RECOMMENDED ACTION: Information Only Briefing Item 1

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT

Board of Directors

Executive Summary

Committees:

Planning Committee

External Affairs Committee

□

□

GM Memo No. 03-262 a

Meeting Date: October 15, 2003

Paratransit Committee □

Finance Committee □

Operations Committee □

Board of Directors

SUBJECT:

Approve Actions Related to Park and Ride Transit Centers to Support Bus Ridership

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Information Only □ Briefing Item Recommended Motion

1) Adopt Transit Center Park and Ride Policies;

2) Authorize General Manager to Enter Into a Memorandum of Understanding for the

Development of the Richmond Parkway Transit Center; and

3) Authorize General Manager to Enter into an Operating and Maintenance Agreement

with Caltrans for the Richmond Parkway Transit Center.

Changes to this memo, as noted in bold, reflect comments from the Planning

Committee as well as additional staff comments.

BOARD ACTION: Approved as Recommended [X]

Approved with Modification(s) [ ]

Other

MOTION: PEEPLES/WALLACE to approve staff recommendations as presented and shown below

(7-0-0-0).

• Adopt Transit Center Park and Ride Policies;

• Authorize General Manager to Enter Into a Memorandum of Understanding for the Development of

the Richmond Parkway Transit Center; and

• Authorize General Manager to Enter into an Operating and Maintenance Agreement with Caltrans

for the Richmond Parkway Transit Center.

Ayes: Director Peeples, Vice President Wallace, Directors Harper, Jaquez, Bischofberger, Kaplan,

President Piras - 7

Noes: None - 0

Abstain: None - 0

Absent: None - 0

The above order was passed and adopted on

October 15, 2003.

Rose Martinez, District Secretary

By

GM Memo No. 03-262a

Subject: Consider Actions Related to Park and Ride Transit Centers

Date: October 8, 2003

Page 2 of 8

Fiscal Impact:

None at this time. District has received $153,000 in STA funding to facilitate planning and

project management of the Richmond Parkway Transit Center, and will receive an additional

$37,500 in Contra Costa County Transportation Authority park and ride funds in the near

future.

Background/Discussion:

The Park and Ride Policy Discussion contained in this memo is especially timely for several

reasons:

4t The condition and operation of the Richmond Parkway and Hilltop Park and

Ride Lots is extremely poor and unsafe, exposing the District to risk and

liability.

2. Significant amounts of new capital monies are likely to be available to build

transit centers and park and ride lots along the I-80 corridor and in the San

Mateo Bridge and Dumbarton Bridge corridors (mostly through bridge toll

increases but also pending federal transportation reauthorizations).

3. The Region is developing the new RTP, the counties are refining their

countywide plans, and the District is updating its SRTP, allowing for policy

input on express bus and park and ride lot issues at both the regional and local

level. The ability to capture funding anticipated for express bus and ancillary

facilities requires identifying these projects at this time.

The AC Transit vision, as articulated in the District's Short Range Transit Plan is to be the

mobility manager for the East Bay; allowing anyone to go anywhere they want safely, quickly

and efficiently. The District's efforts have been focused on providing fixed-route and

paratransit service, with some attention to infrastructure to support the service, such as at

transit centers. But the major premise to date has been that people will access bus service

at the origin and destination of their trips either by walking/wheeling, bicycling, or using

other mass transit. This memo recommends that the District officially expand its support for

transit centers to include park and ride facilities where appropriate, and that the Board

approve policies governing the operation and maintenance of park and ride lots. Further,

the Board should authorize the General Manager to enter into agreements related to the

Richmond Parkway Transit Center.

GM Memo No. 03-262a



Page 3 of 8

National Experience with Park and Ride Facilities

Park and ride facilities have fulfilled a need to collect and shift travelers from low-occupancy

vehicles to high-occupancy transit vehicles for more than 60 years. As stated in NCHRP

Synthesis 213, Effective Use of Park-and-Ride Facilities, published in 1995, "Park-and-ride

facilities represent an important component of many transit systems in the United States." A

substantial body of transit and research literature has reviewed and supported the essential

role of park and ride facilities in providing transit ridership.

The NCHRP report recommends clear criteria for locating park and ride facilities:

□ "Locate park-and-ride facilities in congested travel corridors...with high levels of

travel demand."

q "Include preferential transit services, either rail or HOV lanes, to enhance park-

and-ride facility ridership levels."

□ "Orient park-and-ride facilities to ensure good accessibility and visibility."

A recent analysis of park and ride facilities operated by 24 major transit systems, as

reported in The Urban Transportation Monitor on June 13, 2003 (Attachment A), indicates

that a substantial number of transit agencies, both bus and rail in this country and in

Canada, currently consider park and ride lots critical to their transit operations. Transit

operators participating in the survey included BART, Miami, Houston, Dallas, Seattle, San

Diego, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City and Montreal. Many of these operators

provide over 1,000 park and ride spaces, such as Houston, Tacoma, Philadelphia,

Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City, Calgary and Montreal.

The primary characteristics of successful park and ride facilities, as defined by these transit

operators, include:

1. A location generally equidistant between the outskirts of their urbanized area and

the core central business district.

2. Over 90 percent of the lots were served by express transit service and/or transit

service with priority.

3. Over 70 percent of the lots were located within a half-mile of a major highway.

4. Over 70 percent of the lots are served by transit service with headways of 10

minutes or less.

A comparison for AC Transit to consider is the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority

of Austin, Texas. Much like AC Transit, Capital Metro is an all-bus operator in a medium-

sized city and urban area, with substantial service to a major university, and is considering

the implementation of Rapid Bus routes. CMTA's Five Year Facilities Plan, as amended in

May of 2003, contains the following statement: "Express services should be anchored by

GM Memo No. 03-262a



Page 4 of 8

off-street parking, and the amenities at the parking lots should convey that express service

is premium service."

Austin's Five-Year Facilities Plan includes the construction of a good number of well-

appointed park and ride facilities, most in conjunction with transit centers, with a built-out

total in excess of 1,000 spaces.

Regional Experience

The Bay Area case for the necessity of park and ride lots supporting express bus services

has been made many times, in many studies. Recently completed analyses supporting park

and ride facilities in the Bay Area for transit use include the Bay Crossings Study, the Water

Transit Authority Study, and the Contra Costa Express Bus Study. The Contra Costa report

concluded: "Another critical additional investment need in this corridor is an increase in

park-and-ride spaces. The opening of the HOV lane on Interstate 80 resulted in an

unanticipated surge in the popularity of park-and-ride lots, creating a shortage of spaces."

In addition, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's 2002 HOV Lane Master Plan

recommended an investment program to "add as many as 387 new miles of carpool lanes

around the region...and build more than a dozen new express bus/park-and-ride stations

around the Bay Area."

Additional studies reviewing park and ride facilities for express bus support are underway.

Caltrans has recently begun a state-wide Park and Ride and HOV Transit Enhancements

Project, with AC Transit planning staff on the Technical Advisory Committee. The initial

presentation of this study included the I-80 Corridor, particularly the portion served by

Vallejo Transit, as a statewide model for success. Also underway at this time is Caltrans

District Four's Bay Area System Plan for Regional Express Bus Service. That study, being

conducted by the UC Berkeley Transportation Center, has as a vital task the identification of

"Needed Infrastructure Improvements," including park and ride lots.

AC Transit Experience

Newer AC Transit Transbay express bus markets, such as the LA and SB lines, are located

in the outer portions of the District and are increasingly dependent on park and ride facilities

to bring passengers from their origins to Transbay service. Unlike traditional Transbay

service, which penetrates dense neighborhoods in urban areas and relies on patrons who

walk to the bus, express bus service serves outlying areas by collecting riders at a few

locations before entering the freeway, often with high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, and

proceeding to one or more destination stops.

GM Memo No. 03-262a



Page 5 of 8

Transbay lines are currently supported by several park and ride lots, but they have not been

guided by any official planning or policy recommendations. As a consequence, the location

of the lots is based almost solely on availability of land, with little analysis of how well they

serve express bus markets. Additionally, almost no attention is given to security and

maintenance of the lots, which is a critical component to attracting customers. The two most

successful park and ride centers served by Transbay buses are the Richmond Parkway

Transit Center (RPTC) and the Ardenwood Transit Center at the Dumbarton Bridge. Both of

these facilities fill very early in the morning and there is significant demand for additional

spaces. In December, the District will eliminate several low-productivity Transbay lines,

including the LB, LC and LD lines in Contra Costa County, which will likely increase demand

for access to the remaining LA line. Both of these sites are highly visible, and are located

at critical sites associated with interstate and state highways. Other AC Transit-utilized park

and ride facilities, such as Castro Valley, Island Drive in Alameda, and the Hilltop Park and

Ride, suffer from poor locations which are not easily visible, have no on-site security and

limited usage.

It should be noted that the development of Park and Ride lots in the District's suburban

fringes is consistent with AC Transit's service policies. These policies clearly identify the

need to provide transit service differently in the suburban fringe from that provided in the

urban core. It is therefore appropriate that suburban bus transit operators acknowledge

reality and consolidate passengers at Park and Ride locations. Suburban densities and the

level of traffic to core generators almost always means that using AC'S traditional express

bus pattern results in many meandering miles of poor patronage. In contrast, consolidating

passengers at Park and Ride locations maximizes patronage and minimizes bus operating

cost.

Recommended Policy Guidelines Related to Developing Park and Ride Centers:

AC Transit staff recommends that the Board approve guidelines that will be used to begin

integrating park and ride transit centers into the District's planning process. These would

include:

1. AC Transit planning documents, including the Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP),

should recognize the need for park and ride infrastructure to support some express

bus services. Future express bus planning studies should analyze the need for park

and ride centers as a critical component of the proposed service. A preliminary list of

park and ride locations in the District's service area that should be investigated is

shown in Attachment B. These six locations are based on existing and future service

needs, have been identified in other planning studies, and have potential funding

sources. This list will be updated in future versions of the SRTP. Bicycle lockers

should be considered, where appropriate, as an essential component of Park

and Ride Transit Centers, as should the presentation of transit information and

the availability of transit ticket sales.

GM Memo No. 03-262a



Page 6 of 8

2. AC Transit should begin discussions with partner agencies, such as Caltrans, to

investigate site opportunities and funding opportunities to increase capacity where

needed at existing sites and develop new sites, where warranted to support existing

express bus service.

3. AC Transit should consider assuming operation or ownership of park and ride

centers where they are needed to access AC Transit Transbay service.

4. Capital costs for all park and ride infrastructure owned or operated by AC Transit

will be funded by external capital sources.

5. Operating costs of all park and ride infrastructure owned or operated by AC Transit

will be funded by the users of the parking facility. Federal highway regulations clearly

limit the fees which can be assessed at park and ride centers when federal highway

funding has been used to construct that facility, such that the fees can only cover

operating and maintenance costs; parking fees cannot be used to subsidize transit

operations.

6. The goal for parking fees is to reflect the amortized costs of capital

investment in a Park and Ride Transit Center, regardless of how funded, as well

as operating and maintenance costs discussed in 5. above, except where

specifically prohibited by funding source. The Board may choose not to seek

this goal in some circumstances.

In addition, the following definition of appropriate locations for Park and Ride Transit

Centers should be included in the SRTP:

AC Transit reaffirms that its basic service model for local and East Bay Rapid

service is on-street operation and pickup, reinforcing a walkable and pedestrian

oriented urban design. In most locations in the service area, AC Transit Transbay

operations can also be provided efficiently and effectively through on street

operation and pickup. AC Transit further reaffirms its committment to supporting

transit-friendly development throughout the service area.

However, under current conditions, especially in the fringes of the service area,

Transbay/express service cannot be provided effectively or efficiently through on-

street service. As a result, AC Transit will consider owning and/or operating

automobile park and ride facilities for transbay and express services in these

locations because:

a. The population density of the area is too low; and

b. The pedestrian access for residents in the area to streets where

service might operate is poor.

In addition, in all cases where substantial park and ride investments are made,

the District will view these investments as part of a broader effort to develop a

transit-oriented community adjacent to the proposed facility, with the park and

GM Memo No. 03-262a



Page 7 of 8

ride facility serving as an initial project to develop a viable and attractive

transit option.

Specific Issues at the Richmond Parkway Transit Center

The Richmond Parkway Transit Center (RTPC) is currently the most critical park and ride

center used by our Transbay riders, and existing conditions there make it extremely difficult

for many riders to access it. The lot fills by 6:45 a.m., vandalism to parked vehicles is

unfortunately a regular occurrence, and on-site bus shelters have also been vandalized and

subsequently removed. Caltrans, the current owner of this facility, cannot provide on-site

security or prompt, regular maintenance, and wishes to divest itself of the Richmond

Parkway Transit Center, as well as other properties.

AC Transit staff has been investigating the provision of on-site security and replacement of

the removed bus shelters, by negotiating an encroachment and maintenance permit with

Caltrans. Funds for physical improvements, as well as AC Transit staff time, are being

provided by STA funds previously allocated for capital improvements to the lot. Providing

on-going security would require a parking fee to cover this operating cost.

In the long term, $8 million in capital funds for a parking garage at the RPTC site is

contained in the Contra Costa County STIP. The proposed garage will contain up to 800

spaces. An additional $15 million is programmed in S.B. 916, the potential upcoming Bridge

Toll measure. AC Transit has been participating in a planning group attempting to pursue

both long range and short range improvements to this facility.

To facilitate immediate improvements at the RPTC, staff recommends that the Board

authorize the General Manager to enter Into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with

six partners for the development of the Richmond Parkway Transit Center. The other

agencies participating the MOU are Caltrans, WestCAT, WCCTAC, and the Cities of Pinole

and Richmond. The MOU, which is shown in Attachment C, commits the parties to regular

communication around the issues faced at the Parkway, and states that the partners will

retain consultant services to prepare a planning and conceptual design study in anticipation

of potential funding to construct the expansion project at the Parkway.

Staff also recommends that the Board authorize the General Manager to enter into an

Operating and Maintenance Agreement with Caltrans, under which AC Transit would

become responsible for the maintenance of the existing facility, including security measures.

Caltrans would allow AC Transit to institute a paid parking program to cover the security and

maintenance costs at the facility.

GM Memo No. 03-262a



Page 8 of 8

Prior Relevant Board Actions/Policies:

GM Memo 03-172 Initiate Discussions Leading to a District Transit Center and Park and

Ride Policy

Attachments:

Attachment A: The Urban Transportation Monitor. June 13, 2003, "Characteristics of

Successful Park and Ride Lots"

Attachment B: List of candidate park and ride sites for review within the Short Range Transit

Plan

Attachment C: Memorandum of Understanding

Attachment D: Draft Operating and Maintenance Agreement with CalTrans for the

Richmond Parkway Transit Center

Approved by: Rick Fernandez, General Manager

Kathleen Kelly, Deputy General Manager Service Development

Prepared by: Jon Twichell, Transportation Planning Manager

Anthony Bruzzone, Manager of Special Projects

Date Prepared: October 9, 2003

Editorial

This week's survey obtained information on the most

accessiul padc-and-ride lots (in terms of the number of

cars parked) at 24 transit agencies. Park-and-ride facili

ties are playing an increasingly important role in pro

viding a viable alternative to single occupant vehicle

commuting, particularly to commuters who reside in

lower density suburban locations and have to travel

along a congested corridor to get to work. Some of the

larger transit agencies in North. America have total

park-and-ride spaces numbering in the 20,000 —

60,000 range. This is a large number of vehicles re

moved from congested roadways.

The characteristics of the most successful

park-and-ride lots shown on the following pages pro

vide some indication of what makes a lot attractive to

commuters:

• Successful park-and-ride lots generally are located

equidistant between the outskirts of an urban area

and the central business district/main activity site

thatthe lot serves. The survey results showthat lots

are located on average about 11 miles from the cen

tral business district and about 9 miles from the

outer edge of the developed metropolitan area.

This locan'onmakes sense as it strikes a balance be

tween serving a large catchment area and commu

ters avoiding a trip along a significant length of

congested corridor.

• All but one lot has no parking charge.

• Most lots (70%) are located within 0.5 mile from a

major highway.

• Most lots (70%) are served by frequent (headway

less than 10 minutes) transit/rail service.

• Most lots (90%) are served by some form of ex

press transit service and/or a transit service with

priority.

Planners, particularly those planning the first

park-and-ride lot in a corridor, should try to incorporate

the characteristics listed above. Doing so enables a

park-and-ride lot facility that will be of value to com

muters.

Daniel B. Rathbone, Ph.D., P.E.

"editor/Publisher

GM Memo 03-Z6Za

Attachment A

This Week's Survey Results

Characteristics of Successful Park-and-Ri

Lots

Earlier this month, The Urban Transportation Monitor conducted

a national survey to obtain information from transit agencies on

their most successful park-and-ride lots.

E-mails with a link to the questionnaire's web location were sent to

110 transit agencies. A total of 24 agencies responded. The results

of the survey are published here.

© THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION MONITOR, JUNt 13.20U3

Characteristics of Most Successful Park-and-Ride Lots

Reasons provided by respondents on why their most successful park-and-ride lot is successful. (Answers are provided in

order of frequency of responses.)

» Served by frequent transit service, many routes

■ Located dose to a major highway, good access

Served by fast, direct express transit service to major attraction

Has all the necessary amenities including restrooms, enclosed waiting area, good lighting, telephones, security, vending

Contains adequate parking spaces

Located at the confluence of major highways

Located at the end of the transit line (at terminus)

No parking charge

Contains a transit center

Served by more than one transit mode (bus and rail service)

Large catchment area population

Functions as a carpooling hub as well

The only park-and-ride lot in the corridor

Serves rapidly growing residential area

Located in a long, congested corridor

Well maintained

Located close to the CBD, with fast access to CBD

Located in higher density residential area with high transit ridership tradition

Located in corridor with high latent demand

Bus feeder serving park-and-ride lot

Techniques to estimate the usage of.a future park-and-ride lot as provided by respondents. (In no particular order.)

- We assume that the unserved demand at a location or corridor is reflected by the time the existing facility or corridor parking fills. At a given capacity fora given service area, the changes in demand cause park-and-ride lots to fill earlier or later. We compare fill times with occupancy percentages over time at locations with unconstrained arrival (unused capacity) to determine percentages of uncon strained arrivals not served at the time the fully used facility may fill. This can work with individual locations to be expanded as well as

for corridors.

• Use demand modeling.

• Use regional model results.

• Apply short-range computer modeling.

• Based on transportation modeling work done forfuture projects using mode of access data from model. It is not always the most accu rate part of the model output, but it suffices as a guide. We also use experience with existing system and professional knowledge of

travel patterns, land uses, etc. to complement the model data.

• For a community park-and-ride lot, we define the catchment area, identify trip generation, assign mode split, and calibrate. For a re gional park-and-ridB lot, we identify the catchment area as the adjacent corridor and apply usage rates for similar facilities with similar characteristics. •

• Apply origin/destination surveys (phone Interviews), demographic evolution, transit users counts and a market study.

• Based on regional origin/destination. We also look at travel times of bus versus auto.

• Three different techniques were used to estimate demand. They yield a range of figures that can be used to determine a general idea of potential park-and-ride demand for the prospective lot The three techniques were: Market Area Population— the percentage of the market area population that is eligible to use the park-and-nde lot Modal Split—the percentage of the market area population that may use the park-and-ride service to go to the activity center. Regression Equations—the equations identified to predict ridership.

. The park-and-ride access mode has been planned to accommodate 15-20 percent of the projected daily ridership at suburban train stations. This design guideline has been applied consistently overthe pasttwo decades and has provided a reasonably goodindicator of park-and-ride demand in each of the light rail transit corridors. Park-and-ride facilities are normally restricted to stations that are be yond a 4 km. distance from the downtown to intercept auto trips at the earliest opportunity and discourage continuation of the trip into

the inner city area, where there is limited roadway capacity.

• Feeder buses are the primary access mode for the light rail system, accounting for 50 to 60 percent of arrivals at the stations. The bal ance of people accessing suburban stations arrive dropped-off by private auto (10 to 15 percent) or walk or cycle (5 to 10 percent).

We did a study 20 years ago wherein we defined a travel shed for park-and-ride lots and developed regression equations for usage of

the lots.

Apply transit access mode split from on-board surveys to ridership estimates.

GM Memo 03-262 fa

Attachment B

List of Potential Park and Ride/HOV Facilities/Transit Centers to Investigate

Richmond Parkway Transit Center

Includes new garage, improved HOV bus access, new HOV off-ramp from north 1-80 into Parkway, possible on-line station.

Funding sources: $ 8 million CCC STIP

$16 million, bridge toll capital (S&H code section 30914(c) (9))

Gilman Street Berkeley

Includes park and ride for buses at foot of Gilman Street. Could be merged with WTA

Berkeley ferry terminal. Scope includes planning, urban design and construction.

Funding sources: $16 million, WTA bridge toll capital (S&H code section 30914(c)

(25))

$48 million, WTA bridge toll capital (S&H code section 30914(c) (28))

West Grand Avenue. Oakland

Includes bus access improvements for West Grand Bay Bridge approach, possible new park and ride near Maritime and West Grand.

Funding sources: $20 million, AC/ACCMA South Bridge Group toll capital

(competitive) (S&H code section 30914(c) (29))

San Mateo Bridge Bus Access Improvements. Havward

Includes park and ride facilities at BayFair BART, Hayward Airport, Chabot College (and/or

adjacent location). Also includes TOD study for Hesperian Blvd from Winton to Highway 92. Includes HOV on-ramp to 92 from Hesperian.



$20 million, Safe Routes to Transit capital (competitive) (S&H code section 30914(c) (20))

Dumbarton Bridge Bus Access Improvements. Fremont-Newark

Includes expanded park and ride facilities at Ardenwood Transit Center (Highway 84 and Ardenwood) and Fremont and Decoto Road.



GM Memo 03-262 JL

Attachment C

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSIT CENTER

THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT

OF THE RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSIT CENTER is entered into as of ,

2003, by and between the following public agencies, which shall be known collectively as the

"Richmond Parkway Transit Center Planning Group" ("the Planning Group"). The agencies

comprising the Planning Group are: (1) the California Department of Transportation (hereafter

"Caltrans "); (2) the Western Contra Costa Transit Authority (hereafter "WestCAT"); (3) the City

of Richmond; (4) the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (hereafter

"WCCTAC"); (5) the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (hereafter "AC Transit" or

"District"); and (6) the City of Pinole.

This Memorandum of Understanding constitutes solely a guide to the respective intentions and

policies of the parties involved. It is not intended to authorize funding or project effort nor is it a

legally binding contract. Funding commitments providing for the deposit of funds for specific

work phases or project effort committing machine or personnel time will be covered by one or

more separate cooperative agreements as may be outlined herein.

RECITALS

A. The six agencies entering into this Memorandum of Understanding have for the

past several years been working together as an informal planning group to

advance funding and construction of an estimated 800-space parking facility and

Transit Center, prepare appropriate environmental documents and identify

associated mitigation, and plan, design, and implement interchange and access

improvements at the site of the current Richmond Parkway Park and Ride lot;

and

B. Caltrans is the current owner of the site and the existing parking facility, and is

involved in the planning process for the new facility, but Caltrans does not desire

to own or operate the site or the new facility once constructed; and

C. Caltrans and the City of Richmond presently share responsibility for the

maintenance of the existing facility under the terms of a 1996 Memorandum of

Understanding between Caltrans & the City; and

D. The Planning Group desires to formalize their involvement in this project and

provide specific direction for short term and long term management of the

Transit Center project; and

E. AC Transit and WCCTAC have taken the initiative to generate funding for the

project; and

F. The Planning Group recognizes that the Hilltop Drive Park and Ride lot, located

at the interchange of Hilltop Drive and Interstate 80 (on the east side) and also

l owned and operated by Caltrans, is another important and closely related parking

facility serving the same corridor as the Richmond Parkway Park and Ride lot,

and is expected to receive increased use in December 2003 due to anticipated AC

Transit service changes.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Memorandum of Understanding agree as

follows:

1. To meet on a regular basis (to be defined by the parties) to facilitate the

continued development of the Richmond Parkway Transit Center expansion

project, as well as short-term improvements to the existing Richmond Parkway

and Hilltop Mall Park and Ride lots.

2. The term of this Memorandum of Understanding is for a period of 5 years or

until the ownership of the Transit Center property is transferred to another party,

whichever is less.

3. The current Chair of the Planning Group is AC Transit, represented by its

Transportation Planning Manager, Jon Twichell. The parties agree that they will

annually select one of the agency representatives to act as Chair of the Planning

Group. The next Chair will be selected for a one-year term to commence January

1,2004.

4. AC Transit shall designate a staff member to serve as the Project Manager. The

Planning Group will provide direction to the Project Manager as needed.

5. All formal actions by the Planning Group shall be made by consensus, or, in the

case of disagreements, by majority vote with one vote allowed per agency.

However, as owner and manager of the current Richmond Parkway Park and

Ride lot, Caltrans shall retain the final decision-making authority on all actions

pertaining to the operation of the existing facility.

6. No later than December 31, 2003, AC Transit and Caltrans intend to enter into an

Operating and Maintenance Agreement, whereby AC Transit would become

responsible for the maintenance of the existing facility, and Caltrans would allow

AC Transit to institute a paid parking program according to all applicable laws,

regulations, and policies.

7. No later than October 31, 2003, the Planning Group intends to retain the services

of a Consultant to conduct a Planning and Conceptual Design Study for the

expanded parking facility and Transit Center. WCCTAC shall oversee the study

and the selection of the Consultant. Each Planning Group member agency may

have one representative on the consultant selection committee. The contract will

be awarded and administered by WCCTAC. The Consultant services will be

funded equally by WCCTAC (using $37,500 of Contra Costa County Measure C

"Park and Ride Lot" funds) and AC Transit (using $37,500 of State Transit

Assistance (STA) funds).

8. The Consultant will perform the services listed in the attached Request for

Qualifications (RFQ), and will prepare a final report to be used as a basis for any

environmental analysis and documentation required prior to the construction of

the new facility. The RFQ was drafted by WCCTAC and AC Transit staff, and

reviewed and approved by the Planning Group.

9. The Planning and Conceptual Design Study is expected to be completed within a

period of 6 to 8 months, concurrent with consideration by California voters of

"Regional Measure 2", also known as the Bridge Toll Increase bill or "RM 2", in

March 2004. If RM 2 is approved, funding will become available for the

environmental analysis, final design and engineering, and construction phases of

the Richmond Parkway Transit Center expansion project.

10. No later than June 2005, Caltrans intends to transfer ownership of the existing

site and facility to either AC Transit or a new Joint Powers Authority comprised

of members of the Planning Group.

11. Upon receipt of a formal written request from the Planning Group, Caltrans

agrees to initiate the internal process of "decertifying" the Hilltop Drive Park and

Ride lot as an operating State right-of-way, which would allow the operation

and/or ownership of the property to be transferred to another public agency or a

Joint Powers Authority. Caltrans will consider exploring self-funding

opportunities for lot security if the usage could sustain a self-funded contract.

12. No party to this Memorandum of Understanding, nor its Directors, officials,

officers, or employees, shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring

by reason of a negligent act or omission of any other party under or in connection

with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to it under this Agreement.

13. Any of the parties to this Memorandum of Understanding may terminate their

involvement in the Planning Group or MOU at any time by providing written

notice to the Chair of the group at least 30 days prior to the effective date of such

termination. In such a case, the Planning Group shall continue to function with

the same duties and responsibilities, unless the remaining members vote to

terminate the entire Memorandum of Understanding and dissolve the Planning

Group. AC Transit and WCCTAC agree that once the Consultant contract is

awarded, their respective Financial commitments to funding the Planning and

Conceptual Design Study shall remain in effect notwithstanding any decision to

terminate their involvement in the Planning Group or any other agreements

outlined in this MOU.

Bijan Sartipi, District Director

For Caltrans, District 4

Date:

Rick Fernandez, General Manager

For AC Transit

Date:

Approved As To Form

Kenneth C. Scheidig, General Counsel

For AC Transit

Charles Anderson, General Manager

ForWestCAT

Date:

Date:

Irma Anderson, Mayor

For City of Richmond

Date:

Janet Abelson, Chair

ForWCCTAC

Date:

Maria Alegria, Mayor

For City of Pinole

GM Memo 03-262a, Attachment D

04-CC-80-6.2

(AC Transit Edits to Caltrans edits of Agreement - August 12,2003)

DRAFT AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE RICHMOND PARKWAY

TRANSIT CENTER ON ROUTE 80 IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND

THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into effective this day of

, 2003, by and between the Department of Transportation, State of

California, hereinafter referred to as "STATE", and the Alameda - Contra Costa Transit District,

hereinafter referred to as "DISTRICT".

A. RECITALS

1. A park and ride facility, hereinafter referred to as "FACILITY", will be improved by

DISTRICT under an Encroachment Permit.

2. The FACILITY, which is within the DISTRICT'S service area, is partially located within

STATE'S right of way on the west side of Interstate Route 80 and Richmond Parkway in

the City of Richmond and unincorporated Contra Costa County as shown on Exhibit A,

attached to and made a part of this Agreement.

3. Both parties mutually desire to specify the respective FACILITY operating and

maintenance responsibilities of the two parties, in particular the maintenance and security

functions to be performed by DISTRICT, and to specify the terms and conditions under

which such work will be performed.

B. AGREEMENT

This Agreement shall supersede any previous Agreement relating to DISTRICT'S maintenance of

FACILITY. In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein contained, it is

agreed:

1. DISTRICT shall perform such maintenance work as is specifically delegated to

DISTRICT as hereinafter described under Section D, or as said section may be

subsequently modified with the written consent of the parties hereto, acting by and

through their authorized representatives.

2. DISTRICT shall maintain, at DISTRICT expense, a parking facility for users of the park

and ride lot on the entire FACILITY area.

3. Rights granted to DISTRICT under this Agreement are restricted to maintenance,

security, and the collection and enforcement of FACILITY parking fees. Any other use or

04-CC-80-6.2

presence by DISTRICT or the DISTRICT'S authorized contractors will require that a

separate encroachment permit be issued to that party from STATE.

4. DISTRICT shall not, at any time, use or permit the public to use FACILITY in any

manner that will interfere with or impair the primary use of FACILITY as a park and ride

lot.

5. STATE reserves its right to use those areas within STATE'S right of way for future

construction, reconstruction, expansion, modification, or maintenance purposes without

restriction or reimbursement to any party should FACILITY be reconfigured or closed.

6. STATE reserves the option to inspect, at random, all areas of FACILITY to assure

conformance with standard STATE maintenance levels. Such inspection does not

preempt or modify the DISTRICT'S maintenance responsibilities assumed under this

Agreement.

7. An encroachment permit from the STATE will be required for third parties if DISTRICT

contracts out the FACILITY maintenance, security, or fee collection duties to a

Contractor not approved in advance by the STATE. Said Contractor shall be subject to

the same inspections and responsibilities as specified herein for work performed directly

by DISTRICT. The enforcement of parking regulations by uniformed governmental

personnel shall not require an encroachment permit.

8. The Term of this Agreement shall be for a period of 5 years unless terminated earlier

pursuant to Paragraph G. below. This Agreement shall commence on October 1,2003.

DISTRICT will reapply every five years for a new encroachment permit, which will

stipulate reasonable terms of entry by DISTRICT onto STATE'S right-of-way for the

purpose of maintaining and operating FACILITY.

C. MAINTENANCE DEFINED

Maintenance is defined in Section 27 of the Streets and Highway Code.

P. MAINTENANCE FUNCTIONS

The maintenance functions that are delegated to DISTRICT, at DISTRICT'S sole expense, are as

follows:

1. PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE

This maintenance includes minor pavement maintenance such as pothole repair, sweeping,

and debris removal of the paved surface when necessary. It shall not include repaving of the

04-CC-80-6.2

lot surface when the overall pavement condition deteriorates to an unacceptable level, which

repair shall continue to be the responsibility of the STATE.

2. LITTER AND GRAFFITI

DISTRICT shall be responsible for maintaining the f FACILITY in a condition free of litter,

debris (including all broken glass) and graffiti. .

3. SIGNS

DISTRICT shall be responsible for the installation of signage necessary for the direction and

operation of FACILITY, including but not limited to the posting of parking regulations. .

4. STRIPING

DISTRICT shall install and maintain all striping and pavement markings required for the

direction and operation of the FACILITY traffic.

5. LIGHTING

DISTRICT shall be responsible for the replacement of damaged or malfunctioning electrical

installations required for public safety. However, STATE shall be responsible for repairing

all lighting and electrical failures or damages that occur due to STATE'S improper design or

installation or due to a failure by STATE to maintain such installations in working order prior

to the effective date of this Agreement. DISTRICT will inspect FACILITY and list all such

maintenance issues within thirty (30) days of execution of this Agreement.

6. SAFETY DEVICES

DISTRICT shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair, replacement, and cleaning of

safety devices located within the FACILITY, including gates, fences, and markers. However,

STATE shall be responsible for repairing and cleaning all safety devices to a level acceptable

to the DISTRICT prior to the effective date of this Agreement. DISTRICT shall inspect and

list all safety devices requiring repair or cleaning within thirty (30) days of execution of this

Agreement.

7. LANDSCAPING AND GARBAGE COLLECTION

STATE shall be responsible for landscaping and garbage collection services at FACILITY as

presently being provided pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of

Richmond and STATE which agreement is attached hereto and made a part hereof.

8. SECURITY

04-CC-80-6.2

DISTRICT shall provide staff personnel at the FACILITY from approximately 6 a.m. to 9

p.m. weekdays The staff personnel shall monitor the FACILITY and report any suspicious or

criminal activity and parking violations to the appropriate authorities. DISTRICT shall

provide and install a prefabricated shelter and a portable toilet facility for the use of staff

personnel at no cost to STATE. The presence of staff personnel at the FACILITY shall not

imply any assumption of liability by DISTRICT for any injury, damage, or any other loss to

vehicles, property, or persons unless directly caused by DISTRICT staff or its authorized

contractors. STATE shall retain its responsibility for the investigation and reporting of Part I

crimes.

9. BUS SHELTERS AND BENCHES

DISTRICT or its approved Contractor may install bus shelters and benches in the bus waiting

area of the FACILITY for use by its passengers, and shall maintain these shelters and the

surrounding areas in a neat and clean condition. DISTRICT or its approved Contractor may

also provide and maintain electrical connections to these shelters for the purposes of

providing lighting and/or transit information displays. DISTRICT or its approved Contractor

shall arrange and pay for any necessary electrical permits from the appropriate utilities. Any

advertising display panels located on the bus shelters shall be oriented such that they are not

visible from any federal-aid interstate highway in accordance with state and federal

regulations.

E. PARKING FEE COLLECTION AND USE

1. COLLECTION RIGHTS

DISTRICT'S operation of FACILITY is intended to be cost neutral to DISTRICT. STATE

shall allow DISTRICT to establish a reasonable parking fee to be collected from users of the

FACILITY for the purpose of recovering DISTRICT'S direct and indirect costs of operating

the FACILITY as more particularly described in Paragraph 2 below.

2. FEE AMOUNT AND USE

The parking fee shall be collected on a daily basis, and all parking spaces, with the exception

of one space reserved for AC Transit Supervisors, shall be made available to the general

public on first-come, first-served basis. The amount of the daily fee shall be set by mutual

agreement between STATE and DISTRICT. The initial fee shall be based upon DISTRICT'S

best estimate of the annual direct and indirect costs of operating the FACILITY as required

under the terms of this Agreement.. The amount of the daily fee shall be re-evaluated by

DISTRICT and STATE on an annual basis and adjusted based on the actual documented

costs of performing the activities associated with this Agreement.

3. ACCOUNTING

04-CC-80-6.2

DISTRICT shall maintain a separate accounting, hereinafter referred to as the "Richmond

Parkway Transit Center Parking Fee Account" (the "Parking Fee Account"), for all parking

fees collected at the FACILITY. Funds in the Parking Fee Account shall only be used to

offset costs and expenses related to operation of the FACILITY. . DISTRICT agrees to

maintain all receipts, invoices, pay stubs, and any other applicable documentation relating to

the cost of FACILITY operation and charged against the Parking Fee Account for a period of

three years and to provide copies of said documentation to STATE upon reasonable request.

4. PARKING REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT METHODS

STATE and DISTRICT shall mutually develop and approve a set of parking regulations for

the FACILITY which shall be enforceable per the California Vehicle Code by authorized

personnel of any governmental body with legal jurisdiction over the FACILITY.

5. FEE COLLECTION

DISTRICT shall provide and maintain all equipment and personnel required to collect the

parking fees, including ticket machines and any associated protective housing, entry and exit

gates (if required), regulatory signs, and electric and telephone connections.

F. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to

or rights in third parties who are not parties to this Agreement or to affect the legal

liability of either party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to

the maintenance of State highways or the FACILITY different from the standard of care

imposed by law.

2. It is understood and agreed that neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is

responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to

be done by DISTRICT under or in connection with any work authority or jurisdiction

delegated to DISTRICT under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant

to Government Code Section 895.4, DISTRICT shall defend, indemnify and save

harmless STATE and all STATE officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions

of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injuries to or death of

any person or damage to property resulting from anything done or omitted to be done by

DISTRICT under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to

DISTRICT under this Agreement.

3. It is understood and agreed that neither DISTRICT nor any DISTRICT officer or

employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of

anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work,

authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is understood and

agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, STATE shall defend, indemnify

04-CC-80-6.2

and save harmless DISTRICT and all DISTRICT officers and employees from all claims,

suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injuries

to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from anything done or omitted

to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction

delegated to STATE under this Agreement.

G. EFFECTIVE DATE AND RIGHT TO TERMINATE

This Agreement shall be effective upon the date of its execution by STATE,

Either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason by giving 60 days written notice to the

other party.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first

above written.

ALAMEDA - CONTRA COSTA

TRANSIT DISTRICT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

RICK FERNANDEZ

General Manager

Attest:

Date

Clerk for DISTRICT

Approved as to form:

Date

JEFF MORALES

Director of Transportation

By_

Date

BART DESAI

Deputy District Director

Maintenance

Date

DISTRICT Counsel Date Attorney

Department of Transportation

Date

GM Memo No. 03-262a

Attachment E

Oct. 14, 2003

Mr. Chris Peeples, Chair

AC Transit Planning Committee

Dear Mr. Peeples:

I support the recommendation of AC Transit staff in support of a carefully

planned park and ride policy. This policy attempts to charge a market rate for

parking, including capital (policies 5 and 6).

I only suggest some flexibility and experimentation to reduce security costs and

to encourage such things as fencing, single entrances in public view, random

checking, and situation-based investigation. BART police have a lot of

experience in lot security.

This is a real step forward for transit parking policy in the bay area, with AC

leading the way for less progressive agencies, which need to charge for parking.

Sherman Lewis

Chair, Hayward Area Planning Association

Senior Conservation Fellow, Sierra Club

Former member, BART Board of Directors

Board of Directors Meeting


Item No. 6 - GM 03-262a

^.9-22-1995 S :57AM FROM GM Memo No. 03-262a

Correspondence

Office of the Mayor

Tom Bates VIA FACSIMILE Mayor

October 15,2003

Pat Piras, President and Members of the AC Transit Board of Directors

C/o District Secretary

1600 Franklin Street

Oakland, CA 94612

Dear Ms. Piras and Members of the Board,

I have reviewed GM Memo No. 03-262 on Park and Ride Transit Centers, and 1 heartily concur with the proposal's goal of increased bus ridership. Because many of Berkeley's plans and

priorities depend, to a large extent, on good transit services, I urge that the decision to

implement the Transit Center plan be postponed, for several reasons.

• First, two studies of regional express buses and the park and ride facilities

associated with them are currently underway. Waiting for the results of the

research would add a regional perspective to AC Transit's efforts and could result

in valuable regional coordination.

• Second, much of the funding for the Centers is dependent on the passage of

SB916, which will be on the ballot in March, 2004. Planning and development

activities for the Centers should, realistically, await the outcome of the vote.

• Finally, and perhaps most important, the proposed project would entail significant

expenditure of scarce AC Transit resources. It would seem prudent to delay a

final decision for a careful review of this project in the context of all of the

District's priorities. A close look at costs, benefits, and opportunity costs would

help to give cities working in partnership with AC Transit the confidence that this

project is a prudent investment for all of us..

If and when the District does move ahead to develop policies on Transit Centers, and

assuming the cost/benefit ratio proves to be positive, I have the following suggestions

from the perspective of Berkeley's transportation needs and policies.

I Park and Ride Centers should be planned for low-density, suburban - type

areas only. The urban areas of Berkeley would not be well served by the

increased traffic on city streets that park and ride lots would encourage.

2. Berkeley would not be in favor of using any funds that would otherwise be

available for operations for any phase of Transit Center development and

operations.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: (510) 981-7100 TDD: (.510) 981-6903 Fax: (510)981-7199

email: [email protected]|er.u,.,» J«*Ab www.d.bcrkeley.«Wni.|Jflar(J Q£ DirectOr8 Meeting

Item

9-22-1995 6:58AM FROM P.I

3. 1 urge that bus purchases not be delayed in favor of developing Transit

Centers. New, quieter, clean-burning buses are in great demand for service in

our neighborhoods, and would encourage the acceptance and use of

neighborhood bus routes.

Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions. I have enjoyed working

with Boanl members and AC Transit staff over the past few months, and I am optimistic that our partnership will continue, with beneficial results for the AC

Transit District and the City of Berkeley.

Sincerely,

Tom Bates

Mayor

cc: Rick Fernandez, General Manager

Jim Gleich, Deputy General Manager

Kathleen Kelly, General Manager for Service Development

Jon Twitchcll, Director of Planning

Documents

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Information Only Briefing Item 1