% 21.3% 23.1% 26.9% 11.8% 23.8% 21.8% 26.3% 21.0%

4 18.4% 16.0% 23.8% 10.1% 19.6% 7.7% 35.3% 20.1% 17.1% 15.8% 20.5%

5 10.2% 14.9% 6.9% 20.2% 10.6% 19.2% 11.8% 8.5% 9.8% 5.3% 7.3%

6 4.7% 9.6% 2.0% 4.5% 4.5% 7.7% 5.3% 4.0% 5.3% 6.4%

7 1.5% 1.1% 1.0% 1.1% 1.9% 0.5% 1.5% 5.3% 1.8%

8 or more 2.1% 4.3% 1.0% 2.2% 0.5% 3.8% 5.9% 1.6% 2.2% 5.3% 4.6%

SolTrans

74

26

Household Income

Among those respondents reporting their income (about 73% of the total), slightly fewer

than half (48.6%) had incomes greater than $50,000, while 28.7% had incomes less than

$25,000.

FAST Routes 40 and 90 had the highest income riders, with both having more than half

their respondents reporting incomes over $75,000. In contrast, FAST 20 and SolTrans 85

and 80S all had more than 50% of riders with incomes under $25,000.

Figure 40. Income – All Intercity

Figure 41. Income – Individual Intercity

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE


Income Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

Under $10,000 13.7% 22.1% 10.1% 1.3% 6.0% 23.1% 15.4% 14.5% 13.6% 25.6% 30.5%

$10,000 - $24,999 15.0% 29.9% 10.1% 2.6% 5.4% 11.5% 30.8% 15.9% 16.5% 25.6% 27.1%

$25,000 - $34,999 10.0% 15.6% 5.6% 9.0% 4.8% 7.7% 7.7% 13.1% 11.3% 7.7% 14.1%

$35,000 - $49,999 12.7% 11.7% 14.6% 15.4% 10.1% 15.4% 15.4% 11.0% 14.3% 20.5% 11.3%

$50,000 - $74,999 17.4% 9.1% 28.1% 17.9% 20.6% 23.1% 7.7% 17.2% 16.9% 7.7% 11.9%

$75,000 - $99,999 11.3% 5.2% 11.2% 24.4% 17.6% 3.8% 7.7% 9.0% 10.4% 7.7% 2.3%

$100,000 - $149,999 12.1% 5.2% 14.6% 15.4% 20.9% 11.5% 15.4% 12.4% 10.2% 5.1% 1.7%

Over $150,000 7.8% 1.3% 5.6% 14.1% 14.6% 3.8% 6.9% 6.8% 1.1%

SolTrans

75

27

City of Residence

More than 70% of intercity riders live in Vallejo (43.5%), Fairfield (20.8%) or Vacaville

(9.9%), while 6.7% live in Suisun City. Respondents living outside Solano or Napa

Counties (9.9%) outnumber those who live in Benicia, Dixon or elsewhere within either

of those two counties.

More than three-fourths of SolTrans Route 80 respondents live in Vallejo, while more

than half of FAST 90 and Napa VINE riders live in Fairfield and more than half of FAST

20 respondents reside in Vacaville.

Figure 42. City of Residence – All Intercity

Figure 43. City of Residence – Individual Intercity

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE


City of Residence Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

Vallejo 43.5% 3.5% 10.1% 0.5% 52.6% 48.8% 77.0% 73.4% 61.3%

Fairfield 20.8% 33.6% 20.2% 39.8% 54.9% 55.2% 1.0% 2.4% 19.8%

Vacaville 9.9% 52.2% 32.6% 30.6% 14.8% 3.4% 0.3% 3.2%

Suisun City 6.7% 5.3% 5.4% 14.3% 20.6% 13.8% 0.5% 5.1%

Benicia 4.8% 0.9% 1.0% 47.4% 38.2% 2.2% 6.3% 1.6%

Napa County 2.5% 0.9% 1.6% 0.7% 17.2% 4.8% 1.6% 1.2%

Dixon 1.7% 0.9% 21.7% 0.9% 0.5% 1.6% 0.4%

Rio Vista 0.1% 0.2%

Unincorporated Solano Co. 0.1% 0.9% 0.2%

Elsewhere outside Solano Co. 9.9% 1.8% 8.5% 14.3% 7.4% 10.3% 11.6% 12.6% 17.2% 7.5%

SolTrans

76

28

Cars in Household

About 22% of intercity riders have no cars in their household, and 34.8% have just a

single vehicle, suggesting that almost 57% of riders have limited access to an automobile

as an alternative to their bus service.

More than 38% of SolTrans Route 85 riders have no cars in their household, compared to

less than 10% of FAST 40 and 90 respondents, over 60% of whom report owning 2 or

more cars.

Figure 44. Car Ownership – All Intercity

Figure 45. Car Ownership – Individual Intercity

Could Car Have Been Used for this Trip?

The extent to which riders have access to vehicles is reflected in the responses to a

question regarding whether a car could have been used for this trip. About 41% of

intercity riders said yes, while 13% said that a car would have been available, but it

would have involved causing inconvenience for others. The fact that almost half (45.6%)

said no car was available indicates that many intercity riders have limited alternatives to

the bus to make their trip. The percentage of respondents with a car available ranged from

about 10% for SolTrans 76 and 85 to 71.1% for FAST 40.

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE


No. of cars Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

none 21.9% 36.3% 18.1% 4.2% 8.5% 20.7% 21.1% 31.0% 23.4% 34.9% 38.3%

1 34.8% 32.4% 33.6% 31.6% 29.4% 41.4% 42.1% 35.0% 37.8% 33.3% 37.0%

2 27.4% 19.6% 28.4% 37.9% 36.5% 24.1% 21.1% 26.5% 25.1% 23.8% 17.7%

3 or more 15.9% 11.8% 19.8% 26.3% 25.6% 13.8% 15.8% 7.5% 13.7% 7.9% 7.0%

SolTrans

77

29

Figure 46. Was Car Available? – All Intercity

Figure 47. Was Car Available? – Individual Intercity

Another factor influencing the extent to which riders are dependent on bus availability is

whether they have a driver’s license. When asked whether they have a driver’s license,

69.2% of riders said yes, indicating that almost one-third of respondents cannot drive

themselves as an alternative to using the bus. The percentage of respondents with a

license ranged from about 90% for FAST 40 and 90 to less than 45% for FAST 20 and

SolTrans 76, 80S and 85. Recall that Figure 27 showed that for all riders, 23.4% would

not have made their current trip if the bus had not been available; for those without a

driver’s license, the percentage who would not have made the trip was significantly

higher at 32.9%.

Figure 48. Do You Have a Driver’s License?

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE SolTrans


Car available? Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

Yes 41.3% 17.5% 49.1% 71.1% 64.7% 24.1% 10.5% 30.8% 39.2% 12.9% 10.3%

No 45.6% 65.0% 39.7% 20.6% 21.6% 48.3% 68.4% 55.4% 49.4% 67.7% 73.9%

Yes, but inconveniences others 13.0% 17.5% 11.2% 8.2% 13.7% 27.6% 21.1% 13.8% 11.4% 19.4% 15.8%

Operator All FAST

Napa

VINE SolTrans


Do you have a driver's license? Total n=111 n=122 n=98 n=434 n=29 n=19 n=209 n=1049 n=67 n=256

Yes 69.2% 42.0% 73.9% 90.5% 89.5% 69.0% 37.5% 65.8% 68.0% 42.4% 41.3%

No 30.8% 58.0% 26.1% 9.5% 10.5% 31.0% 62.5% 34.2% 32.0% 57.6% 58.7%

78

30

QUALITY OF SERVICE

Overall, 459 of the 2,241 surveyed intercity riders who responded to this question (20.4%

on a weighted basis) said there were no changes they would like to see to the route they

were on; another 6.6% did not provide any response to the question, indicating that they

too had no suggestions to offer. The most frequently offered change was for more

frequent service (33.6% of those who offered suggestions), while almost as many

respondents suggested more Sunday service (33.0%) or more Saturday service (26.9%).

Another 22.6% suggested later evening service – more than twice as many as the 9.8%

who would like to see earlier morning service. Other suggested improvements to existing

service focused on better on-time performance (16.6%), easier transfers (8.0%) and new

stops (5.0%). Although “lower fares” was not offered as an option on the written survey,

0.7% of intercity respondents wrote in this suggestion. “Other” suggestions, some of

which are discussed in the “Final Comments” section of this report, were offered by

13.9% of respondents.

Routes with the highest percentage of respondents suggesting more frequent service

include FAST 30 (58.1%) and 40 (46.9%) and SolTrans 76 (70.6%) and 78 (49.7%).

FAST 40 had the highest percentage of riders asking for better on-time performance

(29.6%), while FAST 90 and SolTrans 80S both had more than 8% of respondents asking

for service to new stops. A sizeable number of FAST 90 riders focused their attention on

the need to have more frequent service to Suisun City.

79


80

ATTACHMENT B

RESULTS OF


2018 ON-BOARD TRANSIT SURVEY

Submitted to

Solano Transportation Authority One Harbor Center, Suite 130 Suisun City, CA. 94585

Submitted by

QUANTUM MARKET RESEARCH, INC. 1635 Telegraph Avenue Oakland, CA 94612 510-238-9010

February 13, 2019

81

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of an on-board survey of 2,598 riders on the 5 consolidated routes in the Solano Transportation Authority system. Results were weighted according to the weekly ridership of each route as estimated from on-off counts summarized below.

Figure ES-1. Ridership by Route and Survey Weights

Overall, the survey results indicate that these routes are an important transportation resource, both for Solano County residents and others, and serve a valuable function in providing an alternative to the automobile for commuters. Findings include:

• Surveyed riders depend on the bus for transportation; 23.4% of respondents said they would not have made the trip if their bus had not been available – indicating both that most riders have alternative ways of making this trip and that the trip must be made (e.g., for getting to work). About 20% of respondents have no cars in their household, and 31.9% have just a single vehicle, meaning that over half of riders have limited access to an automobile as an alternative to their bus service. In addition, 28% of respondents do not have a driver’s license.

• More than 50% of riders say they ride at least 5 days a week and more than 85%

ride at least weekly. Most are also long-term users: almost two-thirds have been using their current route for at least a year, with 23.5% having been riders for 6 years or more. These bus lines buses also continue to attract new riders, however: 26% of respondents said they had been riding for less than 6 months, including 5% who were riding for the first time

• Riders travel primarily between home and work, but also to and from a variety of other destinations. More than 90% of respondents either began or planned to end their current trip at home, while almost 75% were coming from or going to work, about 12% to or from sports/social/recreational activities and 9% to or from school or college.

A B C 5A+B+C= NumberWeekday Saturday Sunday Weekly of Surveys Survey

Route Count Count Count Riders Completed WeightsBlue Line B 411 150 2,205 407 0.099Green Express 887 4,435 391 0.200Yellow Line Y 451 121 79 2,455 316 0.11180 Route 1,974 836 481 11,187 1,250 0.50485 Route 337 213 1,898 234 0.086

TOTALS 4,148 1,320 580 22,180 2,598 1.000

82

ii

• Riders use the buses as one of several links in their commute or other travel, with roughly half using other public transportation methods (BART, other buses) both to get to their bus stop and to reach their final destination. Cars and walking were primarily used by the other half of riders.

• Demographically, these bus lines serve a diverse ridership, with almost 40% of

riders African-American, 22.7% white/Caucasian and 19.1% Asian. More than 17% of riders described themselves as Hispanic or Latino. In addition, 31.5% of respondents speak a language other than English at home, mostly Spanish (30%) or Tagalog/Filipino (27%), but also more than a dozen other languages.


• Surveyed riders gave good ratings to most service elements, with an overall

service rating of 3.03, where 3.0 represents a “good” rating on a 1-to-4 scale. About half of service elements received ratings of 3.0 or higher, while the average rating for fares was lowest at 2.75. Green Express riders had the lowest satisfaction with overall service (2.84), with almost one-third rating it poor or fair.

• There is very strong interest in earlier and later service across the routes surveyed. When asked whether they would use earlier or later buses on their route if those were available, more than 90% of respondents said they would always or sometimes use earlier (36.6% always, 56.2% sometimes) or later buses (33.8% always, 56.4% sometimes.) Comments offered by riders also confirm the desire for earlier and later operation.

• When asked how they currently receive transit information, the Transit website

and Transit Center together were mentioned by more than 58% of riders, followed by three websites/apps (511.org, NextBus, myStop) that together were cited by almost 40% of respondents. (Multiple responses were accepted.) About 20% of respondents cited more traditional non-digital information sources: information at stops (10.8%), printed schedules (7.8%) and asking a friend or bus driver (1.8%). Taken together, some form of online information was cited by 88% of riders.


• While these results consistently show a ridership that relies on buses on a regular

basis to commute between home and work as well as reach other destinations, there are differences among individual routes in terms of the age, employment status, income, ethnic background and access to alternative methods of transportation of their riders.

83

1

INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of an on-board survey of riders on the 5 consolidated routes in the Solano Transportation Authority system. A total of 2,598 passengers on the following routes were surveyed:

• Fairfield Suisun Transit (FAST), surveyed between October 11 and November 10 − Blue Line B – 407 riders surveyed − Green Express – 391 riders surveyed

• Solano County Transit (SolTrans), surveyed between October 9 and November 9

− Yellow Line Y – 316 riders surveyed − Route 80 – 1,250 riders surveyed − Route 85 – 234 riders surveyed

Results presented in this report are weighted to accurately represent the overall rider population; that is, results from each route are weighted according to the estimated number of riders per week, based on the weekday and weekend on-off counts conducted as part of this study. The results of these counts and the resulting estimates of weekly ridership that were used to develop weights are presented below.

Figure 1. Ridership by Route and Survey Weights

The remainder of this report presents results for all riders. For each set of findings, results are presented in graphic form for the overall population of riders. For most questions, results are also presented for individual routes. First, characteristics of trips being taken by surveyed riders are assessed, followed by an analysis of rider demographics. Rider perception of the quality of service and use of transit information sources are then discussed. Finally, brief conclusions are drawn regarding the characteristics of riders and their use of the Solano Transportation Authority routes.

TRIP CHARACTERISTICS The following section is about how riders were using the bus at the time they were surveyed. Riders were asked to describe how often they rode and for what purpose, where

A B C 5A+B+C= NumberWeekday Saturday Sunday Weekly of Surveys Survey

Route Count Count Count Riders Completed WeightsBlue Line B 411 150 2,205 407 0.099Green Express 887 4,435 391 0.200Yellow Line Y 451 121 79 2,455 316 0.11180 Route 1,974 836 481 11,187 1,250 0.50485 Route 337 213 1,898 234 0.086

TOTALS 4,148 1,320 580 22,180 2,598 1.000

84

2

they were traveling to and from, how they got to and from stops, how they paid their fare and how they would have made this trip if the bus had not been available.

Frequency of Ridership Most riders use their bus frequently, with more than 50% reporting that they ride at least 5 days a week and more than 85% riding at least weekly. As shown by the individual route results, the Green Express has the highest share of riders using the bus 5-7 times a week, while Route 85 has the lowest share. These results indicate that riders make these bus routes an integral part of their transportation strategy.

Figure 2. Ridership Frequency – All Routes

Figure 3. Ridership Frequency – Individual Routes

Length of Ridership Survey results indicate that more than 63% of riders have been using their current route for at least a year, with 23.5% having been riders for 6 years or more. At the other extreme, 26% of respondents said they had been riding for less than 6 months, including

Route Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteFrequency All n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=2346 or 7 days a week 12.3% 7.2% 4.8% 15.8% 15.4% 13.4%5 days a week 39.2% 39.7% 65.6% 33.7% 33.1% 20.1%3 to 4 days a week 20.4% 21.1% 20.5% 21.1% 19.5% 23.7%1 to 2 times a week 14.4% 12.1% 6.7% 14.9% 16.9% 19.6%Once a month or less 8.9% 11.3% 1.9% 9.9% 9.8% 15.6%First time riding 4.7% 8.5% 0.5% 4.6% 5.2% 7.6%

85

3

5% who were riding for the first time1. The Green Express had the highest percentage of respondents who had been riding for at least 6 years, including 20% who had been riding for 10 years or more, while Blue Line B had almost 60% riding less than one year.

Figure 4. How Long Riding – All Routes

Figure 5. How Long Riding – Individual Routes

Round/One Way Trip Approximately 70% of respondents said their ride on the bus was part of a round-trip, while 26% said they did not intend to make a round trip on the bus and fewer than 4% did

1 It should be noted that consolidated service changes that went into effect July 1, 2018 introduced the Blue Line (previous Routes 20, 30, 40), the Yellow Line (previous Route 78), and the Green Express Line (previous Route 90). It is possible that some respondents answered their length of time riding relative to this transition date, which could have affected results.

Route Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteHow long riding All n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234

Less than 6 months 25.6% 46.2% 13.0% 28.5% 23.5% 40.1%

6 to 12 months 11.3% 12.1% 9.0% 13.2% 11.9% 9.9%

1 to 2 years 19.1% 14.9% 20.2% 20.5% 20.0% 14.9%

3 to 5 years 20.4% 12.3% 21.8% 22.2% 22.2% 14.0%

6 to 9 years 9.5% 5.6% 16.2% 7.0% 8.6% 6.3%

10 or more years 14.0% 9.0% 19.9% 8.6% 13.8% 14.9%

86

4

not yet know whether they would be making a return trip on the same route. More than two-thirds of Blue, Green, Yellow and Route 80 riders expected to make round trips. The high percentage of riders on round trips supports the hypothesis that many riders on these buses are on a regular commute.

Figure 6. This Trip is Part of a Round Trip on the Bus – All

Figure 7. This Trip is Part of a Round Trip on the Bus – Individual Routes

Trip Purpose—Where Are You Coming from and Where Are You Going? Passengers were asked where they were coming from and where they were going on this trip. The results show that riders are traveling primarily between home and work, with far fewer going to and from a variety of other destinations. More than 90% of respondents either began or planned to end their current trip at home, while almost 75% were coming from or going to work, about 12% to or from sports/social/recreational activities and 9% to or from school. No other origin or destination accounted for as much as 5%. More than 80% of riders said they were coming from either home (50.7%) or work (34.7%) on their current trip, while 4.6% said they were returning from sports, social or

Route Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteRound trip? All n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234Yes 70.2% 70.9% 83.2% 68.1% 67.8% 55.8%No 26.0% 24.9% 15.2% 28.8% 28.5% 34.6%Don't know 3.8% 4.3% 1.5% 3.2% 3.7% 9.5%

87

5

recreational activities and 4.4% were returning from school or college. All but 1.8% of Green Express riders were coming from home or work, compared to 75% of those on Route 85 buses.

Figure 8. Trip Origins – All

Figure 9. Trip Origins – Individual Routes

Home was the most often mentioned destination (40.3%), followed by work (39.7%), sports, social or recreational (7.9%), school (4.7% for K-12 and college combined) and shopping/errands (3.1%). Various other destinations each accounted for less than 2% of responses. The Green Express had 94% of riders heading for work or home. Both routes

Route Number Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteComing from All n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234Home 50.7% 52.0% 59.2% 32.1% 50.9% 52.4%

Work 34.7% 26.5% 39.0% 50.6% 33.2% 22.7%

Sports/social/ recreational 4.6% 7.3% 0.3% 4.2% 6.0% 4.0%

College 3.1% 6.1% 0.5% 5.8% 2.1% 8.4%

Shopping/errands 1.6% 2.8% 0.3% 1.6% 1.7% 2.2%

School K-12 1.3% 2.5% 0.5% 1.6% 1.4% 0.9%

Business appointment/job interview 1.3% 0.8% 1.0% 1.4% 4.4%

Medical 0.8% 0.5% 0.3% 1.0% 0.8% 2.2%

Airport 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.4%

Other 1.3% 1.0% 1.6% 1.7% 2.2%

88

6

80 and 85 had more than 10% of riders with sports/social/recreational destinations – all other destinations accounted for less than 10% each. The origins and destinations emphasize the primary role of the system in serving commuters and, to a lesser extent, providing access to other activities.

Figure 10. Trip Destinations – All

Figure 11. Trip Destinations – Individual Routes

Places of Origin and Destination

Route Number Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteGoing to All n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234Home 40.3% 39.6% 36.6% 44.4% 41.7% 36.4%

Work 39.7% 32.8% 57.4% 34.6% 37.9% 23.1%

Sports/Social/Recreational 7.9% 7.1% 1.3% 5.2% 10.4% 12.9%

College 3.1% 7.3% 2.4% 4.2% 1.6% 7.6%

Shopping/errands 3.1% 4.5% 0.8% 6.2% 2.2% 8.4%

Business appointment/ job interview 1.6% 2.3% 1.6% 1.9% 2.2%

Medical 1.1% 2.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.9% 3.1%

School K-12 0.9% 1.3% 0.5% 1.3% 0.8% 1.8%

Airport/hotel 0.7% 0.8% 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.9%

Other 1.7% 1.8% 0.3% 1.3% 1.9% 3.6%

89

7

Respondents were also asked in which city they had started their current trip and where they planned to end it. Overall, more than 60% of riders started their trip in Vallejo, San Francisco or Fairfield, and over half (52.6%) planned to end their trip at one of those three destinations. Oakland was the only other city accounting for more than 10% of destinations, although it only accounted for 5.9% of origins. Vacaville accounted for about 5% of both origins or destinations, and no other cities accounted for more than 4.5% of either origins or destinations.

Figure 12. City of Origin and Destination – All

Among individual routes, Route 80 had almost 50% of riders coming from Vallejo and more than 42% going there, while Route 85 had almost 40% coming from (37.6%) or going to (39.6%) Vallejo. Fairfield was a major origin or destination for riders on the Blue Line, Green Express and Route 85. The Blue Line B also had a significant percentage of riders from and to Vacaville (24.1% coming from, 27.4% going to) and Sacramento (10.8% coming from, 11.5% going to.) The high ridership on Route 80 meant that the relatively large percentage of respondents on that route coming from (22.7%) or going to (16.5%) San Francisco contributed to the large overall share of origins and destinations accounted for by that city. A similar percentage of Green Express riders started (19.7%) or planned to end (19.0%) their trip In San Francisco.

90

8

Figure 13. City of Origin – Individual Routes

Figure 14. City of Destination – Individual Routes

Route Number All Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteWhat city are you coming from? n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234

Vallejo 31.4% 0.5% 30.1% 49.1% 37.6%San Francisco 17.5% 7.1% 19.7% 9.6% 22.7% 4.4%Fairfield 14.7% 29.1% 38.3% 1.0% 1.3% 39.5%Oakland 6.2% 3.4% 8.2% 5.1% 7.1% 0.5%Vacaville 3.8% 24.1% 6.0% 0.2% 1.0%Benicia 3.2% 0.5% 0.3% 23.3% 0.9% 0.5%Suisun City 3.8% 4.0% 13.4% 0.4% 6.3%Berkeley 2.5% 0.8% 2.5% 2.1% 3.5%Sacramento 1.6% 10.8% 1.4% 0.2% 1.5%Walnut Creek 1.3% 3.4% 7.9% 0.5%Richmond 1.7% 0.3% 2.5% 0.7% 1.9% 1.5%Pleasant Hill 0.9% 0.8% 7.2%American Canyon 1.0% 1.7% 1.0%Dixon 0.6% 3.2% 1.4% 0.1%Concord 0.6% 1.3% 3.8% 0.2%El Cerrito 0.9% 0.8% 1.4%San Leandro 0.7% 0.3% 0.8% 1.0% 0.5%Napa 0.5% 0.5% 0.8% 0.5%Davis 0.5% 3.4% 0.5% 0.5%Other 6.8% 6.3% 4.4% 9.2% 7.7% 4.4%

Route Number All Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteWhat city are you going to? n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234

Vallejo 27.9% 1.1% 27.4% 42.3% 39.6%San Francisco 14.1% 9.1% 19.0% 6.9% 16.5% 3.7%Fairfield 12.0% 24.4% 27.7% 1.7% 2.0% 33.7%Oakland 12.0% 6.4% 19.0% 3.1% 13.9% 2.1%Vacaville 4.0% 24.7% 6.1% 0.2% 2.1%Benicia 4.1% 0.8% 26.7% 2.1% 0.5%Berkeley 5.0% 1.3% 10.9% 0.7% 5.2%Richmond 2.9% 0.3% 4.7% 0.3% 3.7%Sacramento 1.4% 11.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.5%Walnut Creek 1.5% 2.4% 11.1% 0.5%Suisun City 1.9% 2.4% 6.1% 0.2% 3.7%El Cerrito 1.3% 1.4% 2.0%Concord 0.9% 2.4% 5.6%Pleasant Hill 0.8% 1.1% 5.9% 0.1%Napa 0.8% 0.3% 0.7% 1.2% 1.6%American Canyon 0.7% 1.4%San Leandro 0.7% 0.5% 0.8% 0.9%Davis 0.4% 3.5% 0.5%Other 7.7% 7.8% 3.6% 9.0% 8.4% 11.2%

91

9

Where Did You Board and Will You Leave the Bus? When asked where they had boarded the bus, almost two-thirds riders said they had boarded either in Vallejo or El Cerrito and nearly 70% planned to leave in these cities, in part reflecting the high volume of passengers connecting to BART. While 18% of passengers boarded their bus in Fairfield, only 13.8% planned to get off there. No other city accounted for as much as 5% of either boarding or departing riders.

Figure 15. Where Did You Board/Will You Leave? – All

Among individual routes, Route 80 had over 99% of riders boarding in Vallejo or El Cerrito, while Route 85 had 94% boarding in Vallejo or Fairfield and the Green Express had more than 95% getting on in El Cerrito or Fairfield. Both the Blue and Yellow Lines had riders boarding in a wider variety of cities, as would be expected based on their routes.

Figure 16. Where Did You Board? – Individual Routes

Where Did Where WillCity You Board You Leave

El Cerrito 32.8% 39.1%Vallejo 33.5% 30.6%Fairfield 18.0% 13.8%Walnut Creek 4.1% 2.9%Pleasant Hill 2.5% 4.3%Benicia 3.3% 3.1%Vacaville 2.3% 2.5%Sacramento 1.1% 1.4%Suisun City 0.8% 1.1%Concord 0.6% 0.6%Davis 0.4% 0.4%Dixon 0.3% 0.3%

Route Number All Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteWhere did you board? n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234

Vallejo 33.5% 0.3% 28.9% 51.4% 51.2%El Cerrito 32.8% 39.8% 48.4% 4.7%Fairfield 18.0% 33.0% 55.4% 42.8%Walnut Creek 4.1% 36.7%Pleasant Hill 2.5% 23.5% 1.6%Benicia 3.4% 2.0% 27.3% 0.2% 0.9%Vacaville 2.3% 23.5%Sacramento 1.1% 10.3% 0.5%Davis 0.5% 4.3% 0.5%Concord 0.6% 5.5%Suisun City 0.8% 4.0%Dixon 0.3% 3.5%

92

10

More than 99% of Route 80 riders said they planned to leave the bus in Vallejo or El Cerrito, all but 1.1% of Green Express riders planned to leave in El Cerrito or Fairfield and more than 95% of Route 85 respondents said they would leave the bus in Vallejo or Fairfield. The Blue and Yellow Lines did not have more than 30% of riders getting off in any single city,

Figure 17. Where Will You Leave the Bus? – Individual Routes

Route Number All Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteWhere will you leave? n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234

El Cerrito 39.1% 61.9% 0.3% 52.6% 1.8%Vallejo 30.6% 27.2% 46.9% 46.1%Fairfield 13.8% 22.0% 37.0% 1.0% 0.2% 47.5%Pleasant Hill 4.3% 28.9% 12.6%Vacaville 2.5% 24.8%Benicia 3.1% 1.3% 26.8%Walnut Creek 2.9% 26.5%Sacramento 1.4% 11.5% 0.3% 0.3%Suisun City 1.1% 5.1% 0.8% 4.6%Concord 0.6% 5.6%Davis 0.4% 3.8%Dixon 0.3% 2.6%

93

11

Access to Bus Stop More than half of riders reached the bus stop using BART, another bus or train, or the ferry, with 51.3% responding that they used one of these forms of public transportation to get to their stop. Another 32.8% reached their stop by car, either as driver (18.6%) or as passenger/unspecified (13.8%), while 15.4% said they walked at least part of the way to their stop (note that some riders provided more than one response).

Figure 18. How Did You Get to the Bus? – All


Figure 19. How Did You Get to the Bus? – Individual Routes

Route Number Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteMode to bus stop All n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234BART 33.1% 18.7% 34.2% 26.2% 41.8% 5.0%Bus 17.8% 27.1% 9.2% 16.8% 16.0% 38.9%Car as driver 18.6% 20.8% 41.8% 4.9% 14.7% 2.3%Car as passenger 13.2% 16.7% 10.0% 14.2% 13.2% 14.9%Car non specific 0.6% 0.3% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6%Walked 15.4% 21.8% 3.2% 31.4% 12.4% 33.9%Bicycle 1.8% 4.3% 0.5% 2.3% 1.5% 2.7%Capitol Corridor/AMTRAK/RT 0.3% 1.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.9%Ferry 0.2% 0.6% 0.3%Shuttle/tour bus 0.3% 0.8% 0.2% 0.5%Taxi 1.2% 0.3% 1.0% 1.9% 1.4%Other 0.6% 0.3% 2.9% 0.3% 0.9%* More than one mode may have been used

94

12

Riders who walked to reach their bus stop were asked approximately how long the walk took. Mid-points of ranges (e.g., 8 minutes for 6-10 minutes) were used to calculate an average time of about 12 minutes for the 352 riders who walked to their bus stop and reported the length of their walk. Green Express riders averaged the shortest walk (7 minutes), while Route 85 riders had the longest average walk (about 15 minutes). Using the same approach, the average distance driven by the 353 respondents who drove themselves to the bus stop was calculated as about 7 miles, while the 202 who got a ride reported an average distance of 5.6 miles. The 44 riders who used bicycles to reach the station averaged about 3 miles. Most riders who reached their stop by bus used other STA operators, with SolTrans and FAST accounting for more than 70% of the total. In addition to AC Transit (5.2%), buses from several of other transit systems were used to reach bus stops, including Vacaville City Coach (3.7%), Napa Vine (2.6%) and Contra Costa County Connection (1%).

Figure 20. If by Bus, What Transit Operator? – All

Access to Final Destination Riders were also asked how they planned to reach their final destination. More than half planned to rely on public transportation, primarily BART (36.4%) and other buses (18.5%). About 20% included walking in their plans and almost one-fourth would use cars (13.6% as driver; 11% as passenger or unspecified). Green Express riders were most

95

13

likely to rely on BART (51.6%) and Route 85 respondents had the highest percentage indicating they would use another bus (37.2%).

Figure 21. How Will You Get to Your Final Destination? – All

* Totals exceed 100% because more than one response was accepted. Figure 22. How Will You Get to Your Final Destination? – Individual Routes

The 425 riders who provided an estimate of how long they would take to walk to their destination reported that they would take an average of 11.6 minutes, while the 240 who planned to drive themselves estimated an average distance of 7 miles and the 154 getting

Route Number Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteMode to destination* All n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234BART 36.4% 24.8% 51.6% 19.2% 41.7% 6.0%Bus 18.5% 23.3% 7.5% 20.5% 18.2% 37.2%Walk 19.8% 28.4% 8.1% 39.1% 15.0% 40.4%Car as driver 13.6% 13.3% 25.3% 7.4% 12.4% 1.8%Car as passenger 10.5% 10.0% 6.5% 8.8% 13.4% 6.4%Car non-specific 0.5% 0.3% 1.1% 0.7% 0.3% 0.5%Bicycle 1.8% 3.8% 0.3% 2.0% 1.1% 7.3%Capitol Corridor/AMTRAK/RT 0.6% 1.8% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.9%Shuttle/Tour bus 1.1% 2.7% 1.0% 0.5%Ferry 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.5%Taxi 0.8% 0.8% 1.0% 0.9% 1.4%Other 0.7% 0.3% 0.5% 1.0% 0.4% 2.8%* More than one mode may have been mentioned

96

14

a ride expected to average 5.4 miles. The 33 respondents riding a bicycle to their destination expected to cover an average of 3.8 miles. Among riders who planned to reach their final destination by bus, 54.2% said they would travel on SolTrans or FAST, while 11.8% planned to use AC Transit. No other operator was mentioned by more than 3% of respondents.

Figure 23. If Bus to Destination, What Transit Operator? – All

How Trip Would Have Been Made Without the Bus Slightly less than one-fourth (23.4%) of respondents said they would not have made the trip if their bus had not been available – indicating both that most riders have alternative ways of making this trip and that the trip must be made (e.g., for getting to work). Automobiles were by far the most often mentioned alternative, either by driving alone (33.5%), getting a ride (20.5%), through a planned or casual carpool (17.5%) or by using a taxi or ride sharing service (7.5%). These results indicate both how dependent riders are on the STA system and how effective it is in reducing automobile usage and the associated emissions. No individual non-automotive source of transportation accounted for as much as 4% of responses. Route 85 had more than one-third of riders reporting that they would not have made the trip without this bus available, while the Green Express had fewer than 10% who would not have made the trip, with more than half (59%) of these riders saying they would have driven alone. In contrast, fewer than 10% Route 85 respondents would have driven alone.

97

15

Figure 24. How Trip Made if Bus Not Available? – All


Figure 25. How Trip Made if Bus Not Available? – Individual Routes

How Fare Paid Riders were also asked how they had paid their fare, and whether they had paid an adult, senior/disabled, or student fare. Almost 45% of riders said they paid via Clipper, while 31.4% paid cash and 21.5% with a monthly pass. Fewer than 3% said they used multi-

Route Number Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteIf no bus available All n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234Would not have made this trip 23.4% 22.5% 9.8% 27.9% 25.8% 35.6%Drive alone 33.5% 37.2% 59.0% 24.9% 28.9% 8.4%Get a ride 20.5% 20.5% 9.0% 26.9% 21.5% 33.3%Casual carpool 11.0% 4.1% 13.8% 6.1% 13.8% 3.1%Taxi/Uber/Lyft 7.5% 5.6% 2.1% 9.8% 8.7% 12.4%Carpool/vanpool 6.5% 5.6% 9.0% 7.7% 5.8% 4.0%Train 3.8% 13.2% 7.9% 3.4% 0.6% 3.1%Ferry 3.3% 0.5% 0.7% 6.1% 0.4%Walk 2.8% 3.0% 0.8% 2.4% 3.0% 6.7%Other bus 1.4% 2.5% 1.3% 2.0% 1.0% 2.2%Bike 0.9% 1.8% 0.3% 1.7% 0.6% 1.8%BART 0.4% 0.8% 0.5% 0.7% 0.2% 0.4%Other 1.8% 2.0% 1.6% 3.0% 1.4% 3.1%

98

16

ride/punch passes or transfers. Among individual routes, more than 90% of Green Express riders used a Clipper or monthly pass and fewer than 10% paid cash, while Route 85 had 63.8% who paid cash and only 30% who used a Clipper or monthly pass.

Figure 26. Payment Method for this Trip? – All

Figure 27. Payment Method for this Trip? – Individual Routes

Type of Fare Adult fares accounted for over two thirds of those paid by surveyed riders, while 22.6% paid senior or disabled fares and 8.9% paid student fares. The Green Express had more than 75% of respondents who said they paid adult fares, but less than 1% who paid student fares, while Route 85 had more than 26% of riders paying student fares.

Route Number Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteHow did you pay to use this bus? All n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234Clipper 44.7% 31.5% 53.6% 46.0% 48.5% 14.8%Cash 31.4% 33.4% 7.3% 30.0% 35.4% 63.8%Monthly Pass 21.5% 32.3% 38.0% 20.3% 14.1% 15.3%Transfer 1.1% 2.2% 0.3% 1.3% 0.7% 3.6%Multi Ride/Punch Pass 1.0% 0.5% 0.3% 1.7% 1.1% 1.5%Other 0.3% 0.5% 0.7% 0.1% 1.0%

99

17

Figure 28. Fare Type for this Trip – All

Figure 29. Fare Type for this Trip – Individual Routes

Willingness to Use Mobile App As a follow-up to the request for input on payment methods, riders were asked if they would use a mobile payment app if one were available. Just over half said they would use such an app, and only 21.2% said they would not, with 28% saying they were not sure. Willingness to use a mobile payment app was relatively high across routes, ranging from 44.6% for the Blue Line B to 52.2% for Route 80. The percentage of riders who stated that they would not use such an app ranged from a low of 18.3% for the Green Express to a high of 27.8% for Route 85.

Route Number Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 Route

What fare type did you pay? All n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234Adult 68.1% 66.1% 77.4% 67.7% 68.3% 48.6%Senior 13.7% 10.7% 15.1% 16.9% 13.7% 10.5%Student/Youth 8.9% 13.6% 0.7% 9.2% 8.1% 26.7%Disabled 8.9% 9.6% 6.8% 6.2% 9.3% 14.3%Other 0.8% 1.7% 1.5% 0.7% 1.0%

100

18

Figure 30. Would You Use a Mobile Payment App? -- All

Figure 31. Would You Use a Mobile Payment App? – Individual Routes

RIDER DEMOGRAPHICS The following section examines the demographics, or basic characteristics, of surveyed riders. These include gender, ethnicity, age, employment status, and household income, and help to determine the characteristics of riders on these routes.

Gender Riders of these five routes are predominantly female, with males accounting for 44.8% of ridership. No individual line had more than 60% female or fewer than 40% male riders; Route 85 had the highest percentage of males (46.9%); Green Express had the highest percentage females (59.6%).

Route Number All Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 Route

Would you use mobile payment app? n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234Yes 50.7% 44.6% 51.6% 50.7% 52.2% 46.9%No 21.2% 24.1% 18.3% 22.6% 20.4% 27.8%Not sure 28.0% 31.2% 30.1% 26.7% 27.4% 25.4%

101

19

Figure 32. Gender – All

Figure 33. Gender – Individual Routes

Age More than 88% of surveyed riders are within the age range of working adults (18 to 64), with only 3.5% under 18 and 8.4% age 65 and older. The highest percentage of working age adults was found on the Green Express (90.5%) and Blue Line B (89.5%.) The Blue Line B had the lowest percentage over 64 (6.2%), while Green Express had only 2.4% of respondents under 18. (It should be noted that minors appearing to be under the age of 13 were not asked to complete a questionnaire.)

Route Number All Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteGender n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234Male 44.8% 46.6% 40.4% 44.1% 46.0% 46.9%Female 55.2% 53.4% 59.6% 55.9% 54.0% 53.1%

102

20

Figure 34. Age – All

Figure 35. Age – Individual Routes

Employment Status More than 81% of riders are employed full time (68.4%) or part time (13.1%), while 6.6% are students and 3.6% are unemployed. The remaining 6.4% of riders comprised retirees and homemakers. The Green Express route had the highest percentage of riders who were employed fulltime (87.5%); Route 85 had the lowest (41%).

Route Number All Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteAge n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=23417 and younger 3.5% 3.9% 1.4% 4.1% 3.7% 6.0%18 - 24 12.7% 19.0% 4.8% 18.8% 12.3% 18.4%25 - 34 20.5% 18.2% 16.0% 17.1% 23.4% 20.7%35 - 49 24.1% 24.2% 27.0% 20.9% 24.5% 19.4%50 - 64 30.8% 28.6% 42.7% 27.1% 28.2% 25.8%65 and older 8.4% 6.2% 8.1% 12.0% 8.0% 9.7%

103

21

Figure 36. Employment Status – All

Figure 37. Employment Status – Individual Routes

Race and Ethnicity The surveyed routes have a diverse ridership, with almost 40% of riders African-American, 22.7% white/Caucasian and 19.1% Asian. Route 85 had the highest percentage of African-American respondents (51.3%), while the Yellow Line had the highest percentage white/Caucasian (40.8%) and the Blue, Green and Yellow Lines all had more than 20% Asian riders.


Employment Status n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234Fulltime 68.4% 61.4% 87.5% 61.3% 68.3% 41.0%

Part time 15.1% 16.0% 7.2% 17.3% 15.3% 28.3%

Student 6.6% 10.8% 3.9% 9.3% 6.0% 8.5%

Retired 5.0% 5.2% 1.1% 6.7% 5.5% 9.0%

Unemployed 3.6% 5.5% 0.3% 3.7% 3.2% 10.8%

Homemaker 1.4% 1.0% 1.7% 1.7% 2.4%

104

22

Figure 38. Race and Ethnicity – All

Figure 30. Race and Ethnicity – Individual Routes

Respondents were asked several other questions about their cultural background. When asked if they considered themselves Spanish, Hispanic or Latino, 17.3% of riders surveyed responded in the affirmative. The survey also asked if the respondent spoke a language other than English at home: 31.5% of riders said they did so, with the percentage ranging from 23.3% for Route 85 to 35.2% for Route 80. Among those who specified what language they spoke at home, about 40% mentioned Spanish and 30% said Filipino/Tagalog (27.3%), with the remainder comprising a variety of other languages, including French, Chinese (both Mandarin and Cantonese), Russian, Arabic, American Sign Language and multiple other languages. (Surveys were available in English, Spanish, Tagalog, Chinese and Vietnamese, so results regarding languages spoken at home, as well as race, should be reviewed with that in mind.)

Route Number All Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteRace/ethnicity n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234Black/African American 39.8% 27.0% 44.1% 18.0% 43.5% 51.3%White/Caucasian 22.7% 34.7% 23.5% 40.8% 16.5% 19.8%Asian 19.1% 20.2% 20.6% 21.3% 19.0% 12.2%Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 3.8% 2.8% 3.2% 3.4% 4.8% 1.0%Hispanic or Latino 2.8% 4.6% 1.6% 3.0% 2.9% 2.5%American Indian or Alaska Native 2.4% 2.1% 1.3% 3.4% 2.6% 2.0%Mixed and Other 9.5% 8.6% 5.8% 10.1% 10.7% 11.2%

105

23

Household Size About 38% of survey respondents live in one- or two-person households, and about 80% live in households with 4 people or fewer. The percentage of riders in 5-person households (18.4%) is about the same as the combined total of the percentage of households with 6, 7 and 8 or more. Route 85 had the highest percentage of one-person households (19.3%), as well as the highest percentage of household with 6 or more (15.4%.). Blue Line B and Green Express both had fewer than 8% of riders in households with 6 or more people.

Figure 40. Household Size – All

Figure 31. Household Size – Individual Routes

Route Number All Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteHousehold size n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234

1 13.2% 14.2% 10.1% 11.8% 13.5% 19.3%2 24.7% 22.2% 24.9% 27.8% 26.0% 15.5%3 23.4% 24.7% 22.3% 25.0% 23.4% 22.7%4 18.0% 18.8% 22.9% 15.3% 16.9% 15.9%5 10.6% 12.8% 11.9% 11.8% 9.3% 11.1%6 5.2% 4.5% 4.9% 4.2% 5.2% 7.2%7 2.4% 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% 2.5% 3.9%

8 or more 2.5% 0.9% 0.9% 2.1% 3.2% 4.3%

106

24

Household Income Among those respondents reporting their income (about 70% of the total), more than 60% had household incomes greater than $50,000, while 19% had incomes less than $25,000.

Green Express had the highest income riders, with about half those respondents reporting incomes over $100,000 and fewer than 5% with incomes below $25,000. While most other routes had about 20% of riders with incomes less than $25,000, Route 85 had 43.2% of its riders in that income category.

Figure 42. Household Income – All

Figure 43. Household Income – Individual Routes

Route Number All Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteIncome n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234Under $10,000 9.3% 8.7% 0.7% 7.9% 10.8% 23.2%$10,000 - $24,999 9.7% 11.3% 4.0% 10.2% 9.7% 20.0%$25,000 - $34,999 9.5% 9.5% 4.0% 12.6% 9.1% 20.6%$35,000 - $49,999 11.0% 11.3% 6.7% 10.2% 13.3% 8.4%$50,000 - $74,999 19.3% 14.5% 19.5% 21.4% 21.1% 11.6%$75,000 - $99,999 13.4% 14.9% 15.2% 12.1% 13.9% 6.5%$100,000 - $149,999 14.8% 15.3% 24.6% 14.0% 12.6% 5.2%$150,000 or over 13.0% 14.5% 25.3% 11.6% 9.6% 4.5%

107

25

City of Residence Almost half of riders surveyed live in Vallejo (48.6%) – more than all other locations inside Solano and Napa Counties combined. The Blue and Green Express lines had very few Vallejo residents among survey respondents; both had Fairfield and Vacaville residents account for about two-thirds of their riders. The Green Express had the highest percentage of riders living in Suisun City (18.8%), while the Yellow Line had the highest percentage of Benicia residents (40.4%).

Figure 44. City of Residence – All

Figure 45. City of Residence – Individual Routes


City of Residence n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234Vallejo 48.6% 1.0% 0.3% 46.8% 77.2% 50.7%

Fairfield 19.6% 34.7% 59.8% 2.2% 2.4% 31.4%

Vacaville 6.1% 33.7% 11.6% 0.3% 0.4% 2.2%

Benicia 5.9% 0.7% 40.4% 2.5% 0.9%

Suisun City 5.3% 5.4% 18.8% 0.6% 7.9%

Napa County 2.4% 1.0% 0.3% 0.6% 4.0% 1.3%

Dixon 0.8% 5.4% 1.5%

Unincorporated Solano County 0.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.6%

Rio Vista 0.2% 0.2% 1.0%

Elsewhere outside Solano County 10.8% 17.2% 6.7% 9.3% 12.3% 5.7%

108

26

Cars in Household About 20% of riders on surveyed buses have no cars in their household, and 31.9% have just a single vehicle, indicating that over half of riders have limited access to an automobile as an alternative to their bus service. Almost 32% of Route 85 riders have no cars in their household, compared to only 6.7% of Green Express respondents, over two-thirds of whom report owning 2 or more cars.

Figure 46. Car Ownership – All

Figure 47. Car Ownership – Individual Routes

Could Car Have Been Used for this Trip? In addition to the previous question regarding automobile ownership, the extent to which riders have access to vehicles is reflected in the responses to a question regarding whether a car could have been used for this trip. About 43% of riders said yes, while 14% said that a car would have been available, but it would have inconvenienced others. The fact that 57.2% said no car was readily available indicates that many of the surveyed riders have limited alternatives to the bus to make their trip. However, the percentage with

Route Number All Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteNo. of cars n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234

no cars 19.8% 22.9% 6.7% 19.0% 22.6% 31.8%1 car 31.9% 27.1% 26.2% 37.0% 33.0% 37.4%2 cars 30.6% 31.1% 36.9% 30.0% 30.2% 18.7%3 or more cars 17.7% 18.9% 30.2% 14.0% 14.2% 12.1%

109

27

access to a car varies widely by route, with more than 70% of Green Express and fewer than 18% of Route 85 riders saying they had access to a car without inconveniencing others. This is consistent with the results presented earlier (Figure 25) showing that more than 35% of Route 85% respondents would not have made their trip if the bus had not been available, compared to fewer than 10% of Green Express riders.

Figure 32. Did You Have a Car You Could Have Used? – All

Figure 49. Did You Have a Car You Could Have Used? – Individual Routes

Another factor influencing the extent to which riders are dependent on bus availability is whether they have a driver’s license. When asked whether they have a driver’s license, 72.1% of riders said yes, indicating that more than one-fourth of respondents cannot drive themselves as an alternative to using the bus. The percentage of respondents with a license ranged from almost 92% for Green Express to less than 50% for Route 85.

Figure 50. Do You Have a Driver’s License?


Car available? n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234Yes 42.7% 42.9% 70.9% 31.5% 38.2% 17.8%No 43.0% 44.7% 15.1% 53.2% 46.9% 70.6%Yes, with inconvenience to others 14.2% 12.4% 14.0% 15.3% 14.9% 11.7%

Route Number All Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteDo you have a drivers license? n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234Yes 72.1% 70.6% 91.9% 63.7% 70.5% 47.9%No 27.9% 29.4% 8.1% 36.3% 29.5% 52.1%

110

28

QUALITY OF SERVICE Survey respondents were asked to rate a variety of service elements on their bus route as excellent, good, fair, or poor. Mean ratings for each question were calculated by assigning a value of 4 to excellent, 3 to good, 2 to fair, and 1 to poor and then averaging the results. As with other responses, results were weighted by the percentage of ridership accounted for by each bus line. Overall, surveyed riders gave good ratings to most service elements, with an overall service rating of 3.03, where 3.0 represents a “good” rating. About half of service elements received ratings of 3.0 or higher, with driver courtesy receiving the highest rating of 3.31. Availability of intercity connections, frequency of service and rider information all received ratings slightly below 3.0; the average rating for fares was lowest at 2.75. Blue Line B respondents had the highest satisfaction with overall service at 3.21, although the Yellow Line and Route B had only very slightly lower levels of satisfaction. Only Green Express riders had an average satisfaction below 3.0 for overall service, driven by their low satisfaction with frequency of service (2.35), availability of connections (2.69) and fares (2.62), all of which were lower than for any other route. Route 85 riders reported the highest average level of satisfaction for all the individual service attributes.

Figure 33. Ratings of Service – Overall

111

29

Figure 34. Ratings of Service – Individual Routes

Route Number All Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteService ratings n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234On-time performance

Excellent = 4 37% 45% 34% 43% 33% 51%Good = 3 35% 36% 40% 38% 32% 31%Fair = 2 20% 15% 19% 15% 23% 12%Poor = 1 9% 4% 7% 4% 13% 6%

AVERAGE 2.99 3.22 3.00 3.19 2.85 3.26Frequency of service


AVERAGE 2.79 3.03 2.35 2.93 2.83 3.16Driver courtesy


AVERAGE 3.31 3.47 3.25 3.41 3.24 3.51Rider information


AVERAGE 2.94 2.94 2.74 3.09 2.93 3.26Cleanliness of vehicles


AVERAGE 3.10 3.06 2.89 3.34 3.09 3.39Safety/security


AVERAGE 3.14 3.21 3.05 3.34 3.08 3.39Ease of transfers


AVERAGE 3.06 3.09 2.92 3.19 3.05 3.28Availability of connections


AVERAGE 2.91 2.97 2.69 3.06 2.92 3.16System easy to understand


AVERAGE 3.11 3.10 2.95 3.26 3.10 3.30Fares (cost)


AVERAGE 2.75 2.98 2.62 2.84 2.66 3.15Overall service


AVERAGE 3.03 3.21 2.84 3.18 3.00 3.18

112

30

Sources of Transit Information Riders were also asked to identify how they currently receive transit information from a list of five sources: 511.org, NextBus, information at stops, Transit website or brochures (with more than one response possible.) Respondents also had the opportunity to check “other” and identify their information source or sources. The 2,334 riders who answered this question offered a total of more than 3,000 responses, including write-ins for the Transit Center, myStop app and Google maps. The Transit website and Transit Center together were mentioned by more than 58% of riders, followed by three websites/apps (511.org, NextBus, myStop) that together were cited by almost 40% of respondents. About 20% cited more traditional non-digital information sources: information at stops (10.8%), printed schedules (7.8%) and asking a friend or bus driver (1.8%). Other online tools, including Google Maps, other smartphone apps and unspecific online sources together were mentioned by 9.5% of responses. Overall, about 88% of riders cited at least one online information source. .

Figure 35. Where You Currently Get Transit Information – Overall

The percentage of respondents mentioning online information varied across bus lines: from a high of about 92% for the Blue B and Green Express routes to a low of 72% for Route 85. Conversely, Route 85 riders were more likely than other respondents to cite the Transit Center (26.4% compared to 19.8% overall) and information at stops (11.8% versus 10.8% overall). Overall, the two FAST lines averaged about 135 information sources per 100 respondents, compared to about 126 for the three SolTrans routes surveyed.

113

31

Figure 36. Where You Get Transit Information – Individual Routes

Interest in Earlier or Later buses Surveyed riders were asked whether they would or would not use earlier or later buses on their route if those were available. Results indicate that there is strong interest in having earlier and later service available. If an earlier bus were available, more than 90% of respondents overall said they would always (36.6%) or sometimes (56.2%) use it, and only 7.2% said they would never use it. Similarly, 33.8% said they would always use a later bus, while 56.4% said they would sometimes use it. Slightly fewer than 10% said they would never use a later bus.

Figure 37. Would You Use an Earlier or Later Bus? – All Routes

Earlier Bus Later Bus

Riders on Routes 80 and 85 included more than 40% who said they would always use an earlier bus, compared to fewer than 31% on the Blue B and Green Express lines. Blue Line B had the most respondents who said they would never us an earlier bus (10.6%), and Route 80 had the fewest (6.0%).


Current information sources n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234Transit Website 38.5% 39.5% 39.2% 45.3% 37.5% 33.0%Transit Center 19.8% 16.4% 25.6% 15.5% 17.9% 26.4%511.org 14.9% 10.8% 17.5% 8.1% 17.4% 7.5%NextBus 13.7% 27.2% 20.0% 5.4% 10.7% 11.3%myStop 11.2% 2.4% 3.7% 23.0% 12.8% 14.6%Information at stops 10.8% 10.5% 11.0% 10.8% 10.6% 11.8%Brochure/Schedule 7.8% 11.6% 9.6% 7.1% 6.4% 9.0%Google Maps 5.5% 8.3% 2.3% 6.8% 6.6% 1.4%Online not specified 2.9% 2.7% 3.7% 1.0% 3.1% 2.4%Ask Someone/Driver/Friend 1.8% 2.4% 2.3% 1.0% 1.5% 3.3%Other Transit/phone apps 1.1% 1.3% 0.6% 2.0% 1.0% 1.4%Other 1.8% 2.7% 1.7% 1.4% 1.6% 2.8%

114

32

Figure 38. Would You Use an Earlier Bus? – Individual Routes

Route 80 had the highest percentage of users stating they would always use a later bus (37.4%) and Blue Line B had the lowest (28.1%). Only Route 85 had more than 10% of respondents who would never use a later bus (17.4%).

Figure 39. Would You Use a Later Bus? – Individual Routes

Final Comments

At the end of the survey form, riders were asked if there were any other comments they would like to add about the service on this bus route, and more than 1,000 did provide some handwritten feedback – a significant increase over the 850 comments received when this survey was previously conducted in 2014.

In addition to the written comments, the survey team received extensive, often passionate feedback from riders while in the field. This was particularly true for the Green Express, whose riders were dismayed by the longer time between buses, the early termination of later morning service (as reflected in comments below), and the inadequate, overcrowded buses for the return trip. The latter caused some riders to say they had to find an alternate means of transportation, such as Amtrak, for their trip home, while others simply said that the Green Express has failed to provide the service riders need.

Written comments were combined into broad categories as summarized below, where representative quotes are presented for several categories of responses to give the reader a sense of the kinds of comments offered, together with the number of comments in that category, with the route shown in parentheses after the comment. Later schedule needed (95)

• We need later routes. Those of us who work at night are having problems. (Yellow)

• Please run later on Sundays, at least until 10:00PM from El Cerrito Del Norte BART. We need you!!! (80)

• Running later at night would be awesome. (Blue)

Route Number All Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteWould you use an earlier bus? n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234Always 36.6% 30.5% 30.7% 32.0% 40.6% 40.2%Sometimes 56.2% 58.9% 62.6% 59.6% 53.5% 50.2%Never 7.2% 10.6% 6.6% 8.4% 6.0% 9.6%

Route Number All Blue B Green GX Yellow Y 80 Route 85 RouteWould you use a later bus? n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234Always 33.8% 28.1% 30.9% 29.3% 37.4% 32.4%Sometimes 56.4% 61.9% 59.5% 62.6% 53.8% 50.2%Never 9.7% 10.0% 9.6% 8.1% 8.8% 17.4%

115

33

• The last bus leaving Fairfield at 7:54 AM causes me to drive, putting a financial strain on my household. (Green)

• Add more bus services from El Cerrito to Fairfield and other buses. The last morning bus leaves before 8AM; the buses should be run throughout the day. (Green)

Earlier schedule needed (77)

• Please run this bus earlier & later as well as more frequently. I would take it more. (80)

• I work on Saturdays and it would be nice to be able to catch the bus a little earlier. A lot of people work on weekends and because it's a weekend the bus schedule is completely different from that for weekdays, which makes it harder to use public transportation. (85)

• Bus service is great; just need more buses to be available with earlier start time. (Green)

• I wish there were earlier times on the weekends and later times during the week. (Blue)

Buses are late/buses should arrive and leave at the right time (93)

• Sometimes the bus comes and leaves early, forcing me to wait another 30-60 min for the next bus...this is inconvenient. (Yellow)

• Some buses leave earlier than the expected time. (85) • Please work on being on time. Punctuality on these buses is an issue. Buses are

often late. (Green) • Sometimes there's confusion about who's driving the route, one morning the

driver made us late because he didn't know he was driving the route. No one told us anything. We just were left sitting. (Blue)

Route 80 accounted for about two-thirds of all the comments regarding on-time performance, including the following:

• Drivers should not leave stops early unless another bus is present! • Thank you for the wonderful service! Drivers are so kind! However, sometimes

the buses are not on time; please be on time. • I really wish you all would be on time. I leave stupid early to get to work on time

and still end up late because the buses never show up. • Buses are always late in the morning, causing delays to connections and being late

for work. • Be on time. Have back up buses if too late. • I understand your efforts to improve on-time performance. Keep moving forward,

you are at 70%. Schedule issues/old schedule was better (51)

• There should be more weekend and holiday service. (Yellow) • I work on holidays; I wish the bus was available on holidays and ran more

frequently on Sunday. (Yellow)

116

34

• New schedules have caused me to have to drive from Vacaville to Fairfield. (Green)

• Last bus from BART station traveling to Fairfield should hold 5 minutes past departure time for late passengers riding BART or other transit system! (Green)

• The 430PM and 530PM need to be adjusted a little. The BART train seems to arrive 2 to 5 minutes after the bus has pulled off. (Green)

• The new bus schedule sucks!!! It does not line up with the San Francisco BART; with all the new homes paying taxes, you have hurt our community the most!!! (Green)

• More service during the holidays to get to work. (80) • Poor coordination of schedule in the AM from El Cerrito Del Norte to Transit

Center. BART arrival to El Cerrito: 5:15, 5:30, 5:45. 80 departure: 5:15, 5:30, 5:45. No way to catch the 80, as it leaves immediately. Very poor schedules. (80)

• The new schedule with 20 mins intervals interferes with connectivity with other intercity routes and reduces flexibility for riders with school /children. (Green)

• Please go back to old schedule every15 minutes. (Green) • The new schedule is bad, it’s very inconvenient. (Blue)

Bus/equipment issues (36)

• Buses are generally pretty clean. Please make the effort to keep them that way...especially the seats!!! (Yellow)

• Solano Express buses often have no or little leg room, because of how the seats are arranged. (80)

• Fix the wheelchair seats to allow for more passengers. When no wheelchairs are on the bus, those seats are hardly ever available to use. (80)

• Stop sending the old bus with no WiFi. (Blue) • The buses should be more carefully serviced. Some buses should not be on the

road; the bus rattles and shakes when on the freeway. (Green) • TVs on the bus should work. (Blue) • Remove the TVs, they never work. (Green) • The screens on the buses should give you info on transfers. (80) • Upgrade that floor. (Green) • A total of 8 respondents commented on the need for outlets/chargers. • A total of 9 respondents had comments requesting better WiFi connections or

complaining that the WiFi doesn’t work Extend service to new stops/cities (71)

• Nine requests from Route 80 riders for direct service to San Francisco. • More bus stops needed in Vallejo Heights. (85) • They should add more pick up stops throughout Vallejo. (85) • It would be great if you guys made a bus line that went to cities like Hercules,

Pinole, etc. other than just straight to Del Norte BART. (80) • This line should be available also at Suisun Amtrak station all day, not limited to

some hours only. (Green) • I really wish it included Martinez; a 15-minute drive translates to a 2-hour

commute right now. (Yellow)

117

35

• Continue the Blue line to Walnut Creek. (Blue) • Could you include a stop near Diablo Valley College? (Blue)

Lower fares/more discounts (40)

• The very first time I took this bus 6 months ago, when I called to get fare info no one told me to have exact change for fare because no change is given. That cost me $10.00. (Blue)

• What happened to transfers? I don't like to explore Vallejo anymore because I have to pay each way, and the bus connections are hard with kids. (80)

• The $5 fare from BART to VTC is too high for a 20-minute trip with only 3 stops. And the card reader won't accept a balance of $5! (80)

• I pay for myself and two kids so a group discount would be nice. (Green) Nice/good drivers/Positive comments (40)

• I was on the 6:07 bus from Pleasant Hill and driver went above and beyond to ensure my safety to Vacaville because of incident on bus. (Blue)

• Thank you; I love SolTrans drivers. (85) • Best bus drivers in the Bay Area. (80) • The drivers are great. (Green) • Drivers are excellent! (Yellow)

Need better, more courteous drivers (26)

• It would be nice if your drivers would be more courteous! And if someone can return my calls when I leave messages for the managers or supervisors! (80)

• Drivers should greet passengers more and smile. (Yellow) • I noticed the bus drivers gets really upset and argue with the passengers because

the request stop button doesn't work and the passenger get blamed...very unprofessional!!! (Yellow)

• I rode the bus home from work with my mom. The lady driver didn't acknowledge my mom when she said thank you. The driver ignored her and kept talking from her seat out the door to a passenger who got off before us; gossiping. I was upset and it was very rude. (Green)

• Make the effort to stop if you see a passenger running to catch the bus if starting to take off. Always look at rear view mirror for such potential passengers. (Blue)

• Bus drivers don't do anything with unruly disruptive passengers; unacceptable. (Green)

• All bus drivers need to stop at all stops and not pick and choose. For example some drivers stop at Sonoma and Winchester and some drivers says it's not a stop when the bus sign is there. The bus does not stop at all mandatory stops such as the stop on Sonoma. (80)

Overall Service – Positive

• I love this service and I wouldn't have a job without it. (Blue) • Sincerely appreciate the changes made to the routes to enable them to be on time

and dependable. (Blue) • Awesome bus service; thanks for making my commute less stressful! (Blue)

118

36

• I like the 85; it really is beneficial to get to and from work. The passes being cheaper is awesome. (85)

• Happy to have this great option for traveling to Vallejo from El Cerrito. (80) • If this bus line didn’t exist, I wouldn't live in Benicia. Please don't stop it. Thanks.

(Yellow) • Great service! (Green) • Keep up the good work. (Green)

Overall Service – Negative

• Service has gotten worse in the last several years. Though some drivers are good, some are rude. My experience with calling dispatch has not been generally pleasant. Lastly, buses are old, break down quite often, and are poorly maintained. (Green)

• Management never calls people back. The bus drivers are very rude and unhelpful. Your service is horrible. (80)

CONCLUSIONS The survey results as well as the additional comments provided by riders indicate that the surveyed bus lines are an important transportation resource, both for Solano County residents and others, that serves a valuable function in providing access to jobs, education and other social activities. However, some riders feel that their bus line is providing inadequate service in terms of frequency of service and on-time performance. Specific findings include:

• Surveyed riders rely on the bus for transportation. Slightly less than one-fourth (23.4%) of respondents said they would not have made the trip if their bus had not been available – indicating both that most riders have alternative ways of making this trip and that the trip must be made (e.g., for getting to work). About 20% of riders have no cars in their household, and 31.9% have just a single vehicle, indicating that over half of riders have limited access to a car as an alternative to their bus service. In addition, 28% of respondents do not have a driver’s license.

• Most riders use their bus frequently, with more than 50% reporting that they ride

at least 5 days a week and more than 85% riding at least weekly. Most riders are also long-term users: more than 63% of riders have been using their current route for at least a year, with 23.5% having been riders for 6 years or more. These lines also appear to be attracting new riders: 26% of respondents said they had been riding for less than 6 months, including 5% who were riding for the first time. It is possible, however, that some riders responded relative to the consolidated (Blue, Yellow or Green) line, which could have led to a higher percentage of new riders.

• Riders use these STA and SolTrans lines for travel primarily between home and work, but also to and from a variety of other destinations. More than 90% of respondents either began or planned to end their current trip at home, while almost 75% were coming from or going to work about 12% to or from sports/social/recreational activities and 9% to or from school or college.

119

37

• Riders also use the buses as one of several links in their commute or other travel, with roughly half using other public transportation methods (BART, other buses) both to get to their bus stop and to get to their final destination.

• Demographically, these routes serve a diverse ridership, with almost 40% of

riders African-American, 22.7% white/Caucasian and 19.1% Asian. More than 17% of riders described themselves as Hispanic or Latino. In addition, 31.5% of respondents said they speak a language other than English at home, mostly Spanish (30%) or Tagalog/Filipino (27%), but also numerous other languages.


• Surveyed riders gave good ratings to most service elements, with an overall

service rating of 3.03, where 3.0 represents a “good” rating on a 1-to-4 scale. About half of service elements received ratings of 3.0 or higher, while the average rating for fares was lowest at 2.75. Green Express riders had the lowest satisfaction with overall service (2.84), driven by their low satisfaction with frequency of service (2.35), availability of connections (2.69) and fares (2.62), all of which were lower than for any other route.

• There is very strong interest in earlier and later service across the routes surveyed. When asked whether they would or would not use earlier or later buses on their route if those were available, more than 90% said they would always or sometimes use both earlier buses (36.6% always, 56.2% sometimes) and later buses (33.8% always, 56.4% sometimes.) Comments offered by riders also confirm the desire for earlier and later operation.

• When asked how they currently receive transit information, the Transit website

and Transit Center together were mentioned by more than 58% of riders, followed by three websites/apps (511.org, NextBus, myStop) that together were cited by almost 40% of respondents. (Multiple responses were accepted.) About 20% of respondents cited more traditional non-digital information sources: information at stops (10.8%), printed schedules (7.8%) and asking a friend or bus driver (1.8%). Overall, about 88% of riders cited at least one online information source.


• While these results consistently show a ridership that relies on buses on a regular

basis to commute between home and work as well as reach other destinations, there are differences among individual routes in terms of the age, employment status, income, ethnic background and access to alternative methods of transportation of their riders.

120

Attachment A

2018 SolanoExpress Ridership Survey and Analyses

City of Residency


City of Residence n=2598 n=407 n=391 n=316 n=1250 n=234Vallejo 48.6% 1.0% 0.3% 46.8% 77.2% 50.7%

Fairfield 19.6% 34.7% 59.8% 2.2% 2.4% 31.4%

Vacaville 6.1% 33.7% 11.6% 0.3% 0.4% 2.2%

Benicia 5.9% 0.7% 40.4% 2.5% 0.9%

Suisun City 5.3% 5.4% 18.8% 0.6% 7.9%

Napa County 2.4% 1.0% 0.3% 0.6% 4.0% 1.3%

Dixon 0.8% 5.4% 1.5%

Unincorporated Solano County 0.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.6%

Rio Vista 0.2% 0.2% 1.0%

Elsewhere outside Solano County 10.8% 17.2% 6.7% 9.3% 12.3% 5.7%

121


122


DATE: March 29, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Vincent Ma, Marketing and Legislative Program Manager RE: Legislative Update Background: Each year, STA staff monitors state and federal legislation that pertains to transportation and related issues. On February 13, 2019, the STA Board approved its 2019 Legislative Platform to provide policy guidance on transportation legislation and the STA’s legislative activities during 2019. Monthly legislative updates are provided by STA’s State and Federal lobbyists and are attached for your information (Attachments A, and B). An updated Legislative Bill Matrix listing state bills of interest is available at: https://sta.ca.gov/operations/legislative-program/current/ Discussion: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has sponsored Senate Bill (SB) 152 Active Transportation Program Reform Act. This bill is authored by Senator Jim Beall (D-San Jose), and would transfer the responsibility of administering bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements from the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO). The bill would also modify the funding formula to increase the regional share from 40% to 75%, increase dedicated funding for rural and small areas from 10% to 15% (these areas would still be eligible to apply for the competitive statewide share), and reduce the statewide share from 50% to 10%. Staff recommends that the Board Support SB 152 as it aligns with 2019 STA Legislative Platform VI Funding #7: “Seek/sponsor legislation in support of initiatives that increase the overall funding levels for transportation priorities in Solano County.” And Legislative Platform VI Funding #9 “Support legislation to secure adequate budget appropriations for highway, bus, rail, air quality and mobility programs in Solano County.” This bill would move more of the ATP funding decisions from CTC to MTC. Assembly Member Todd Gloria (D-San Diego) has introduced Assembly Bill (AB) 1413 Transportation: local transportation authorities: transactions and use taxes, which would authorize a local transportation authority to impose a tax applicable to only a portion of its county. This tax would require a 2/3 voter approval to pass. Staff recommends that the Board Support AB 1413 as it aligns with 2019 STA Legislative Platform VI Funding #18: “Support legislation allowing a county to create a sales tax district and/or transit district within its boundaries.” Assembly Member Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) has introduced Assembly Bill (AB) 1568 General plans: housing element: production report: withholding of transportation funds, which would require the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to certify housing production for each city to the State Controller. Cities that do not meet their housing production goals, would have Senate Bill (SB) 1 funding withheld. Staff recommends that

123

the Board Oppose AB 1568 as it conflicts with 2019 STA Legislative Objective #1: “Support efforts to protect and ensure efficient, effective implementation of the various SB 1 transportation funding programs.” And Legislative Objective #6: “Oppose efforts to reduce or divert funding from transportation projects.” Staff is recommending that the STA Board Monitor the following legislation:

• Senate Bill (SB) 4 Housing • Senate Bill (SB) 5 Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program • Senate Bill (SB) 50 Planning and zoning: housing development: incentives. • Assembly Bill (AB) 148 Regional transportation plans: sustainable communities strategies • Assembly Bill (AB) 185 California Transportation Commission: transportation policies:

joint meetings, • Assembly Bill (AB) 847 Transportation finance: priorities: housing. • Assembly Bill (AB) 1487 Land use: housing element.

State Legislative Update (Shaw/Yoder/Antwih, Inc.): Bills that were introduced before the February 22 deadline are currently making their way through committees, including The CASA Compact related bills. The deadline for policy committees to hear bills is the end of April. The Legislature will be in Spring Recess between April 11 and April 22. As a follow-up to his Proposed State Budget, Governor Gavin Newsom released trailer bill language on March 11. The proposal reiterates the Governor’s commitment to link Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets to Senate Bill 1 (SB1) Transportation Funding. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) would be responsible for developing and proposing policies, which would begin withholding local street and road funds by July 1, 2023. HCD and OPR would be tasked with improving RHNA processes and methodologies, which would promote and streamline housing development. However, the trailer bill language also increases short-term housing production goals. Updates on the following are detailed in Attachment A:

• Legislative Update • Governor Newsom Release Housing Proposal • Bills of Interest

Federal Legislative Update (Akin Gump): STA’s federal legislative advocate (Susan Lent of Akin Gump) continues to work with STA staff to craft STA’s strategic objectives to align with those of available federal transportation funds. . Updates on the following are detailed in Attachment B:

• FY 2020 Budget - Released on March 11, the proposed budget includes: o $1 billion for the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD)

program o $1.035 billion for Infrastructure For Rebuilding America (INFRA) grants o $1 billion from the Highway Trust Fund, authorized in the Fixing America’s

Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.

124

o 46.4 billion from the Highway Trust Fund for Federal-aid highways;o $300 million for Federal-aid highwayso $500 million for transit infrastructure grantso $1.5 billion for the Capital Investment Grant program, including $500 million for

new projects.• Infrastructure Outlook – Both the House and Senate will continue to hold hearings to

address reauthorization of the FAST Act, which is currently set to expire on September 30,2020.

• Infrastructure Reimbursement Legislation – Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) set to introduce legislation that would require the Department of Transportation(DOT) to reimburse local governments that fund and begin work on “nationallysignificant” infrastructure projects, without the need for Presidential approval.

• Transit Low-No Emissions Grants – On March 18, the Federal Transit Administration(FTA) is soliciting grant applications and expects to award $85 million to assist with thepurchase or lease of low or no emission vehicle and related equipment/facilities.

• NEPA Guidance – New directive from Office of Management and Budget, and the Councilon Environmental Quality to NEPA delegation States (California is a NEPA delegate) tocomplete environmental review and authorize decisions on major infrastructure projectswithin an average of two years.

At their meeting on March 27, the STA TAC unanimously approved staff’s recommendation.

Fiscal Impact: None.

Recommendation: Approve the following positions:

• Support Senate Bill 152 (Beall) - Active Transportation Program Reform Act• Support Assembly Bill 1413 (Gloria) - Transportation: local transportation authorities:

transactions and use taxes.• Oppose Assembly Bill 1568 (McCarty) - General plans: housing element: production

report: withholding of SB1 transportation funds• Monitor:

o Senate Bill 4 (McGuire) Housingo Senate Bill 5 (Beall) Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment

Programo Senate Bill 50 (Wiener) Planning and zoning: housing development: incentives.o Assembly Bill 148 (Quirk-Silva) Regional transportation plans: sustainable

communities strategieso Assembly Bill 185 (Grayson) California Transportation Commission: transportation

policies: joint meetings,o Assembly Bill 847 (Grayson) Transportation finance: priorities: housing.o Assembly Bill 1487 (Chiu) Land use: housing element.

Attachments: A. State Legislative UpdateB. Federal Legislative Update

125


126

March 28, 2019

TO: Board of Directors, Solano Transportation Authority

FM: Joshua W. Shaw, Partner Matt Robinson, Legislative Advocate

RE: STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE – April 2019

Legislative Update Policy committees are in full swing, with hundreds of bills heard over the last few weeks. Additionally, budget committees have begun hearing department requests related to the Governor’s budget proposal. Many of the bills related to the CASA Compact will be heard in policy committees in the coming weeks. The Legislature has until the end of April to hear bills in policy committees. The Legislature will break for Spring Recess on April 11, returning April 22. We are tracking a number of bills for STA, some of which are identified under Bills of Interest below.

Governor Newsom Releases Housing Proposal As we previously discussed, the Governor’s January 10 Proposed Budget, the Budget set the stage for a discussion on tying transportation funds to housing production. The Budget states:

“Going forward, the state will strongly encourage jurisdictions to contribute to their fair share of the state’s housing supply by linking housing production to certain transportation funds and other applicable sources, if any. The Administration will convene discussions with stakeholders, including local governments, to assess the most equitable path forward in linking transportation funding and other potential local government economic development tools to make progress toward required production goals.”

On March 11, the Governor released budget trailer bill language that encapsulates the statement made in his budget. The proposal sets higher short-term housing production goals for cities & counties, and provides $750 million in support and incentives from the General Fund, to help these jurisdictions plan and zone for these higher, ambitious housing targets. The proposal would also update and modernize the process of developing and allocating to regions the state’s long-term housing goals, known as Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA). The RHNA is the state-mandated process to identify the total number of housing units (by affordability level) that each jurisdiction must accommodate in its Housing Element. As part of this process, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) identifies the total housing need for each region, for an eight-year period (in the current cycle, from 2015 to 2023). Regions must then develop a methodology to distribute this need to local governments in a manner that is consistent with the development pattern included in the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). Once a local government has received its final RHNA, it must revise its Housing Element to show how it plans to accommodate its portion of the region's housing need.

ATTACHMENT A

127

http://dof.ca.gov/Budget/Trailer_Bill_Language/documents/HousingPlanningandProductionGrants.pdf

Under the Governor’s proposal, HCD, in collaboration with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and stakeholders, must also propose an improved RHNA process and methodology that promotes and streamlines housing development. As noted above, the proposal provides additional clarity regarding linking the new RHNA process and housing production to the provision of transportation funds, like those made available by SB 1. The proposal requires HCD, in coordination with the California State Transportation Agency and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, to engage stakeholders to develop and propose policies for linking transportation and other non-housing funds – including, very specifically, local streets and road funds from SB 1 – with housing goals by the end of 2022. The proposal authorizes the state to withhold SB 1’s local streets and roads funds from any jurisdiction that does not have a compliant Housing Element and has not zoned and entitled for its updated annual housing goals, beginning July 1, 2023. Bills of Interest SB 4 (McGuire and Beall) Planning and Zoning for Housing* This bill would a neighborhood multifamily project or eligible TOD project to submit an application for a ministerial approval process. The bill would define a “neighborhood multifamily project” to mean a project to construct a multifamily unit of up to 2 residential dwelling units in a nonurban community, as defined, or up to 4 residential dwelling units in an urban community, as defined, that meets local height, setback, and lot coverage zoning requirements as they existed on July 1, 2019. The bill would define an “eligible TOD project” as a project located in an urban community, as defined, that meets specified height requirements, is located within 1/2 mile of an existing or planned transit station parcel or entrance, and meets other floor area ratio, density, parking, and zoning requirements. The bill also requires an eligible TOD project development proponent to develop a plan that ensures transit accessibility to the residents of the development in coordination with the applicable local transit agency. The bill would require specified TOD projects to comply with specified affordability, prevailing wage, and skilled and trained workforce requirements. The bill would also define “eligible parcel” to mean a parcel located within a city or county that has unmet regional housing needs and has produced fewer housing units than jobs over a specified period; is zoned to allow residential use and qualifies as an infill site; is not located within a historic district, coastal zone, very high fire hazard severity zone, or a flood plain; the development would not require the demolition of specified types of affordable housing; the parcel is not eligible for development under existing specified transit-oriented development authorizations; and the parcel in question has been fully reassessed on or after January 1, 2021, to reflect its full cash value. SB 5 (Beall) Local-State Sustainable Investment Incentive Program* This bill would establish the Local-State Sustainable Investment Incentive Program, which would be administered by the Sustainable Investment Incentive Committee. The bill would authorize a city, county, city and county, joint powers agency, enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, community revitalization and investment authority or transit village development district to apply to the Committee to participate in the program and would authorize the Committee to approve or deny applications for projects meeting specific criteria. Upon approval of a project application, the bill would require the Committee to issue an order directing the county auditor to reduce the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenue otherwise required to be contributed to the county’s ERAF from the applicant by the annual reduction amount approved. The bill would require a county auditor, if the applicant is an enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, transit village development district, or community revitalization investment authority, to transfer to the district or authority an amount of property tax revenue equal to the reduction amount approved by the Committee.

128

SB 50 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning: Housing Development: Equitable Communities Incentives* This bill would require a city, county, or city and county to grant upon request an equitable communities incentive when a development proponent seeks and agrees to construct a residential development, as defined, that satisfies specified criteria, including, among other things, that the residential development is either a job-rich housing project or a transit-rich housing project, as those terms are defined; the site does not contain, or has not contained, housing occupied by tenants or accommodations withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with specified law within specified time periods; and the residential development complies with specified additional requirements under existing law. The bill would require that a residential development eligible for an equitable communities incentive receive waivers from maximum controls on density and automobile parking requirements greater than 0.5 parking spots per unit, up to 3 additional incentives or concessions under the Density Bonus Law, and specified additional waivers if the residential development is located within a 1/2-mile or 1/4-mile radius of a major transit stop, as defined. The bill would authorize a local government to modify or expand the terms of an equitable communities incentive, provided that the equitable communities incentive is consistent with these provisions. SB 128 (Beall) Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts Existing law authorizes the public financing authority to issue bonds for these purposes upon approval by 55% of the voters voting on a proposal to issue the bonds. This bill would instead authorize the public financing authority to issue bonds for these purposes without submitting a proposal to the voters. The bill would require the resolution to issue bonds to contain specified information related to the issuance of the bonds. We recommend STA SUPPORT this measure. SB 137 (Dodd) Federal Transportation Funds: State Exchange Programs Existing federal law apportions transportation funds to the states under various programs, including the Surface Transportation Program and the Highway Safety Improvement Program, subject to certain conditions on the use of those funds. Existing law provides for the allocation of certain of those funds to local entities. Existing law provides for the exchange of federal and state transportation funds between local entities and the state under certain circumstances. This bill would authorize the Department of Transportation to allow the above-described federal transportation funds that are allocated as local assistance to be exchanged for Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program funds appropriated to the department. STA SUPPORTS this bill (February 13 Meeting). SB 152 (Beall) Active Program Funding This bill would increase the share of active transportation (ATP) funds dedicated to regional agencies to 75 percent, distributed by population. Currently, regional agencies receive 40 percent of the funding in the ATP funds for distribution. This bill would give MTC additional resources to program for ATP projects. We recommend STA SUPPORT this measure. AB 11 (Chiu) Community Redevelopment Law of 2019* This bill, the Community Redevelopment Law of 2019, would authorize cities and counties to create agencies that would use tax increment financing to fund affordable housing and infrastructure projects. This bill takes a similar approach to the tax increment financing structure used by the former redevelopment agencies. AB 185 (Grayson) HCD at CTC Meetings Existing law requires the CTC and the State Air Resources Board to hold at least two joint meetings per calendar year to coordinate their implementation of transportation policies. This bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to participate in those joint meetings.

129

AB 252 (Daly) Caltrans NEPA Delegation Existing law, until January 1, 2020, provides that the State of California consents to the jurisdiction of the federal courts regarding the compliance, discharge, or enforcement of the responsibilities it assumed as a participant in the program. This bill would extend the operation of these provisions indefinitely. STA SUPPORTS this bill (March 13 Meeting).

AB 847 (Grayson) Transportation Funding to Incentivize Housing This bill would require HCD to review each production report submitted by a city or county in to determine if that city or county has met the applicable minimum housing production goal for the reporting period. The bill would redirect transportation revenues currently used for debt-service (e.g. vehicle weight fees) to be apportioned by the Controller to cities and counties if they have been certified by HCD to have met their very low-income housing goals or low-income housing goals.

AB 1413 (Gloria) Local Sales Tax Measures Existing law authorizes, upon approval of two-thirds of the voters, to impose a retail transaction and use tax for specified transportation purposes. This bill would authorize a local agency to impose a tax applicable to only a portion of its county if two-thirds of the voters voting on the measure within the portion of the county to which the tax would apply. We recommend STA SUPPORT this measure.

AB 1568 (McCarty) Loss of Transportation Funding for Failure to Meet Housing Production Targets This bill would require HCD to review each production report submitted by a city or county in to determine if that city or county has met the applicable minimum housing production goal for the reporting period. If a local agency fails to meet their production targets, the bill would require the Controller to withhold Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account funding for that jurisdiction and deposit those funds in a separate escrow account for each city or county that is not in compliance. The bill would require the Controller to distribute the funds to the local agency when they are found to comply. We recommend STA OPPOSE this measure.

ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry) Local Government Financing: Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure: Voter Approval. This constitutional amendment would lower the necessary voter threshold from a two-thirds supermajority to 55 percent to approve local general obligation bonds and special taxes for affordable housing and public infrastructure projects. STA SUPPORTS this measure (January 9 Meeting).

Bills marked with an * are being tracked by MTC as implementing elements of the CASA Compact. These bills are not sponsored by MTC. The above list does not include all bills MTC has identified as others are included in the attached matrix.

130

M E M O R A N D U M

March 25, 2019

To: Solano Transportation Authority

From: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Re: March Report

During the month of March we monitored developments in Washington and brought them to the attention of STA staff. We also made STA staff and Soltrans aware of grant opportunities.

FY 2020 Budget

President Trump released his Administration’s budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2020 last week. The budget funds the highway and transit programs funded with contract authority at the levels authorized in the FAST Act. Of note, it includes:

- $1 billion for the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD)program, a $100 million increase from FY 2019 enacted levels;

- $1.035 billion from the general fund for Infrastructure For Rebuilding America (INFRA)grants, in addition to $1 billion from the Highway Trust Fund as authorized in the FixingAmerica's Surface Transportation (FAST Act). Congress did not appropriate additionalamounts from the general fund for the INFRA program in FY 2019 or 2018;

- $46.4 billion from the Highway Trust Fund for Federal-aid highways;

- $300 million from the general fund for Federal-aid highways (a $2.95 billion decrease);

- $500 million for transit infrastructure grants (a $200 million decrease); and

- $1.5 billion for the Capital Investment Grant program (a $1 billion decrease), including$500 million for new projects.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) has criticized Trump’s budget proposal as not being robust enough. Although presidential budget requests reflect Administration priorities, they are largely symbolic. Given that Democrats now control the House, the majority of Trump’s budget proposal will not make it into the eventual FY 2020 appropriations bills.

ATTACHMENT B

131

Solano Transportation Authority March 25, 2019 Page 2 House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) said that her committee will start holding markups of FY 2020 appropriations measures in April and May with an eye toward passing them by June. House Democratic leadership is also considering advancing appropriations bills in small packages rather than individually or in one large omnibus. Even if the Appropriations Committee were to advance the bills according to Lowey’s ambitious timeline, it is highly unlikely that the full House will pass them before the August recess.

Chairwoman Lowey circulated a letter to House Democrats this month stating that there is not enough bipartisan support in both chambers to revive earmarks in FY 2020 funding bills. She stated her own support for earmarks and pledged to continue discussing the possibility of reviving earmarks in the future. Prior to Chairwoman Lowey’s announcement, Transportation Chairman DeFazio told the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) that he intends to include earmarks in the forthcoming infrastructure bill. Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member Sam Graves (R-MO) also has expressed support for reviving earmarks for transportation spending this week.

Infrastructure Outlook

Both chambers of Congress have begun fervent work on developing infrastructure legislation as evidenced by a flurry of hearings in recent weeks. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held hearings on February 26 to discuss “How Federal Infrastructure Policy Could Help Mitigate and Adapt to Climate Change” and on March 13 on “Aligning Federal Surface Transportation Policy to Meet 21st Century Needs.” The House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing on “Our Nation’s Crumbling Infrastructure And The Need For Immediate Action” on March 6.

The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held a hearing on February 26 on “Connecting America: Examining Intermodal Connections Across Our Surface Transportation Network.” The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on March 6 regarding the “Economic Benefits of Highway Infrastructure Investment and Accelerated Project Delivery.” We provided summaries of the hearings in separate memoranda.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) has said that the Environment and Public Works Committee will develop an infrastructure bill that distributes federal funds by formula, balances the needs of urban and rural communities; and streamlines the project permitting process. Senator Barrasso and Ranking Member Tom Carper (D-DE) have asked Committee members to submit priorities for the bill by late February or early March. He said that Committee leadership then will solicit priorities from Senators not on the Committee.

132

Solano Transportation Authority March 25, 2019 Page 3 It is not clear whether Congress can secure funding and agreement on broad infrastructure or should focus on securing the necessary funding to reauthorize the highway and transit legislation (the FAST Act), which expires on September 30, 2020. Nevertheless, House Ways and Means Committee member Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) has said that House leadership has reserved time to consider an infrastructure bill on the chamber floor in late spring. A growing number of members of Congress are expressing support for a gas tax increase or a vehicle miles traveled fee although there will need to be bipartisan agreement and support from the White House to advance infrastructure legislation.

Regardless of whether there is broad infrastructure legislation this year, the House and Senate transportation committees will continue to hold hearings that address the reauthorization of the FAST Act.

Infrastructure Reimbursement Legislation

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has said he will introduce legislation that would require the Department of Transportation (DOT) to reimburse local partners who fund infrastructure reconstruction projects in the absence of immediate federal funding. Under the proposal, local entities that begin work on infrastructure projects that are “nationally significant” will be guaranteed reimbursement by DOT without the need for presidential approval. The purpose of the legislation is to advance the Gateway project in New York and New Jersey despite a lack of federal approval and presidential support; however, the bill could benefit other infrastructure projects that are of national significance or that compete for limited federal infrastructure dollars. Schumer has said he will attempt to add the bill to “must-pass” legislation such as an appropriations bill or surface transportation reauthorization bill.

Transit Low-No Emissions Grants

On March 18, The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) began soliciting applications for the Low or No Emission (Low-No) grant program. The FTA expects to award $85 million to 45 projects to assist with the purchase or lease of low or no emission vehicles as well as related equipment or facilities. Applications are due by May 14.

NEPA Guidance

On February 26, the Trump Administration released guidance to states intended to streamline the environmental review process under the under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for large infrastructure projects. A memo from the Office of Management and Budget and the Council on Environmental Quality directs states assuming NEPA delegation (like California) to

133

Solano Transportation Authority March 25, 2019 Page 4 complete environmental reviews and authorization decisions for major infrastructure projects within two years on average, echoing a similar requirement placed on federal agencies in a Trump Administration Executive Order from August 2017.

134


DATE: March 27, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Brandon Thomson, Transit Mobility Coordinator RE: Development of Update of Coordinated Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) Background: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) provides Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5303 funding to transit operators to support the development of Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP). SRTPs assist transit agencies with operations and capital planning in the interest of meeting federal planning requirements related to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). An individual SRTP for each transit agency and an accumulation of the SRTP’s known as the Coordinated Short Range Transit Plan were last completed for Solano county transit operators in September 2016, covering the period Fiscal Years (FYs) 2015-16 to 2024-25. STA’s approach, with guidance and direction from MTC, is to update these documents approximately every two to three years. This agenda item proposes the updated process begin in early FY 2019-20. Discussion: On February 13, 2019, the MTC’s Programming and Allocations Committee adopted MTC Resolution No. 4364, which recommended that STA receive $110,000 to develop a coordinated SRTP for SolTrans, the City of Rio Vista, the City of Dixon, and the City of Fairfield. In coordination with Vacaville City Coach. MTC staff allocated the City of Vacaville $20,000 to conduct their SRTP (Attachment A). MTC staff separated the City of Vacaville from the Solano County operators because, in the last update, the City of Vacaville prepared their own SRTP. The City of Vacaville has decided to include their SRTP update for City Coach under the single consultant agreement with STA to prepare the individual agency SRTPs. Therefore, STA will receive $130,000 in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5303 funds from MTC and recommends setting aside State Transit Assistance Funds (STAF) in the amount of $70,000 toward this effort. The set aside of STAF funds will cover the required local match of $18,138 and the remaining $51,862 of STAF funds will be used if necessary to conduct the Coordinated SRTP. As in the previous Coordinated SRTP process, each transit agency will provide information and review products as they are developed by the consultant team. STA staff proposes using a similar approach from the 2016 effort for the upcoming cycle, with some changes:

1. Eliminate the element related to the Transit Corridor Study. 2. Replace that item with an element that looks at operation and performance of the

SolanoExpress system as a single unit, while retaining the individual agency approaches for evaluation and planning regards to finances and performance of the individual SolanoExpress routes as allocated to each agency.

135

3. The section on the SolanoExpress system shall include an element that examines connectivity between the regional network and the local transit networks. This will examine shortcomings and opportunities for improved connectivity.

4. Examine transit access to medical facilities and to medical appointments. Determine actual demand for services and propose cost effective options for addressing the demands. This component is being added as this was to top priority of the Coordinated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) and all seven cities for Senior and Persons with Disabilities.

5. Examine transit access to Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and future Priority Production Areas (PPAs) for jobs.

The MTC Resolution requires a ten-year fiscally constrained financial plan for each SRTP as well as for the coordinated plan. Therefore, sustainability is an overarching objective of the entire process. Another area of special interest/concern is the decline in local ridership. Attachment B shows recent summary ridership statistics for all the Solano operators. The loss of local ridership for the three largest transit operators may be attributed to a variety of factors including lower fuel costs, increased teleworking, higher car ownership and the rise of alternatives such as Uber and Lyft. The MTC Resolution mandates a review of usage trends; and as Solano has seen declining local ridership, STA will ask the selected consultant to specially look for long- and short-term solutions to reverse this overall trend. Both the individual SRTPs and the Coordinated SRTP will be reviewed and adopted by individual transit governing boards as well as the STA Board. The following schedule is proposed for developing the Coordinated SRTPs in FY 2019-20:

Transit Operators Submit Areas of Concentration to STA

May 1, 2019

STA Develops RFP June 2019 STA Issues RFP July 2019 RFP Process and Issue Intent to Award July through September 2019 Coordinated SRTPs completed by consultant and reviewed by Consortium and approved by transit operators.

February 2020

Coordinated SRTP brought to the STA Board for review and approval.

March 2020

At their meetings on March 26th and 27th, the SolanoExpress Intercity Transit Consortium and the STA TAC (Technical Advisory Committee) the committees voted unanimously to forward to the STA Board to approve the following:

1. Proceed with development of an update of Coordinated Short Range Transit Plans for Solano County transit operators, per MTC Resolution No. 4364;

2. Allocate $70,000 of State Transit Assistance Funds (STAF) towards the Coordinated Short Range Transit Plans;

3. Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a funding agreement with MTC to receive $130,000 of FTA 5303 funds for development of the Coordinated SRTPs; and

136

4. Authorize the Executive Director to issue an RFP and enter into a contract for theCoordinated Short Range Transit Plans for an amount not-to-exceed $200,000.

Fiscal Impact: $130,000 is provided from MTC 5303 funds and STA staff is recommending setting aside State Transit Assistance Funds (STAF) in an amount not-to-exceed $70,000 for a total amount of $200,000.

Recommendation: Approve the following:

1. Authorize the Executive Director to proceed with development of an update ofCoordinated Short Range Transit Plans for Solano County transit operators in Fiscal Year2019-20, per MTC Resolution No. 4364;

2. Allocate $70,000 of State Transit Assistance Funds (STAF) towards the CoordinatedShort Range Transit Plans;

3. Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a funding agreement with MTC to receive$130,000 of FTA 5303 funds for development of the Coordinated SRTPs; and

4. Authorize the Executive Director to issue an RFP and enter into a contract for theCoordinated Short Range Transit Plans for Solano County transit operators for an amountnot-to-exceed $200,000.

Attachments: A. MTC Resolution No. 4364B. Solano County Operator’s Ridership Information

137


138

J:\SECTION\ALLSTAFF\Resolution\TEMP-RES\MTC\February PAC\tmp-4364.docx

Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee

February 13, 2019 Agenda Item 2c

MTC Resolution No. 4364 Subject: Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) Initial Funding Recommendations and

Guidelines for FY2018-19 and FY2019-20.

Background: MTC provides Federal Transit Administration Section 5303 funding to transit operators to support the development of SRTPs. These plans assist agencies with operations and capital planning in the interest of meeting federal planning requirements related to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

In FY2017-18, MTC funded SRTP development for the seven large operators. For FY2018-19, staff recommends SRTP funding for small and medium sized operators. The amounts recommended for each agency are listed in the table below. Solano Transportation Authority is recommended to receive funding to develop a consolidated SRTP for SolTrans, the City of Fairfield, the City of Dixon, and the City of Rio Vista, in coordination with the City of Vacaville.

Proposed FY2018-19 SRTP Funding

Agency 5303 Funds 88.53%

In Kind/Local Match

11.47%

Total Contract Amount

Altamont Corridor Express $ 20,000 2,591 22,591 County Connection $ 30,000 3,887 33,887 Tri-Delta Transit $ 30,000 3,887 33,887 LAVTA Wheels $ 30,000 3,887 33,887 Marin Transit $ 30,000 2,591 22,591 Napa Valley Transportation Authority $ 30,000 3,887 33,887 Petaluma Transit $ 20,000 2,591 22,591 Santa Rosa CityBus $ 30,000 3,887 33,887 Sonoma County Transit $ 30,000 3,887 33,887 Union City Transit $ 30,000 3,887 33,887 Vacaville City Coach $ 20,000 2,591 22,591 Water Emergency Transportation Authority $ 30,000 3,887 33,887 WestCat $ 30,000 3,887 33,887 Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit $ 30,000 3,887 33,887 Solano Transportation Authority $ 110,000 15,547 158,138 Sonoma County Transportation Authority $ 30,000 3,887 33,887 Total Funding Provided by MTC: $ 530,000

These funds are included in the MTC budget for FY2018-19. Additionally, MTC Resolution No. 4364 provides the guidelines for FY2018-19 and FY2019-20 SRTPs. Recommendation for FY 2019-20 funding will be presented later in the year.

Issues: None.

Recommendation: Refer MTC Resolution No. 4364 to the Commission for approval and authorize staff to enter into funding agreements with operators based on funding levels listed above.

ATTACHMENT A

139

Date: February 27, 2019 W.I.: 1517 Referred by: PAC

ABSTRACT

MTC Resolution No. 4364

This resolution adopts the Short Range Transit Plan Guidelines for FY 2018-19 and FY2019-20.

Further discussion of these actions is contained in the Programming and Allocations Committee

summary sheet dated February 13, 2019.

140

Date: February 27, 2019 W.I.: 1517 Referred by: PAC RE: Short Range Transit Plan Guidelines

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

RESOLUTION NO. 4364

WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the regional

transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay Area pursuant to Government Code

Section 66500 et seq.; and

WHEREAS, MTC is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the

San Francisco Bay Area, charged with carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning and

fund programming processes required to maintain the region’s eligibility for federal funds for

transportation planning, capital improvements, and operations; and

WHEREAS, the federal Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST) requires

MPOs to work cooperatively with the state and public transit operators to develop regional

transportation plans and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) for urbanized areas of the

state; and

WHEREAS, MTC has developed, in cooperation with the State, and with public transit

operators in the region, a work program for carrying out continuing, comprehensive, and

cooperative transportation planning; and

WHEREAS, an Overall Work Program (OWP) for planning activities in the Bay Area is

annually prepared by MTC, the Association of Bay Area Governments, and the California

Department of Transportation; and

WHEREAS, the OWP describes MTC’s annual unified work program to achieve the

goals and objectives of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); and

WHEREAS, in accordance with the goals and objectives of the RTP, MTC’s

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes funds programmed for projects sponsored

by public transit operators in the MTC region; and

141

MTC Resolution No. 4364 Page 2

WHEREAS, MTC, in cooperation with the FTA Region IX office requires that public

transit operators in the MTC region which are FTA grantees prepare and regularly update a Short

Range Transit Plan (SRTP) as input to regional transportation planning programming activities;

and

WHEREAS, MTC enters into a funding agreement with each public transit operator

required to prepare and update an SRTP; and

WHEREAS, MTC desires to promulgate detailed SRTP guidelines that more precisely

explain the scope of work included in the SRTP funding agreement, and which are in accord

with and supportive of the planning, fund programming and policy requirements of MTC’s

Transit Capital Priorities Process and Criteria, the TIP and the RTP; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that MTC does hereby adopt the “Short Range Transit Plan Guidelines,”

attached hereto as Attachment A to this Resolution and incorporated herein as though set forth at

length.

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ____________________________________________ Chair The above resolution was adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission at a regular meeting of the Commission held in San Francisco, California on February 27, 2019

142

Date: February 27, 2019 W.I.: 1517 Referred by: PAC Attachment A Resolution No. 4364 Page 1 of 15

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN GUIDELINES

BASIS OF THE SRTP REQUIREMENT Federal statutes require that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), in partnership with the state and with local agencies, develop and periodically update a long-range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which implements the RTP by programming federal funds to transportation projects contained in the RTP. In order to effectively execute these planning and fund programming responsibilities, MTC, in cooperation with Region IX of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), requires each transit operator receiving federal funding through the TIP (federal grantees within the MTC region) to prepare, adopt, and submit an SRTP to MTC. Transit operators are required by MTC to prepare an SRTP every four years in order to remain eligible to receive federal funding. MTC requires that operators prepare an SRTP on a two year cycle, alternating years between large operators and small-to-medium sized operators. These guidelines are focused on small and medium-sized transit operators in the region that will develop SRTPs in FY 2018-19, and the seven largest transit operators that are due to develop SRTPs in FY 2019-20. These guidelines describe the purpose, planning horizon and frequency of updates for the SRTP, and provide detail relative to the tasks and subtasks outlined in the funding agreement. SRTP PURPOSE

A. To serve as a management and policy document for the transit operator, as well as a means of providing FTA and MTC with information necessary to meet regional fund programming and planning requirements.

B. To clearly and concisely describe and provide the basis for the transit operator’s capital and operating budgets.

C. To submit requests for federal, state, and regional funds for capital and operating purposes through MTC’s Transit Capital Priorities, and in the MTC TIP.

D. To assess an operator’s financial capacity to carry out proposed levels of operations and the associated capital improvement plan.

E. To regularly provide MTC with information on projects and programs of regional significance, which include: funding and scheduling of expansion projects included in MTC Resolution No. 3434 or in the Regional Transportation Plan, provision of paratransit service to persons with disabilities, older adults and others; compliance with federal Title VI reporting requirements;

143

MTC Resolution No. 4364 Attachment A Page 2 of 15

environmental justice outreach and public participation, and related service planning; results of the most recent FTA Triennial Review and related corrective actions.

F. To assess an operator’s progress implementing recommendations provided through the Transit Sustainability Project, MTC Resolution 4060.

THE SRTP AND THE OPERATOR’S GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND STANDARDS Goals should reflect the major areas of concern for public transit operators, for example:

• scheduling and route planning • safety and security

• service reliability • funding and reserve policies

• system effectiveness • customer service

• system efficiency • statutory and regulatory compliance

Objectives should be comprehensive (there can be several objectives under each goal). Service standards should be specific, measurable and quantified where feasible. Goals, objectives and standards should reflect the basis under which new service would be deployed and existing service increased or reduced. PLANNING HORIZON The planning horizon is a minimum of ten years. However, a longer planning horizon may be required if necessary to reflect significant capital replacement and/or rehabilitation that would not fall within the ten year period (e.g., railcars, ferryboats, bus subfleet). A longer planning horizon may also be required if necessary to capture the capital or operating budget implications of significant changes in service (e.g., rail extension coming on line). FREQUENCY OF UPDATES MTC requires that large operators update their SRTPs every two years and that small- to medium-sized operators update their SRTPs at least once every four years. The scope of the SRTP is explained below. REFERENCES TO MTC RESOLUTIONS These guidelines make reference in certain sections to the following MTC Resolutions:

• MTC Resolution No. 3176: “Procedures for Evaluating Transit Efficiency Improvements.”

• MTC Resolution No. 3434, Revised: “Regional Transit Expansion Policy.”

• MTC Resolution No. 3866, Revised: “MTC Transit Connectivity Plan.”

• MTC Resolution No. 4060, Revised: “MTC Transit Sustainability Project.”

• MTC Resolution No. 4272, Revised: Transit Capital Priorities Process and Criteria for FY 2016-17 through FY 2019-20.

MTC staff will e-mail electronic copies of these resolutions to interested parties upon request.

144


ONBOARD SURVEY In 2010, MTC began a regional transit passenger survey by collecting data from transit operators on a rolling basis, surveying a few operators every year, with the goal of completing all operators within five to seven years. The first data collection survey cycle was completed in 2017, and a new cycle was initiated in 2018. You can find a chronology of completed and planned surveys here, by year and season: http://bayareametro.github.io/onboard-surveys/schedule/ The purpose of the survey is twofold: (1) to collect demographic and trip origin/destination data used to support future local and regional transit planning efforts; (2) to fulfill data collection requirements stipulated by Circular 4702.1B of the Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients. MTC and operators coordinate to develop survey instruments that meet these two goals and to provide survey takers access to their transit systems. To further these efforts, coordination requirements applicable to transit rider surveys were adopted in July 2015 in MTC Resolution 3866, Revised. SCOPE OF THE SRTP The SRTP must contain at least the information described in this section. 1. Title Page

The title page must include the words “Short Range Transit Plan,” the fiscal years covered by the plan, the official name of the transit operator, the date approved by the governing board, and the following statements:

Federal transportation statutes require that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), in partnership with state and local agencies, develop and periodically update a long-range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which implements the RTP by programming federal funds to transportation projects contained in the RTP. In order to effectively execute these planning and programming responsibilities, MTC requires that each transit operator in its region which receives federal funding through the TIP, prepare, adopt, and submit to MTC a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP).

145


2. Overview of Transit System

A. Brief History (e.g., year of formation, facilities and fleet development, changes in service focus areas, key milestones and events).

B. Governance.

1. Type of unit of government (e.g., city, joint powers authority, transit district).

2. Composition and nature of representation of governing body:

a. Number of members;

b. Elected or appointed (if appointed, how, and what agencies and/or groups do members represent (e.g., cities, county, general public);

c. Current members and terms.

C. Organizational Structure (use graphic format).

1. Management and staff positions.

2. Reporting relationships.

3. Contracted transportation services (name of contractor(s), length of current contract(s)).

4. Labor unions representing agency employees and length of current contract(s).

D. Transit Services Provided and Areas Served —Describe fixed route, demand responsive, and connecting services and areas served, and the number of vehicles required for each type of service.

1. Fixed Route (includes bus and rail):

a. Local;

b. Express;

c. Other commuter service (e.g., subscription service, shuttles);

d. Services provided in partnership with others (funding contributions or policy oversight);

e. Accommodation of bicycles;

2. Demand responsive (includes operator-provided services and services provided under partnership agreements):

a. General public;

b. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA);

c. Persons with disabilities (non-ADA);

d. Older adults;

3. Connecting services provided by others for fixed route and demand responsive service; including transit network companies under contractual agreement.

E. Fare Structure — Describe fare structure for fixed route and demand responsive services, and for interoperator transfers.

1. Fixed Route Fares:

a. Single fare (adults, seniors, student/youth);

b. Discounted and/or multi-ride fares (adults, seniors, student/youth);

146


c. Recent changes in fares;

2. Demand Responsive Fares:

a. Single fare;

b. Discounted and/or multi-ride fares;

c. Recent changes in fares (include the year(s) in which the change(s) took place);

3. Interoperator Transfer Arrangements and Fares

a. ClipperSM

b. Other proof of transfer;

F. Revenue Fleet — Provide a general description of the revenue vehicle/vessel fleet. The description can be in narrative or graphic format, or a combination of both. (This description differs from the detailed inventory required under Section 6 of these guidelines.) Include the following information:

1. Types of vehicles/vessels operated (e.g., standard bus (any length), trolley bus, articulated bus, over-the-road coach, cutaway van, standard van, minivan, cable car, passenger ferryboat, heavy rail, light rail);

2. Number of each type of vehicle/vessel;

3. Recognizing that each type of vehicle might be used in multiple types of service, type(s) of service in which each type of vehicle is used (e.g., local, express, commuter, demand responsive).

G. Existing Facilities — Describe individual or grouped facilities, according to the categories listed below.

1. Administrative (locations, age, functions located within);

2. Maintenance and Fueling (type, locations, age);

3. Vehicle/Vessel Storage/Staging (locations, age, capacity);

4. Park-and-Ride (locations, age, capacity);

5. Stations and Stops (type, locations, age, basic amenities);

6. Right-of-Way, Track or Guideway;

7. Bicycle Facilities. 3. Goals, Objectives and Standards

A. Describe the process for establishing, reviewing, and updating goals, objectives, and standards. Goals and objectives should be comprehensive and address all major areas of operator activities, including principles and guidelines under which new service would be implemented. Performance standards should address both the efficiency and effectiveness of the services provided by the operator.

B. Portray and discuss new or revised goals and related objectives and standards; and identify changes from prior SRTP.

C. For SRTPs composed during FY2018-19, portray and discuss plans to implement service, meet the performance measure requirements of MTC Resolution 4321, Revised, paratransit or

147


institutional recommendations, or any similar coordination efforts (as discussed in the Transit Sustainability Project MTC Resolution 4060, Revised) and discuss the monitoring process established to assess the performance of these programs.

D. For SRTPs composed during FY2019-20, portray and discuss the Transit Sustainability Project performance measures, targets, and the monitoring process established in MTC Resolution 4060. Building on the TSP Strategic Plan revisions, discuss strategies to achieve TSP targets.

4. Service and System Evaluation

A. Evaluate route-level and system-wide performance against current service standards (if illustrative, portray local, express or commuter service, or other intercity service separately). Describe the evaluation process. Evaluate the most recent year for which complete data is available. At a minimum, evaluate performance measures relating to effectiveness and efficiency. Key performance measures could include passengers per revenue vehicle hour, passengers per revenue vehicle mile, percent of capacity used, revenue-to-total vehicle hours, operating cost per revenue vehicle hour, operating cost per passenger, and on-time performance. A retrospective portrayal of performance (e.g., prior five to ten years) may be warranted to exemplify trends. Where the evaluation identifies deviations from service standards, describe proposed remedies, including service expansion and/or contraction. Use narrative, tables and other graphic formats as warranted.

B. Provide a three-year retrospective of revenue service hours, revenue service miles, and patronage. Evaluate and discuss significant changes.

C. Describe and discuss equipment and facility deficiencies, and describe proposed remedies.

D. Describe any involvement in MTC’s “Community-based Transportation Planning Program” (“CBTP”). Describe any specific fixed-route and/or mobility solutions to transit gaps recommended through the CBTP process and the status of their implementation. Describe any services funded specifically to address transportation needs in communities of concern and the source(s) of funding (e.g., the Lifeline Transportation Program).

E. Identify paratransit services provided in compliance with the paratransit provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Reference planned new activities, major service changes, or procurement of capital equipment to support ADA service.

F. Identify other paratransit services, dial-a-ride, demand responsive services or mobility management programs. Reference any proposed revisions or improvements to these services, as well as fixed route services intended to enhance their usage by seniors and/or by persons with disabilities. Identify partners with whom these services are coordinated, and reference the establishment or enhancement of mobility management programs to help provide equitable and effective access.

G. Provide the date of the agency’s most recent federal Title VI analysis and report, and discuss any service deficiencies identified in the report. Generally describe the process used for complying with FTA Circular C4702.1B (updated October 1, 2012). Please reference the most recent triennial Title VI report, plus any subsequent Title VI reports.

148


H. Provide the date of the agency’s most recent FTA Triennial Review, and describe related remedial actions undertaken or currently underway in response to the review.

5. Operations Plan and Budget

A. Operations Plan The operations plan sets forth the intentions to provide fixed route and paratransit services over the SRTP period. Document the ongoing evaluation of services and systems with respect to adopted goals, objectives and standards, and legal and regulatory requirements, subject to financial constraints.

1. Describe the modes and types of transit services to be operated over the plan period. Separately identify service provided in partnership with others:

a. For the continuation of existing service, refer to or summarize the descriptions provided under Section 2, Subsection “D”, Transit Services Provided and Areas Served;

b. For the deployment of new service, identify the mode, and describe the service characteristics using the format used in Section 2, Subsection “D,” above.

2. Separately describe planned new activities or service changes relative to paratransit services provided in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA service).

3. Separately describe any proposed revisions or improvements to fixed route services, other paratransit services, dial-a-ride, demand responsive services or mobility management programs intended to enhance their usage by seniors and/or by persons with disabilities.

4. Where reductions in service levels are required in order to achieve a balanced operating budget, describe the reductions and assess their impact on the affected service areas and communities.

5. Portray the levels of service planned — Use a table (or other graphic format) to portray planned levels of service hours and service miles. Separately identify the following:

a. Fixed route modes by type (e.g. local, express/commuter);

b. Demand responsive modes by type (e.g., ADA, non-ADA older adult);

c. Expansion service included in MTC Resolution No. 3434, Revised and other major planned service expansions.

The table (or other graphic format) shall clearly identify service expansion and/or reduction by the year of planned deployment (expansion) and/or elimination (reduction). There shall be a rational relationship between the information portrayed and the “Service and System Evaluation” section of the SRTP.

6. Describe and discuss planned (not yet implemented or underway) service changes in response to the most recent federal Title VI report and/or FTA Triennial Review.

B. Operations Budget

Demonstrate that planned level of transit service over the planning period, including rehabilitation and replacement of capital assets, is sustainable. Take into consideration expense forecasts, regional and local revenue projections, fare policies, labor or service

149


agreements, competitive demands on funding, regional priorities and policies. The budget should reflect a “baseline” level of service, taking into consideration the existing level of service at the time of publication of the SRTP. Committed service changes must also be defined, with their expenses and revenue separately identified in the operating and capital financial plan tables. Provide sufficient detail to allow a reviewer of the SRTP to evaluate costs of implementing the operating and capital plans, and compare the total with anticipated revenues available during the study period. The narrative must specifically explain, and the spreadsheet clearly isolate in the appropriate year, by mode, any major change in service hours and miles due to deployment of new service or major service reductions. The narrative must specifically explain, and the spreadsheet clearly isolate by year (e.g., through individual line items) the following:

• Change in fare revenue due to a fare increase or decrease. • Change in fare revenue due to a change in the level of service. • Change in expenses due to a change in the level of service. • Change in expenses due to a labor or service contract change.

All operations expenses and revenues are to be stated in year of expenditure dollars, with the assumed escalation factors stated. All sources of revenue shown in the operations and in the capital financial plan should be identified individually. All assumptions that relate to expenditure and revenue estimates must also be documented, including specification of ridership or sales growth (if appropriate) separately from inflation forecasts.

1. The operations budget must be sustainable and generally balanced each year over the period of the SRTP, using currently available or reasonably projected revenues.

2. Where increases in local revenues (e.g., fares, sales taxes, general fund revenues) are required in order to sustain existing service levels, describe and discuss the steps and timelines needed to achieve the revenue increases, and the contingent policies and actions that will be taken if the proposed revenue increases do not materialize.

3. Fixed route and demand responsive services may be portrayed separately or in a single budget; however, the expenses and revenue for each must be separately identifiable if portrayed in a single budget.

4. Describe planned fare increases and/or decreases, and/or changes in fare policies, including the year(s) these changes are planned to take effect. Describe planned changes in interoperator transfer arrangements and/or fares (this pertains to interoperator fares

themselves, not to the means of fare collection; i.e., Clipper SM

) Note: as set forth in MTC Resolution No. 3176, fare and local discretionary revenue contributions are expected to keep pace with inflation, and fare structure shall comply with regional policy on fare coordination (Resolution No. 3866, Revised).

150


5. Separately identify funding sources and amounts to support operating budgets for ADA service, and any other paratransit or demand responsive services available to older adults and/or persons with disabilities.

6. Separately identify and describe funding contributions (expended or received) for services provided in partnership with others.

7. The multi-year operating budget shall utilize MTC projections of regional operating revenues. Local funding sources (e.g., transportation sales tax) that will expire during the period covered by the plan shall not be assumed to continue beyond their expiration dates, unless specific renewals have been approved. In order to portray the operating budget:

a. Forecast operating costs shall be portrayed in a manner that distinguishes significant expansion and/or contraction of existing service, and the introduction of new service;

b. The basis for the operating cost forecasts shall be clearly portrayed (e.g., cost per service hour and service hours);

c. The forecast escalation rates (revenue and expenses) must be clearly portrayed;

d. Indicate reserves available for operations and changes to reserves over the period of the SRTP, including anticipated unallocated TDA reserves;

e. Budget levels must correlate with the changes in service identified in the “Operations Plan.” The operations budget should not show a deficit.

f. Identify sources of operating revenue:

i. Fares;

ii. Property taxes (directly levied, levied by others);

iii. Bridge tolls (directly levied (e.g., GGT), MTC 2% toll revenues, MTC 5% unrestricted general fund, MTC Regional Measure 2, MTC Regional Measure 3);

iv. Sales tax (AB 1107, directly levied (e.g., transit district), levied by others (e.g., county sales tax measure (identify Measure));

v. Contributions from JPA partner funding agencies;

vi. Federal (FTA section 5307 Operating Assistance, FTA section 5307 Preventive Maintenance, FTA section 5311, other;

vii. Regional (MTC Lifeline, Air District);

viii. Advertising;

ix. Earned interest;

x. BART coordination funds (TDA, STA, BART district funds);

xi. TDA (directly apportioned, contributed by others);

xii. State Transit Assistance [(directly apportioned, contributed by others) – Revenue-Based, Population-Based (county block grants)].

xiii. Senate Bill 1 Transit State of Good Repair funds if used for operations;

xiv. California Cap and Trade Program

C. In addition to future year forecasts, the SRTP should include a three-year retrospective of audited (if available) operating expenses and revenue.

151


6. Capital Improvement Program

Describe and discuss the capital programs (vehicles, facilities and equipment) required to carry out the operations and services set forth in the operating plan and budget. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) should provide the basis for requests for federal, state and regional funding for capital replacements, rehabilitation, and expansion projects. While the CIP does not have to be financially constrained to the extent that the operations budget does, it should reflect the operator’s reasonable expectation of funding, particularly as outlined in MTC’s Regional Transportation Plan.

A. Basis for Revenue Vehicle/Vessel Projects and/or Proposals, for Replacement, Rehabilitation, and Expansion.

1. Describe and discuss policies (or basis), and justification for vehicle replacement:

a. Life cycle considerations (current vehicles/vessels);

b. Passenger amenity considerations (vehicles to be acquired);

c. Mode of power and/or emissions considerations (vehicles/vessels to be acquired);

d. Other considerations (e.g., safety, lack of availability of service parts for current vehicles/vessels)

2. Describe and discuss policies (or basis), and justification for rehabilitation/retrofit:

a. Life cycle considerations;

b. Passenger amenity considerations;

c. Emissions considerations;

d. Other considerations.

3. Describe and discuss policies (or basis), and justification for proposed fleet expansion (or contraction):

a. Relationship to fixed route or demand responsive operations plan;

b. Basis for type(s) of vehicles/vessels desired (expansion).

c. Number and type(s) of vehicles to be removed from service (contraction), including intended disposition (e.g., sale, placed for lease, salvaged).

4. Current Revenue Vehicle/Vessel Fleet Inventory: Identify items “a” through “k” below individually or by subfleet.

a. Manufacturer;

b. Year of manufacture;

c. Identification number (individual VIN or VIN sequence for subfleets);

d. Length of vehicle(s)/vessel(s);

e. Seating capacity of vehicle(s)/vessel(s);

f. Wheelchair capacity of vehicle(s)/vessel(s);

g. Vehicle/Vessel type (e.g., minivan, standard van, cutaway van, standard motorbus, articulated motorbus, trolley bus, articulated trolleybus, over-the-road coach, light rail, heavy rail, passenger ferryboat, diesel-electric locomotive, trailer car);

h. In fixed route service or demand responsive service;

152


i. Mode of power (e.g., diesel, CNG, LPG, gasoline, electric, hydrogen fuel cell, hybrid gasoline-electric, diesel-electric locomotive, trailer car not powered).

j. Has major rehabilitation of the vehicle(s)/vessel(s) been performed; if yes, how many years of service life were added;

k. Year the vehicle(s)/vessel(s) will be retired from service (even if this is beyond the time horizon of the SRTP);

5. Vehicle/Vessel Replacement: Identify items “a” through “k” below individually or by subfleet, showing the number of replacement vehicles/vessels to be placed in service per year over the planning horizon.

a. Number of vehicles/vessels to be replaced;

b. Anticipated year of manufacture of replacement vehicle(s)/vessel(s);

c. Year vehicle(s)/vessel(s) will be placed in service;




g. Vehicle/Vessel type (e.g., minivan, large van, small bus, suburban bus, trolley bus, over-the-road coach, articulated bus, light rail, heavy rail, passenger ferryboat, diesel-electric locomotive, trailer car);

h. Placement of the vehicle(s) in fixed route service or demand responsive service;


j. Estimated cost of replacement vehicle(s)/vessel(s) (unit cost or total by subfleet), with annual escalation rates clearly portrayed;

k. Sources and amounts of funding for replacement vehicle(s)/vessel(s) (unit cost or total by subfleet – same as portrayed in “j” above), with annual escalation rates clearly portrayed.

6. Vehicle/Vessel Rehabilitation (if applicable): Identify items “a” through “m” below individually or by subfleet, showing the number of vehicles/vessels to be rehabilitated per year over the planning horizon.

a. Manufacturer;

b. Year of manufacture;

c. Identification number, (individual VIN or VIN sequence for subfleets);





h. Mode of power (e.g., diesel, CNG, LPG, gasoline, electric, hydrogen fuel cell, hybrid gasoline-electric, diesel-electric locomotive, trailer car not powered).

153


i. Year of planned rehabilitation (even if this falls outside the time horizon of the SRTP);

j. Years of service life to be added;

k. Rehabilitation to be performed in-house or contracted, if known;

l. Estimated cost of rehabilitation of vehicle(s)/vessel(s) (unit cost or total by subfleet), with annual escalation rates clearly portrayed;

m. Sources and amounts of funding for rehabilitation of vehicle(s)/vessel(s) (unit cost or total by subfleet – same as portrayed in “l” above), with annual escalation rates clearly portrayed.

7. Vehicle/Vessel Expansion (if applicable): Identify items “a” through “k” below individually or by subfleet.

a. The number of expansion vehicle(s)/vessel(s) to be placed in service per year over the planning horizon of the SRTP;

b. Anticipated year of manufacture;

c. Year vehicle(s)/vessel(s) will be placed in service;





h. Placement of the vehicle(s) in fixed route service or demand responsive service;


j. Estimated cost of expansion vehicle(s)/vessel(s) (unit cost or total by subfleet), with annual escalation rates clearly portrayed;

k. Sources and amounts of funding for expansion vehicle(s)/vessel(s) (unit cost or total by subfleet – same as portrayed in “j” above), with annual escalation rates clearly portrayed.

8. Summary of Revenue Vehicle/Vessel Fleet Inventory:

a. Total number of fixed route vehicles in active fleet (identified by type; e.g., see item 7.g. above);

b. Total number of fixed route vehicles in reserve fleet;

c. Spare ratio of fixed route vehicles (at maximum pullout);

d. Total number of vessels in active fleet;

e. Total number of vessels in reserve fleet;

f. Spare ratio of vessels (at maximum pullout);

g. Total number of demand responsive vehicles in active fleet (identified by type; e.g., see item 7. g. above);

h. Total number of demand responsive vehicles in reserve fleet;

154


i. Spare ratio of demand responsive vehicles (at maximum pullout)

j. Useful life of revenue vehicles;

k. Next rehabilitation or replacement of vehicles and vessels, even if beyond the SRTP horizon.

B. Non-Revenue Vehicle Projects and/or Proposals: Replacement, Rehabilitation, and Expansion or Contraction.

1. Discuss replacement, and/or expansion or contraction of non-revenue vehicle fleet:

a. Briefly, describe uses of non-revenue vehicles;

b. Briefly, discuss policies or basis, and justification for replacement (e.g., life cycle, obsolescence, safety considerations);

c. Briefly discuss policies or basis, and justification for expansion and/or contraction.

2. Non-Revenue Vehicle Fleet Inventory: Identify items “a” through “n” below, showing the number of vehicles per year over the planning horizon.

a. Manufacturer (current vehicles);

b. The year of manufacture (or anticipated year of manufacture for replacement and expansion vehicles);

c. The years the vehicle(s) will remain in service;

d. Year vehicle(s) will be retired from service;

e. The year replacement vehicle(s) will be placed in service;

f. Estimated cost of replacement vehicle(s) (unit cost or total by subfleet), with annual escalation rates clearly portrayed;

g. Replacement vehicle(s): source(s) and amount of funding, identifying funds that have been secured (programmed, allocated or received) and funds that have not been secured, with annual escalation rates clearly portrayed;

h. The year expansion vehicle(s) will be placed in service;

i. Estimated cost of expansion vehicle(s) (unit cost or total by subfleet), with annual escalation rates clearly portrayed;

j. Expansion vehicle(s): source(s) and amount of funding, identifying funds that have been secured (programmed, allocated or received) and funds that have not been secured, with annual escalation rates clearly portrayed;

k. Vehicle type;

l. Mode of power;

m. Has rehabilitation of the vehicle(s) been performed or is it planned;

n. Total number of vehicles in non-revenue fleet.

Operators with non-revenue vehicles which are not proposed for replacement with regionally programmed funds may choose to provide less detailed information.

C. Major Facilities Replacement, Rehabilitation, Upgrade, and Expansion projects of the types listed below. Identify the locations of new or expanded facilities. Provide project budget, including costs, sources of funds and amounts from each source, identifying funds that have

155


been programmed, allocated or received, and funds that have not been secured. Separately describe security projects. Specify if replacement and rehabilitation of facilities and equipment results in an asset that differs from the existing asset, and how it differs.

1. Administrative;

2. Maintenance and Fueling;

3. Vehicle/Vessel Storage/Staging;

4. Park-and-Ride;

5. Stations and Stops;

6. Right-of-Way, Track, or Guideway;

7. Bicycle Facilities (e.g., lockers).

D. Tools and Equipment: Replacement and/or Upgrade. Discuss current and/or proposed projects. Combine projects into a lump sum and indicate costs, sources of funds and amounts.

E. Asset Management: Briefly describe efforts to employ a systemic asset management program. Include current/past achievements and plans to upgrade or improve management (e.g. software tools, applications, business processes, integration into decision making processes) and/or provide a link to the agency’s Transit Asset Management plan.

7. Other Requirements

A. Provide the following information on expansion projects included in MTC Resolution No. 3434, Revised, or on major expansion projects included in MTC’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), if applicable:

1. Portray the project’s current capital cost, providing explanation where costs differ from the portrayal in MTC Resolution No. 3434, Revised, or the RTP.

2. Capital Funding:

a. Discuss and describe secured funding, including fund programming and/or allocation actions, conditions imposed on the use of funds, fund sources and amounts;

b. Explain any changes in secured or anticipated funding, providing explanation where funding differs from the portrayal in MTC Resolution No. 3434, Revised, or the RTP;

c. Portray and discuss the project’s cash flow needs, including any anticipated difficulties, and approved or anticipated decisions on bond financing.

3. Project Schedule: Provide the most current schedule for the project, showing key milestones completed, and anticipated milestone completion dates.

4. Operating Costs: Provide operating expense and revenue projections (including sources of funds).

5. Discuss any activities related to changes in land use planned or anticipated in association with the project, including:

a. Participation in the development of local land use policies;

156


b. Policies and/or planning pertaining to, and/or development adjacent to transit stations;

c. Descriptions of land that the transit agency currently owns or controls adjacent to transit stop/stations (use a map if desired to show locations);

d. Resilience Planning: Describe any policies and/or planning pertaining to, and/or development of facilities for upcoming regional challenges like sea level rise.

6. Discuss any current or anticipated policy, planning, funding or operating issues associated with the project, not reflected in responses to items 1 through 5, above.

B. Describe the agency’s public outreach and involvement process relative to environmental justice goals. Describe the most recent outcomes from this process.

C. In the event the operator intends to use FTA section 5303 funds to contract out for the authoring of the SRTP, the MTC SRTP Program Manager must have the option to review the description or scope of work before publication of the RFP. MTC may or may not be able to actually participate in the consultant selection process, depending upon scheduling and other commitments, but transit operators are to extend the invitation in a timely manner.

SCHEDULE AND TRANSMITTAL

1. Submit one (1) hard copy and an electronic copy of the draft SRTP to MTC staff for review according to the schedule below. Electronic copies may be provided in PDF format, but all spreadsheets must also be provided in MS Excel.

2. Submit one (1) hard copy and an electronic copy of final SRTP to MTC according to the schedule below. Electronic copies may be provided in PDF format, but all spreadsheets must also be provided in MS Excel.

Deliverable Delivery Dates FY2018-19: Draft FY2020-29 SRTP July 1, 2019 Final FY2020-29 SRTP October 1, 2019 FY2019-20: Draft FY2021-30 SRTP July 1, 2020 Final FY2021-30 SRTP October 1, 2020

REQUIRED APPROVALS

The operator’s governing body must adopt the SRTP.

MINOR REVISIONS TO THESE GUIDELINES

Modifications to these guidelines may be approved by the Programming and Allocations Committee.

157

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18Increase/

(Decrease) Percentage2018-19 (Half

Year)Dixon Readi Ride Monday - Friday 51,839 55,650 54,167 60,673 62,144 1,471 2.6% 30,807 Dixon Readi Ride Saturdays 1,267 1,460 1,630 1,501 1,283 (218) -14.9% 431 Dixon Readi Ride Intercity Paratransit 38 205 292 357 416 59 28.8% 157

53,144 57,315 56,089 62,531 63,843 1,312 31,395 -

Rio Vista Delta Breeze All Routes 10,248 11,778 10,134 9,680 10,009 329 2.8% 5,042 -

SolTrans Fixed Route 765,870 761,818 811,637 732,705 681,420 (51,285) -6.7% 364,907 SolTrans SolanoExpress 672,234 690,506 705,198 677,670 666,340 (11,330) -1.6% 368,928 SolTrans Paratransit 25,068 25,669 23,525 21,971 24,528 2,557 10.0% 13,731 SolTrans Dial-a-Ride 9,343 6,731 5,505 4,847 4,999 152 2.3% 2,806 SolTrans Local Taxi Scrip 13,390 7,013 13,337 10,136 8,544 (1,592) -22.7% 3,064

1,485,905 1,491,737 1,559,202 1,447,329 1,385,831 (61,498) 753,436 -

Vacaville City Coach Fixed Route 511,194 485,578 492,754 432,670 405,254 (27,416) -5.6% 184,111 Vacaville City Coach Paratransit 12,175 13,880 16,269 16,340 15,527 (813) -5.9% 6,514 Vacaville City Coach Local Taxi Scrip 12,384 12,474 9,971 9,212 5,936 (3,276) -26.3% 2,999

535,753 511,932 518,994 458,222 426,717 (31,505) 193,624 -

Fairfield and Suisun Transit Fixed Route 684,436 673,951 627,267 582,713 572,238 (10,475) -1.6% 265,334 Fairfield and Suisun Transit Solano Express 392,396 396,703 401,499 409,903 393,711 (16,192) -4.1% 179,241 Fairfield and Suisun Transit Paratransit 24,687 25,667 25,221 25,461 25,324 (137) -0.5% 11,502 Fairfield and Suisun Transit Local/ARC Taxi Scrip 52,612 56,818 28,467 26,393 20,438 (5,955) -10.5% 11,841 Fairfield and Suisun Transit Volunteer Driver* 4,036 2,844 1,801 0.0%

1,158,167 1,155,983 1,084,255 1,044,470 1,011,711 (32,759) 467,918

ANNUAL RIDERSHIP SUMMARY COMPARISON

158


DATE: March 27, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Robert Guerrero, Director of Planning RE: Transportation and Land Use Activities Update

Background: The Solano Transportation Authority (STA) and its member agencies have identified opportunity areas called Priority Development Areas (PDA) to prioritize housing and job growth in each city near transit locations. In addition, locations in the unincorporated area were identified as opportunity sites for agricultural preservation, open space and/or farm to market locations called Priority Conservation Areas (PCA). Solano County initially had 8 PDAs and 5 PCAs in 2008. These were selected by the cities and County of Solano and formally approved by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for future focused planning and implementation. Since then, Solano County has increased these to 13 PDAs and 9 PCAs through a similar selection process by the cities and the County of Solano. The significance of PDAs and PCAs for the STA is that transportation funding was prioritized for those locations since the first federal One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) cycle in 2013. Solano County and the four North Bay was required to program 50% of the county OBAG share (approximately $10 million of $20 million) within PDAs with a separate allocation of $2 million for PCAs. This funding requirement and amounts carried over into OBAG 2 and will likely be similar in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 OBAG 3 cycle. With a greater focus at the regional and state level on housing and job production, the implementation of PDAs, and potentially future PCAs, will be affected by the Regional CASA Compact recommendations and proposed by ABAG/MTC strategies identified in ABAG/MTC’s Regional Growth Strategies Perspective Paper #3. Discussion: The CASA Compact was recently completed by the Committee to House the Bay Area in coordination with MTC and ABAG staff in January 2019. It recognized a funding need of $1.5 billion to house the bay area region with a menu of potential funding sources to implement the Compact. The strategies include creating new tax/permit fees, creating a new regional housing agency for the region, and potential land use development streamlining tools. As a result of this effort, a series of new legislative bills have been introduced that reflect the CASA Compact’s policy recommendations. Attachment A includes CASA’s Revenue Menu and Policy Recommendations. The full document can be downloaded from the following link: https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/CASA_Compact.pdf

159

https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/CASA_Compact.pdf

Recently, STA staff organized a Working Group of staff from the County of Solano, Solano Economic Develop Corporation, LAFCO and several cities to help STA staff collectively analyze the CASA compact and its impacts to Solano County. This group was also tasked to review and provide feedback to STA staff on MTC’s new Regional Growth Strategies Perspective Paper. The paper was completed as part of a series of perspective papers to inform Solano County’s MTC and ABAG representatives as part of their Horizons Initiative. The Regional Growth Strategies Perspective Paper introduces three frame work concepts to support the implementation and focused growth in PDAs:

1. Concept A: Double Down on PDAs 2. Concept B: PDA Plus 3. Concept C: Expanded Footprint (Lagoon Valley was cited as a potential new

growth area) Details on each concept are included between page 33 and 37 in the Regional Growth Strategies Perspective Paper which can also be downloaded from the following link: https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Horz_Perspective3_022719.pdf Each concept will have potential financial implications for future transportation investments. STA staff is working with the Planning Directors, the Solano City Managers and the Working Group to develop comments which will be brought back to the STA Board at the May 8th meeting. At the Board meeting, staff will provide its analysis of this perspective paper. Lastly, MTC and ABAG are working in parallel to update PDA and PCA designations. In addition, they are going to introduce Priority Production Areas (PPA) as part of the Employment Growth Perspective Paper anticipated in the next few months. Although the specific process is still to be determined, MTC anticipates updates to the PDA, PCA and PPAs will begin in August of 2016 with approvals anticipated in December of this year. STA staff will continue to monitor this and inform the STA TAC and Solano County Planning Directors Group as information becomes available. Fiscal Impact: None at this time. Recommendation: Informational. Attachment:

A. CASA’s Revenue Menu and Policy Recommendations

160

https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Horz_Perspective3_022719.pdf

January 2019 | 19

Figure 9: Funding Options

Empl

oyer

s

$200

millio

n

0.1%-

0.75%

Gros

s Rec

eipts

Tax,

varia

ble ra

tes ba

sed o

n sec

tor

and f

irm si

ze, re

gion-w

ide

Almos

t half

the j

urisd

iction

s in

the Ba

y Area

charg

e som

e form

of

gross

rece

ipts t

ax, o

ften a

s a

busin

ess t

ax

Small

busin

esse

s wou

ld be

ex

empt

from

the ta

x. Em

ploye

rs in

a juri

sdict

ions w

ith an

exist

ing

tax w

ill ge

t a cr

edit

38 ju

risdic

tions

in th

e Bay

Area

ha

ve a

comm

ercial

linka

ge fe

e, wit

h a m

edian

of $1

0 per

sq. ft

.

Deve

lope

rs

$200

millio

n

$5-$2

0 per

sq. ft

.Co

mmerc

ial Li

nkag

e Fee

on

new

cons

tructi

on; v

ariab

le rat

es ba

sed o

n num

ber o

f wo

rkers

at loc

ation

, jobs

-hous

ing

ratio

of ho

st jur

isdict

ion, a

nd

locati

on w

ithin

or ou

tside

trans

it-se

rved a

reas,

region

-wide

Loca

l Go

vern

men

ts

Juris

dictio

ns w

ith an

exist

ing

linka

ge fe

e (wh

ich is

set a

side f

or ho

using

) will

get a

cred

it

Taxp

ayer

s

Poten

tial N

ew So

urce

s of R

even

ueTa

rget: $

1.5 bi

llion p

er ye

ar

Menu

of F

undi

ng S

ourc

es to

Impl

emen

t the

Com

pact

$200

millio

n

25 pe

rcent

Rede

velop

ment

Reve

nue S

et-As

ide fo

r affo

rdable

hous

ing in

TP

As (in

cludin

g port

ion fo

r sc

hools

and s

pecia

l dist

ricts)

, sta

tewide

Form

er Re

deve

lopme

nt Ag

encie

s were

requ

ired t

o set

aside

20 pe

rcent

of the

ir rev

enue

tow

ards a

fforda

ble ho

using

Prop

erty

Own

ers

$400

millio

n

1/4-ce

nt Sa

les Ta

x, reg

ion-w

ide

Most

jurisd

iction

have

loca

l sale

s tax

es. C

ould

be lin

ked t

o “po

int of

sa

le” an

d e-co

mmerc

e leg

islati

on. C

ould

be fo

lded i

nto a

“meg

a-mea

sure”

that

includ

es

fundin

g for

trans

porta

tion

Phila

nthr

opy

CZI-T

SFF I

nitiat

ivePo

licy a

nd In

frastr

uctur

e Fun

ds

Key

$100

millio

n

1 perc

ent

Vaca

nt Ho

mes T

axon

the

asse

ssed

value

of va

cant

home

, reg

ion-w

ide

Vanc

ouve

r ado

pted a

n Emp

ty Ho

mes T

ax of

1 pe

rcent

in 20

16Oa

kland

adop

ted a

Vaca

nt Pr

opert

y (pa

rcel) T

ax of

$3,00

0 to

6,000

in 20

18

Voter

App

roval

State

Legis

lation

Polic

y Ben

efit

Fee I

mpos

ition

$100

millio

n

$48 p

er ye

arPa

rcel T

ax, re

gion-w

ide

Bay A

rea ap

prove

d Mea

sure

AA

for $1

2 per

year

in 20

16$2

00 m

illion

$10 p

er sq

. ft.

Flat C

omme

rcial

Linka

ge Fe

eon

new

cons

tructi

on, re

gion-w

ide

$100

millio

n

20 pe

rcent

Reve

nue S

harin

g Con

tributi

on

from

future

prop

erty t

ax gr

owth,

reg

ion-w

ide

Minn

eapo

lis-S

t. Pau

l ado

pted a

se

ven-c

ounty

Fisc

al Di

spari

ties

Prog

ram (ta

x-bas

e sha

ring)

in 19

71 th

at po

ols 40

perce

nt of

future

reve

nue i

ncrea

se

$200

millio

n

$40-1

20 pe

r job

Head

Tax;

varia

ble ra

tes ba

sed

on nu

mber

of em

ploye

es, jo

bs-

hous

ing ra

tioan

d tran

sit ac

cess

, reg

ion-w

ide

Moun

tain V

iew ad

opted

a He

ad

Tax o

f up t

o $14

9 in 2

018

$100

millio

n

5-Yr. T

ermGe

neral

Obli

gatio

n Bon

ds,

issue

d by a

regio

nal h

ousin

g en

terpri

se, re

newe

d eve

ry fiv

e ye

ars, re

gion-w

ide

161

CAS

A C

ompa

ctPr

otec

tion

Pres

erva

tion

Prod

uctio

n

1.

Just

Cau

se E

vict

ion

Sta

ndar

dsX

X

2.

Em

erge

ncy

Ren

t Cap

XX

3.

Rig

ht to

Leg

al C

ouns

el a

nd E

vict

ion

Pro

ceed

ings

XX

4.

Stre

amlin

ing

for A

DU

s an

d Ti

ny H

omes

X

5.

Min

imum

Zon

ing

for H

ousi

ng N

ear T

rans

itX

6.

Effe

ctiv

e an

d Fa

ir S

tate

Hou

sing

Stre

amlin

ing

(SB

35)

Law

sX

7.

Pub

lic L

and

for H

ousi

ng P

rodu

ctio

nX

8.

Stre

amlin

ing

of L

ocal

Hou

sing

App

rova

l Pro

cess

X

9. R

egio

nal H

ousi

ng E

nter

pris

eX

X

10. N

ew R

even

ue to

Impl

emen

t the

Com

pact

XX

X

12

Ele

men

ts o

f th

e C

AS

A C

ompa

ct

162


DATE: March 15, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Anthony Adams, Project Manager RE: Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) – 2st Quarter Update FY 2018-19 Background: The STA and the County of Solano coordinates on the collection and management of the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF), a transportation component of the County’s Public Facilities Fee (PFF). The County Board of Supervisors added a $1,500 per dwelling unit equivalent dedicated to the RTIF program as part of the PFF at on December 3, 2013. The RTIF collection formally began on February 3, 2014 with nearly $5.3 million collected as of the end of the 1st Quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19. Seven RTIF Working Groups were created to administer the RTIF funds for transportation projects that address development growth. Five of the seven RTIF Working Groups are geographically situated with the City of Fairfield (3 of 5), Suisun City (2 of 5) and the County of Solano (5 of 5) located in multiple Working Groups. Attachment A illustrates the five RTIF Working Group boundaries. The remaining two working groups were created separately with a 10% off the top revenue dedication (5% each) for both the unincorporated County area and transit related projects. The selected RTIF eligible transportation projects for each Working Group are the following: WORKING GROUPS

PROJECTS AGENCIES

District 1 Jepson Parkway Fairfield, Suisun City, Vacaville, and County

District 2 SR 12/Church Road Project (Update Needed)

Fairfield, Rio Vista, Suisun City and County

District 3 Fairgrounds Drive Benicia, Vallejo and County District 4 Green Valley Overcrossing Fairfield and County District 5 SR 113 Safety Study

Dixon and County

Transit District 6

Fairgrounds Drive Transit Operators and STA

County Unincorporated District 7

McCormick Rd and Hay Rd County

The RTIF Working Groups meet at least once annually to provide a status update on the program and the selected project.

163

Discussion: RTIF Revenues for 2nd Quarter of FY 2018-19 Solano County has received RTIF checks from each member agency for FY 2018-19 for Q2. For the second quarter of FY 2018-19, a total of $405,839 has been collected for all RTIF districts. This amount is above the average as compared with other previous quarters. The total amount of RTIF funds collected passed the $6 million mark. Below is a summary of revenue collected by each district for Q2.

RTIF Revenue History by District

FY 2018-19

2nd Quarter GrandTotal RTIF Collection $405,839 $6,265,471 Interest $2,974 2% STA Administration $8,117 $125,309 $0 RTIF Revenue for Eligible Projects $397,722 $6,065,759 Total Disbursements Remaining Funds

District 1 Jepson Corridor $197,246 $2,955,013 $1,375,192 $1,579,821

District 2 SR 12 Corridor $98,684 $460,225 $121,481 $338,743 District 3 South County $30,976 $231,589 $60,000 $171,589 District 4 Central County $21,618 $1,317,210 $1,628,000 $37,210 District 5 SR 113 $9,427 $486,166 $183,571 $302,595

District 6 Transit (5%) $19,886 $307,778 $208,128 $99,650 District 7 County Road (5%) $19,886 $307,778 $121,760 $186,018 Total RTIF Revenue Received for Eligible Projects: $397,722 $6,065,759 $3,350,133 $2,715,627

Collecting RTIF revenues assists in compiling funds to deliver RTIF eligible projects in a timely manner. Fiscal Impact: None to the STA Budget. Funding is provided by the Solano County Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF). Recommendation: Informational.

164

Agenda Item 12.C April 10, 2019

DATE: March 29, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Triana Crighton, Planning Assistant RE: Summary of Funding Opportunities Discussion: Below is a list of funding opportunities that will be available to STA member agencies during the next few months, broken up by Federal, State, and Local. Attachment A provides further details for each program.

FUND SOURCE AMOUNT AVAILABLE

APPLICATION DEADLINE

Federal

1. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects (NSFLTP)

Up to $300 million; projects of at least $25 million

First deadline is December 18, 2018, applications accepted on a Quarterly Rolling Basis.

Regional 1. Carl Moyer Off-Road Equipment Replacement Program (for

Sacramento Metropolitan Area) Approximately $10 million

Due On First-Come, First-Served Basis

2. Air Resources Board (ARB) Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP)

Up to $7,000 rebate per light-duty vehicle

Due On First-Come, First-Served Basis (Waitlist)

3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Hybrid Electric Vehicle Purchase Vouchers (HVIP) (for fleets)

Approximately $5,000 to $45,000 per qualified request


4. PG&E Charge Program Pays to install 7,500 chargers in PG&E area


5. BAAQMD Charge! Program $5 million Awarded First-come, First serve. Closes June 30, 2019.

6. Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA-3) $350,000 Open Now

State

Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Informational. Attachment:

A. Detailed Funding Opportunities Summary

165


166

ATTACHMENT A

The following funding opportunities will be available to the STA member agencies during the next few months. Please distribute this information to the appropriate departments in your jurisdiction. Yellow highlighted grants have deadlines approaching soon!

Fund Source Application Contact**

Project Types/Eligibility

Amount Available

Program Description Call For Projects

STA Staff Contact

Potential Projects

Federal Grants Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects (NSFLTP)

Jeffrey Mann, NSFLTP Program Manager (202) 366-9494 [email protected]

Tribal and/or Federally Significant Land (on, adjacent to, or providing access to)

$300 million; construction cost of at least $25 million, projects with $50+ million will be prioritized.

Federal funding to projects of national significance for construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of transportation facilities within, adjacent to, or providing access to Federal or Tribal lands.

Ongoing. Application Due On First-Come, First-Served Basis

Triana Crighton (707) 399-3230 [email protected]

Projects involving Travis AFB

Regional Grants Carl Moyer Off-Road Equipment Replacement Program (for Sacramento Metropolitan Area)

Gary A. Bailey Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (916) 874-4893 [email protected]

Replace high-polluting off-road equipment

Approx. $10 million, maximum per project is $4.5 million

The Off-Road Equipment Replacement Program (ERP), an extension of the Carl Moyer Program, provides grant funds to replace Tier 0, high-polluting off-road equipment with the cleanest available emission level equipment.

Ongoing. Application Due On First-Come, First-Served Basis

Cory Peterson (707) 399-3214 [email protected]

Air Resources Board (ARB) Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP)*

Graciela Garcia ARB (916) 323-2781 [email protected]

Low/No Carbon Vehicles

Up to $7,000 rebate per light-duty vehicle

The Zero-Emission and Plug-In Hybrid Light-Duty Vehicle (Clean Vehicle) Rebate Project is intended to encourage and accelerate zero-emission vehicle deployment and technology innovation. Rebates for clean vehicles are now available through the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) funded by the Air Resources Board (ARB) and implemented statewide by the California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE).

Application Due On First-Come, First-Served Basis (Currently applicants are put on waitlist)

Cory Peterson (707) 399-3214 [email protected]

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Hybrid Electric Vehicle Purchase Vouchers (HVIP)*

To learn more about how to request a voucher, contact: 888-457-HVIP [email protected]

Low/No Carbon Engines

Approx. $5,000 to $45,000 per qualified request

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) created the HVIP to speed the market introduction of low-emitting hybrid trucks and buses. It does this by reducing the cost of these vehicles for truck and bus fleets that purchase and operate the vehicles in the State of California. The HVIP voucher is intended to reduce about half the incremental costs of purchasing hybrid heavy-duty trucks and buses.

Application Due On First-Come, First-Served Basis

Brandon Thomson (707) 399-3234 [email protected]

- FAST Renewable Diesel Bus Purchase

167

















Fund Source Application Contact**

Project Types/Eligibility

Amount Available

Program Description Call For Projects

STA Staff Contact

Potential Projects

PG&E EV Charge Network

1-877-704-8723 [email protected]

EV Infrastructure Funds infrastructure to support 7,500 chargers in PG&E service area

PG&E plans to install 7,500 charging stations across their service area. Most of these will be at employers or multi-unit dwellings. This could be a potential avenue for funding and coordination to bring more EV infrastructure to Solano County.

January 2018 – 2020, or funds exhausted

Triana Crighton (707) 399-3230 [email protected]

EV Charging Infrastructure

Charge! (from BAAQMD)

415-749-4994 [email protected]

EV Infrastructure $5 million The Air District’s Charge! Program offers grant funding to offset the cost of purchasing and installing new publicly available electric vehicle charging stations within the Bay Area.

Awarded First-Come, First Serve. Closes June 30, 2019

Triana Crighton (707) 399-3230

EV Charging Infrastructure

Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA-3)

Cheryl Chi, TDA Program Manager, at [email protected] (415) 778-5339

Bike & Ped Projects $350,000 annually

Transportation Development Act Article 3, or TDA 3, provides funding annually for bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Open now Cory Peterson (707) 399-3214 [email protected]

Bicycle and pedestrian safety improvement projects

Statewide Grants

**STA staff, Triana Crighton, can be contacted directly at (707) 399-3230 or [email protected] for assistance with finding more information about any of the funding opportunities listed in this report

168












Agenda Item 12.D March 13, 2019

DATE: March 4, 2019 TO: STA Board FROM: Johanna Masiclat, Clerk of the Board RE: 2019 STA Board and Advisory Committees Meeting Schedule Discussion: Attached is the 2019 STA Board and Advisory Committees Meeting Schedule that may be of interest to the STA Board. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Informational. Attachment:

A. STA Board and Advisory Committees Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2019

169

STA BOARD AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE CALENDAR YEAR 2019

DATE TIME DESCRIPTION LOCATION STATUS

Thurs., April 4 6:00 p.m. Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., April 10 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Thurs., April 18 9:30 a.m. Consolidated Transportation Svcs. Agency (CTSA-AC) TBD Tentative Tues., April 23 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., April 24 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Thurs., May 2 6:30 p.m. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., May 8 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Wed., May 15 1:30 p.m. Safe Routes to School Advisory (SR2S-AC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Thurs., May 16 1:00 p.m. Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) Joseph Nelson Comm. Cntr. Confirmed Tues., May 28 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., May 29 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Thurs., June 6 6:00 p.m. Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) STA Conference Room Tentative Wed., June 12 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Tues., June 25 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., June 26 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed (to be rescheduled) 6:30 p.m. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., July 10 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Thurs., July 18 9:30 a.m. Consolidated Transportation Svcs. Agency (CTSA-AC) TBD Tentative Thurs., July 18 1:00 p.m. Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) Benicia City Hall Confirmed July 24 (No Meeting) SUMMER

RECESS Intercity Transit Consortium N/A N/A

July 25 (No Meeting) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) N/A N/A Thurs., August 1 6:00 p.m. Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed August 8 (No Meeting) SUMMER

RECESS STA Board Meeting N/A N/A

Wed., August 21 1:30 p.m. Safe Routes to School Advisory (SR2S-AC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Tues., August 27 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., August 28 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Thurs., September 5 6:30 p.m. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., September 11 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Thurs., September 19 1:00 p.m. Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) Rio Vista Veterans Hall Confirmed Tues., September 24 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., September 25 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Thurs., October 3 6:00 p.m. Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., October 9 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Thurs., October 17 9:30 a.m. Consolidated Transportation Svcs. Agency (CTSA-AC) TBD Tentative No meeting due to STA’s Annual Awards in November (No STA Board Meeting)

Intercity Transit Consortium N/A N/A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) N/A N/A

Thurs., November 7 6:30 p.m. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., November 13 6:00 p.m. STA’s 21th Annual Awards TBD Confirmed Wed., November 20 11:30 a.m. Safe Routes to School Advisory (SR2S-AC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Thurs., November 21 1:00 p.m. Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) SolTrans Operations Facility Confirmed Tues., November 26 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., November 27 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Thurs., December 5 6:00 p.m. Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., December 11 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Tues., December 17 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., December 18 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed

STA Board: Meets 2nd Wednesday of Every Month Consortium : Meets Last Tuesday of Every Month TAC: Meets Last Wednesday of Every Month BAC: Meets 1st Thursday of every Odd Month PAC: Meets 1st Thursday of every Even Month PCC: Meets 3rd Thursday of every Odd Month SR2S-AC Meets Quarterly (Begins Feb.) on the 3rd Wed.

170

Documents

MEETING AGENDA 6:00 p.m., STA Board Regular Wednesday ... · 4/10/2019 · The complete STA Board Meeting Packet is available on STA’s Website at (Note: STA Board Meetings are