Short-Range Transit Plan · of the 10-year operations plan and operations budget. Continuing the budget focus, Chapter 6 sets out the capital budget. Chapter 7 discusses projects

Attachment 1

Short-Range Transit Plan Fiscal Years 2014/15 through 2023/24

MARCH 19 2015

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

Adopted by the Alameda – Contra Costa Transit District Board of Directors on xxxxxxx, 2015

Federal transportation statutes require that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), in partnership with state and local agencies, develop and periodically update a long range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and also a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which implements the RTP by programming federal funds to transportation projects contained in the RTP. In order to effectively execute these planning and programming responsibilities, MTC requires that each transit operator in its region which receives federal funding through the TIP prepare, adopt, and submit to MTC a Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP).

Short-Range Transit PlanFISCAL YEARS 2014/15 THROUGH 2023/24

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents | TOCAlameda-Contra Costa Transit District

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE SRTP 1

1.1 REASONS FOR PREPARING THE SRTP ............................................................................................... 1

1.2 RELATIONSHIP OF THE SRTP TO OTHER PLANS, PROJECTS, AND ACTIONS................................. 1

1.3 SRTP STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF AC TRANSIT 2

2.1 TIMELINE OF AC TRANSIT AND RELATED HISTORY .......................................................................... 2

2.2 GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 AC TRANSIT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ................................................................................... 4

2.4 AC TRANSIT SERVICE ......................................................................................................................... 4

2.5 FARE STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................................. 16

2.6 REVENUE FLEET .................................................................................................................................17

2.7 STATIONS AND TRANSIT CENTERS ...................................................................................................17

CHAPTER 3: GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STANDARDS 18

3.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 18

3.1 AC TRANSIT MISSION STATEMENT ................................................................................................... 18

3.2 GOALS SET FORTH IN THE BUDGET ................................................................................................ 18

3.3 OBJECTIVES FOR BUDGET GOALS .................................................................................................. 18

3.4 GOALS OF OTHER TRANSIT AGENCIES ........................................................................................... 20

3.5 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (KPI) ........................................................................................... 21

3.6 BOARD POLICY 550 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................... 22

3.7 PARATRANSIT OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................. 22

3.8 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ........................................................................................ 23

CHAPTER 4: SYSTEM AND SERVICE EVALUATION 24

4.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 24

Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15—2023/24 | ivAlameda-Contra Costa Transit District

4.1 EVALUATION OF SERVICE ................................................................................................................. 25

4.2 COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLANS (CBTPS) .............................................................. 40

4.3 PARATRANSIT SERVICE PROVIDED .................................................................................................. 42

4.4 TITLE VI REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ......................................................................... 43

CHAPTER 5: SRTP OPERATIONS PLAN AND BUDGET 44

5.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 44

5.1 OVERVIEW OF SERVICE AND ANTICIPATED CHANGES ................................................................... 44

5.2 OPERATIONS PLANNING .................................................................................................................. 45

CHAPTER 6: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................... 66

6.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 66

6.1 FLEET (INCLUDES REVENUE, NON-REVENUE, AND PARATRANSIT VEHICLES) ............................................................................................................... 68

6.2 FACILITIES (INCLUDES MAINTENANCE AND FUELING FACILITIES, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, AND OTHER OPERATIONAL FACILITIES)................................................................................................. 72

6.3 TECHNOLOGY (INCLUDES ALL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS ................................................................................................................74

6.4 CORRIDORS (INCLUDES BRT, LINE 51, TERMINAL UPGRADES AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SERVICE ON THE ROUTES) ............................................................................................................ 76

6.5 GHG REDUCTION INITIATIVES ......................................................................................................... 76

6.6 OVERVIEW OF FUNDING SOURCES ................................................................................................. 78

CHAPTER 7: RESOLUTION 3434 PROJECTS—BUS RAPID TRANSIT AND MAJOR CORRIDORS 86

7.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 86

7.1 EAST BAY BUS RAPID TRANSIT ........................................................................................................ 86

7.2 MAJOR CORRIDORS PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 87

CHAPTER 8: VISION 2040—AN AC TRANSIT THAT IS GREAT, GREEN, AND GOLDEN 88

8.1 AC TRANSIT’S VISION FOR 2040 ....................................................................................................... 88

Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15—2023/24 | vAlameda-Contra Costa Transit District

FIGURE 2.1 CITIES AND UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES IN AC TRANSIT DISTRICT ....................... 7

FIGURE 2.2: JOBS AND RESIDENTIAL POPULATION DENSITY (NORTH) ................................................ 9

FIGURE 2.3: JOBS AND RESIDENTIAL POPULATION DENSITY (SOUTH) .............................................. 10

FIGURE 4.1: WALKSHED AROUND FREQUENT SERVICE (NORTH) ........................................................ 26

FIGURE 4.2: WALKSHED AROUND FREQUENT SERVICE (SOUTH) ........................................................ 27

FIGURE 4.3: FREQUENCY OF SERVICE BY ROUTE (NORTH) ................................................................. 35

FIGURE 4.4: FREQUENCY OF SERVICE BY ROUTE (SOUTH) ................................................................. 36

FIGURE 4.5: COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN AREAS.....................................................41

FIGURE 5.1: SURVEY RESPONDENTS BUS NETWORK PREFERENCES .................................................51

FIGURE 5.2: SURVEY RESPONDENTS BUS SERVICE EXPANSION PREFERENCES ..............................51

FIGURE 5.3: SURVEY RESPONDENTS BUS STOP SPACING PREFERENCES ....................................... 52

FIGURE 5.4: SURVEY RESPONDENTS BUS SERVICE ROUTE PREFERENCES ..................................... 52

FIGURE 5.5: FRAMEWORK FOR LINKING PLANNING ACTIVITIES ......................................................... 58

FIGURE 5.6: TIMELINE FOR PLANNING ACTIVITIES ............................................................................... 59

FIGURE 5.7: TEN-YEAR FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS WITH NEW MEASURE BB ..................................... 63

FIGURE 6.1: CIP PROJECT NEED AND FUNDING COMPARISON ........................................................... 67

FIGURE 6.2: CIP PROGRAM CATEGORIES AND FUNDING .................................................................... 68

FIGURE 6.3: COMMITTED FUNDING PROJECTIONS .............................................................................. 78

FIGURE 6.4: DISCRETIONARY FUNDING PROJECTIONS ....................................................................... 83

FIGURE 8.1: PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS ...................................................................................... 89

LIST OF FIGURES

Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15—2023/24 | viAlameda-Contra Costa Transit District

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2.1: TIMELINE OF AC TRANSIT AND RELATED HISTORY .............................................................. 2

TABLE 2.2: PLANNING AREAS OF THE AC TRANSIT DISTRICT ............................................................... 5

TABLE 2.3: CITIES AND COUNTIES OF THE AC TRANSIT DISTRICT ........................................................ 5

TABLE 2.4: SUMMARY CHARACTERISTICS OF AC TRANSIT ROUTE .................................................... 12

TABLE 2.5: AC TRANSIT FARES (EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2014) .................................................................... 16

TABLE 3.1: KPI WITH NUMERIC TARGETS .............................................................................................. 21

TABLE 3.2: PARATRANSIT KPI WITH NUMERIC TARGETS ..................................................................... 22

TABLE 4.1: RIDERSHIP AND RIDERSHIP STANDARDS BY TYPE OF SERVICE (BY PASSENGERS PER REVENUE HOUR) ............................................................................................................................. 28

TABLE 4.2A: ROUTES RANKED BY PRODUCTIVITY WITHIN SERVICE TYPES, 2013: TRUNK, MAJOR CORRIDOR AND RAPID ROUTES ............................................................................................... 28

TABLE 4.2B: ROUTES RANKED BY PRODUCTIVITY WITHIN SERVICE TYPES, 2013: URBAN CROSSTOWN ROUTES ............................................................................................................................ 29

TABLE 4.2C: ROUTES RANKED BY PRODUCTIVITY WITHIN SERVICE TYPES, 2013: SUBURBAN CROSSTOWN ...................................................................................................................... 31

TABLE 4.2D: ROUTES RANKED BY PRODUCTIVITY WITHIN SERVICE TYPES, 2013: TRANSBAY ROUTES ................................................................................................................................ 32

TABLE 4.3A: ON TIME PERFORMANCE: TRUNKS/MAJOR CORRIDORS, RAPIDS ................................ 37

TABLE 4.3B: ON TIME PERFORMANCE: URBAN CROSSTOWNS........................................................... 37

TABLE 4.3C ON TIME PERFORMANCE: SUBURBAN CROSSTOWNS AND VERY LOW DENSITY ROUTES.................................................................................................................................... 38

TABLE 4.4 EFFICIENCY METRIC COMPARISON ..................................................................................... 39

TABLE 5.1: TRANSIT PRIORITIES ............................................................................................................. 50

TABLE 5.2: SUMMARY OF OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS .......................................................................... 53

TABLE 5.3: TEN-YEAR FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS ................................................................................. 61

TABLE 6.1: CIP PROJECT NEED AND CAPITAL FINANCIAL OUTLOOK .................................................. 67

TABLE 6.2: REVENUE FLEET OVERVIEW ................................................................................................ 69

Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15—2023/24 | viiAlameda-Contra Costa Transit District

TABLE 6.3: NON-REVENUE FLEET OVERVIEW ....................................................................................... 69

TABLE 6.4: VEHICLE REPLACEMENT COST ........................................................................................... 71

TABLE 6.5: VEHICLE EXPANSION COST ................................................................................................. 71

TABLE 6.6: FACILITIES OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 72

TABLE 6.7: FACILITIES REHABILITATION/EXPANSION COST ................................................................. 75

TABLE 6.8: TRANSIT CENTERS/PARK AND RIDES COST ....................................................................... 75

TABLE 6.9: TECHNOLOGY COST ............................................................................................................. 75

TABLE 6.10: CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENT COST ..................................................................................... 77

TABLE 6.11: GHG REDUCTION INITIATIVES COST .................................................................................. 77

TABLE 6.12: COMMITTED FUNDING PROJECTIONS .............................................................................. 80

TABLE 6.13: OTHER LARGE OPERATOR CIP ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................ 82

TABLE 6.14: DISCRETIONARY FUNDING PROJECTIONS ....................................................................... 84

APPENDICESAPPENDIX A: AC TRANSIT TITLE VI PROGRAM (SEPTEMBER 2014) ..................................................... 92

Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2014/15—2023/24 | 1Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

1.1 REASONS FOR PREPARING THE SRTPThe Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) is a mandatory fiscal, planning and regulatory document for AC Transit. It must incorporate the detailed list of elements included in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Resolution 3532. These in turn derive from requirements of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Beyond the requirements, the SRTP is an opportunity for AC Transit (also known as the District) to gather important data in a single document and develop strategic plans for the next 10 years.

1.2 RELATIONSHIP OF THE SRTP TO OTHER PLANS, PROJECTS, AND ACTIONSThe SRTP provides a summary of and direction to other planning documents. It incorporates AC Transit’s goals and standards, operating and capital budgets, and service plan. At the same time, it is designed to give direction to future service planning activities and capital projects. The SRTP reflects the 2015 operating and capital budget adopted by the Board of Directors. The SRTP also reflects implementation plans for the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project. Resolution 3434 projects like the BRT are specifically listed as a topic in Resolution 3532.

The SRTP will be closely coordinated with the development of service plans pursuant to the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA), targeted for July 2015. It has been developed in conjunction with the Major Corridors Study of capital upgrades to AC Transit’s main corridors, although completion of the SRTP will precede the completion of the Major Corridors Study, scheduled for June 2016.

1.3 SRTP STRUCTUREThis SRTP is primarily structured to follow MTC’s Resolution 3532 to assure that all required topics are covered.

Chapter 2 is the Overview of AC Transit, which is typically called “Existing Conditions” in other documents. Chapter 3 sets out the agency’s Goals, Objectives, and Standards, which are then applied in Chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 4 provides the service and system evaluation. Building on that, Chapter 5 consists primarily of the 10-year operations plan and operations budget. Continuing the budget focus, Chapter 6 sets out the capital budget. Chapter 7 discusses projects which are in MTC’s transit expansion resolution (Resolution 3434), primarily focusing on the Bus Rapid Transit project. Chapter 8 is an optional chapter, added at the direction of the Board, outlining AC Transit’s long term vision and future.

Chapter 1: Introduction to the SRTP


This chapter outlines major features of AC Transit’s system. The chapter generally follows the structure of MTC Resolution 3532. The chapter opens with a timeline of AC Transit’s history, discusses the District’s governance structure, describes the geography of the AC Transit district, and outlines the bus service AC Transit provides. It then goes on to discuss demand responsive service (paratransit), the service’s numerous connections to other rail and bus transit agencies, fare structure, the revenue fleet, and District facilities.

2.1 TIMELINE OF AC TRANSIT AND RELATED HISTORYTABLE 2.1: TIMELINE OF AC TRANSIT AND RELATED HISTORY

Year Event: 19th and 20th Centuries

1886 Cable car service begins in Oakland (ended 1899)

1891 Electric streetcar service begins in the East Bay

1903 Key System, AC Transit’s predecessor, created by combining several street railway lines

1940s Key System ridership spikes during World War II gas rationing, accelerated production of military goods.

1948 Key System rail service discontinued

1949-1958 Interstate 880 freeway (then known as State Route 17) opens in segments between Oakland and San Jose, spurring residential and commercial/industrial growth along the route

1953 Key System has 76 day strike

1956 AC Transit created in response to fiscal collapse of Key System, caused largely by suburbanization

1958 Key System ends Transbay bus service

1960 1960 Census shows first ever population declines in Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, and Albany while the population of Hayward grew fivefold, from roughly 14,000 to 72,000.

1972 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) opens initial segment

1974 Fremont and Newark join the AC Transit district as District Two

1977 Westcat is created, removing Hercules, Pinole, and Crockett from the AC Transit district

1980 County Connection is created, removing central Contra Costa County from the AC Transit district

1987 AC Transit administration moves within Downtown Oakland from Latham Square Building to 1600 Franklin Street

1987 Division 6 bus yard opens in Hayward, replacing smaller facility in Newark

1990 1990 Census shows 10percent population growth in Oakland

1991 Comprehensive Service Plan, service restructuring and expansion, and implemented

1992 All buses are equipped with wheelchair lifts for disabled access

1998 Major Investment Study for primary north-south corridors, such as Telegraph Avenue and International Boulevard, initiated

Chapter 2: Overview of AC Transit



Year Event: 21st Century

2000 Alameda County voters approve Measure B sales tax increase, including AC Transit funding

2001 Ridership peaks at 71.5 million trips annually

2003 AC Transit initiates its first Rapid Bus Line, line 72R, on San Pablo Avenue

2006 Contra Costa County voters approve Measure J, extending Measure C transportation sales tax

2007 International/Telegraph Rapid, line 1R, opens along intended future route of Bus Rapid Transit

2008 Measure KK, intended to block Bus Rapid Transit in Berkeley, is defeated by voters

2008-2010 Steepest recession since the Great Depression forces 15 percent cut in service

2010-2011 Transbay Terminal in San Francisco demolished; Transbay buses shift to temporary terminal

2012 AC Transit Board approves Bus Rapid Transit from Downtown Oakland to San Leandro

2013 BART strikes cause increase in Transbay passengers, even after strikes end

2014 Alameda County voters approve Measure BB, providing further transportation sales tax funds for AC Transit and other agencies

2.2 GOVERNANCE AC Transit is a public special district authorized under state legislation in 1955 and established by a vote of the people in 1956. In 1974, the Southern Alameda County cities of Fremont and Newark (but not adjacent Union City) joined the AC Transit district.

AC Transit is governed by a seven-member, non-partisan, elected Board of Directors. Five board members are elected from wards, which, at the time of the 2010 Census, had approximately 285,000 residents each. Two of the board members are elected at-large from the district as a whole. Elections take place as part of the November General Election on even-numbered years. AC Transit is one of only three transit agencies in the country (BART is another) with a directly elected Board.

The current Board members are:

• Chris Peeples, President, representing the district At-Large, term expires December 2016

• Elsa Ortiz Vice-President, Ward 3, representing the cities of Alameda and portions of Oakland and San Leandro, term expires December 2018

• Joe Wallace, Ward 1, representing the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County in the AC Transit district, Albany, and portions of Berkeley, term expires December 2016

• Greg Harper, Ward 2, representing the cities of Emeryville, Piedmont, and portions of Berkeley and Oakland, term expires December 2016

• Mark Williams, Ward 4, representing portions of the cities of San Leandro and Hayward, and the unincorporated areas of Alameda County within the AC Transit district, term expires December 2018

• Jeff Davis, Ward 5, representing Fremont, Newark, and portions of Hayward term expires December 2018

• Joel Young, representing the district At-Large, term expires December 2018

CONTINUANCE OF TABLE 2.1: TIMELINE OF AC TRANSIT AND RELATED HISTORY



2.3 AC TRANSIT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 2.3.1 MANAGEMENT AND STAFFThe executive managers of AC Transit are as follows:

• General Manager: David Armijo• Chief Operating Officer/Interim Chief Financial Officer: James Pachan• Chief Performance Officer (Acting): Tom Prescott• Chief Planning, Engineering and Construction Officer: Vacant• Chief Information Services Officer: Tom O’Neill

2.3.2 CONTRACTED TRANSPORTATION SERVICESThe only route where AC Transit provides contract service for a separate sponsor is the Broadway Shuttle in Downtown Oakland. The “B” is sponsored by the City of Oakland, with financial support from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and other sources. Stanford University pays a portion of the cost of line U which operates between the Fremont BART station and Stanford University in Santa Clara County. Line U is operated as AC Transit service. The Oakland Unified School District also helps fund service to their schools, though it does not define specific routes for AC Transit to service.

AC Transit contracts with MV Transportation to operate the Dumbarton Express (DB and DB1) routes which provide connections from the Union City BART Station via the Dumbarton Bridge to locations in San Mateo and Santa Clara County.

Paratransit service is provided by companies which contract with East Bay Paratransit, a consortium of AC Transit and BART which provides Americans With Disabilities Act mandated paratransit service in the East Bay.

2.3.3 UNIONS AT AC TRANSITAC Transit has a budgeted total of 1,947 employees. Most employees at AC Transit are represented by one of three unions. Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) local 192 is the largest and oldest union, representing bus operators, mechanics, maintenance workers, and related occupations. American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 3916 represents professional, administrative, clerical, and technical staff. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1245 represents electricians. Executive management, confidential, and contract employees are not represented by a union.

2.4 AC TRANSIT SERVICE AC Transit’s only fixed route mode is bus.

2.4.1 AC TRANSIT SERVICE AREAAC Transit provides service principally within its legislatively defined district. The district stretches along the eastern side of San Francisco Bay from Richmond on the north to Fremont on the south, a distance of some 50 miles. The district includes a portion of western Contra Costa County and all of western Alameda County, west of the East Bay Hills. See Figure 1 for the AC Transit service area.

AC Transit is divided into four planning areas, Western Contra Costa County, Northern Alameda County, Central Alameda County, and Southern Alameda County . There are large internal transit markets within each planning area. The communities within the same planning areas are generally more similar to each other than to the communities in other planning areas. The date of greatest population growth is listed because it plays a major role in determining the urban form and street layout of the area. In general, the more recently an area was developed with the possible exception of very recent infill and TOD development, the lower densities of



commercial and residential land uses. Higher Densities typically generate higher transit use. The planning areas are summarized in the Table 2.2. This section provides an overview of existing AC Transit service; for line-by-line information see Chapter 5.

TABLE 2.2: PLANNING AREAS OF THE AC TRANSIT DISTRICT

Planning Area

Principal Cities/ communities

2010 Population

Decade of Greatest

Population Growth

Population density (average per square mile)

Comparable city (by density)

Western Contra Costa

County

Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, North

Richmond, El Sobrante 185,110

1940s (Richmond lost

28,000 residents in 1950s)

4,365 Portland

Northern Alameda County

Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, Emeryville, Piedmont, Alameda

616,402 1940s 7,544 Seattle

Central Alameda County

San Leandro, Hayward, Ashland, Cherryland,

Castro Valley 359,632 1950s 4,292 San Diego

Southern Alameda County

Fremont, Newark 257,710 1960s 2,822 Phoenix

AC Transit serves 13 cities and portions of unincorporated Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, which are listed in the table below from north to south. See Figure 2.1 for the AC Transit service area.

TABLE 2.3: CITIES AND COUNTIES OF THE AC TRANSIT DISTRICT

City Major Destinations Transit Hubs AC Transit Facilities Comments

Richmond Hilltop Mall, Kaiser Hospital, South Richmond employment area

Richmond BART, Richmond Pkwy. Transit Center, Hilltop Park & Ride

Division 3 (bus yard) is planned for re-opening;

Lawrence Berkeley Labs building “second campus” in South Richmond

San Pablo Contra Costa College

Contra Costa College Transit Center

None Most densely populated city in western Contra Costa

El Cerrito El Cerrito Plaza Shopping Center

El Cerrito Del Norte BART, El Cerrito Plaza BART

None One of the slowest growth cities in the district

Unincorporated Contra Costa County: North Richmond, El Sobrante, Rollingwood, E. Richmond Hts., Kensington

Downtown El Sobrante

Trunk bus route on San Pablo Avenue

None Unincorporated areas, except North Richmond, do not have grid pattern streets, complicating service



City Major Destinations Transit Hubs AC Transit Facilities Comments

Albany University Village housing complex

Solano & San Pablo Aves.

None Retail planned for San Pablo Ave. along frontage of Univ. Village

Berkeley University of California

Downtown Berkeley BART

None Most densely populated city in the district

Emeryville Bay Street Shopping Center

40th St. & San Pablo Ave.

Division 2 bus yard Fastest growing city in district; employment ctr.

Oakland Downtown Oakland; Pill Hill; Kaiser Hospital; Coliseum & Arena; Oakland Airport

Uptown: 14th & Broadway, Eastmont Transit Ctr.; Fruitvale, Coliseum, and MacArthur BART

General Office (GO), Division 4 bus yard, Central Maintenance Facility (CMF)

Downtown Oakland had major residential growth spurt in 2002-07 period

Piedmont None None None 95 percent of housing is single family detached

Alameda College of Alameda Park & Santa Clara Streets

None Planning large scale reuse of former Navy base

San Leandro Bayfair Center (shopping center)

Bayfair BART and San Leandro

None Large industrial area, low density employment center

Hayward Cal State East Bay, Southland Mall

Hayward BART and South Hayward BART

Division 6 bus yard Transit-oriented development planned for So. Hayward BART, Mission Blvd

Newark Newpark Mall None AC leases out a property here

Lowest density city in district

Fremont Ohlone College, Pacific Commons, Washington Hospital

Fremont BART None Planning major development around new Warm Springs BART

Unincorporated Alameda Co. Ashland, Cherryland, San Lorenzo, Fairview, Castro Valley

Alameda County government (“Fairmont”) complex

Major corridor bus routes on Hesperian & Mission Blvd.

Leased park and rides near Castro Valley BART.

County’s draft Ashland/Cherry land plan notes possibility of extending Bus Rapid Transit to that area



FIGURE 2.1: CITIES AND UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES IN AC TRANSIT DISTRICT

BAY AND OCEAN

OAKLAND

CASTRO VALLEY

HAYWARD

MARTINEZ

FREMONT

ORINDA

LAFAYETTE

UNION CITY

NEWARK

ALAMO

MORAGA

CONCORD

RICHMOND

HALF MOON BAY

WALNUT CREEK

SAN MATEO

BERKELEY

SAN FRANCISCO

DANVILLE

SAN RAMON

SAN LEANDRO

BURLINGAME

ALAMEDA

EL SOBRANTE

CLAYTON

REDWOOD CITY

BELMONT

EL CERRITO

BRISBANE

SAN PABLO

SAN CARLOS

SAN BRUNO

MILLBRAE

DALY CITY

PLEASANT HILL

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO

SAN LORENZO

EMERYVILLE

MENLO PARK

ALBANY

DIABLO

BELVEDERE TIBURON

PALO ALTO

PINOLE

DUBLIN

PLEASANTON

HERCULES

Cities

Interstates

Highways

Arterial Roads

¯0 3 61.5 Miles

Cities and UnincorporatedCommunities in AC Transit District



In addition to the cities shown above, AC Transit also provides service to Union City. Union City is geographically surrounded by the AC Transit district, but is not formally a member of it. AC Transit operates service outside the district to Milpitas, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Foster City, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Pinole. The estimated 2014 population of the AC Transit district is approximately 1,475,000, the second most populous transit service area in the Bay Area (after Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority [VTA], Santa Clara County). The total estimated 2014 combined population of Alameda County and Contra Costa County is 2,660,000. Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 show the jobs and residential population density within the district.

In the AC Transit district, the agency operates a network of routes designed to be comprehensive. 70 percent of residents and 62 percent of jobs in the district are located within a ¼ mile walk access of a bus stop. The areas outside these walksheds are generally low density hills or industrial areas. Routes in most of the district are intended to be ¼-½ mile apart (Board Policy 550), though they may be up to a mile apart in very low density areas.

DOWNTOWN OAKLAND AS AC TRANSIT’S CORE TRANSIT HUBDowntown Oakland plays a special role for AC Transit, as it has since the origin of the Key System in the late 19th Century. The Downtown Oakland core for AC Transit is bounded by Grand Avenue to the north, Interstate 880 to the south, Lake Merritt to the east, and Interstate 980 to the west. Downtown has the largest single concentration of employment in the AC Transit district. During the early 2000’s, numerous housing units were built in Downtown Oakland. Between 2000 and 2010, Downtown Oakland’s population grew while the rest of the city lost a small number of residents. Plan Bay Area projects major residential and commercial growth Downtown in the coming decades.

Nine of 15 of AC Transit’s top level routes (trunk, rapid, and major corridor) serve Downtown Oakland. The area is also served by local, Transbay, and all-nighter routes, for a total of 25 AC Transit routes. 14 routes operate along Broadway between 11th Street and 20th Street. Every transit corridor between Rockridge and Fruitvale has direct service to Downtown Oakland, and a number of Downtown routes go further north or south. It is not only the single most important destination area, but also the most important transfer area. There are both bus to bus transfers and transfers at the three BART stations.

Given the area’s importance, it is crucial that bus operations are effective on Downtown streets. While busy core areas will not have top speed service, reliable operation with reasonable travel times in Downtown Oakland will benefit hundreds of AC Transit bus trips daily. This would both benefit passengers and reduce bus operating cost. Oakland could follow the lead of San Francisco, which has prioritized transit on Market Street downtown, San Jose, which has prioritized transit on the 1st Street/2nd Street couplet, or cities elsewhere that have done so.



FIGURE 2.2: JOBS AND RESIDENTIAL POPULATION DENSITY (NORTH)

High St

San Pablo Av

Foothill Bl

Broa

dway

International Bl

San Pablo Dam Rd

35th Av

Ashby Av

Adel

ine

St

Pacific Av

14th St

Otis Dr

Park Bl

23rd

St

Gian

t Rd

40th St

Central Av

Frui

tvale

Av

Dwight Wy

Tele

grap

h Av

Skyline Bl

Claremont Av

Barrett Ave

7th St

Cutting Blvd

8th St

Park

St

Macdonald Ave

Solano AvCarlson Blvd

Market St

Gran

d Av

12th St

Hollis St

Macarthur Bl

E 12th St

Arlington Av

Sacramento St

23rd Av

Appian Way

San Pablo Ave

73rd Av

Garrar

d Blvd

11th St

Central Ave

Snake Rd

Mai

n St

Hilltop Dr

14th Av

Rum

rill B

lvd

Lincoln Av

Moraga Av

Powell St

Web

ster

St

Colle

ge A

v

Atlas Rd

E 15th St

Broa

dway

Te

Shattuck Av

Buchanan St

E 7th St

Grizzly Peak Bl

Chur

ch Ln

§̈¦580

§̈¦80

§̈¦580

§̈¦80

¬«13

Job and Residential Population Density (North)

Source: American Community Survey

0 1 20.5Miles ¸

S:\Research\GIS\GIS Projects\SRTP\Map 1 - Job and Residential Density (North).mxd

Density shown by Census block group



FIGURE 2.3: JOBS AND RESIDENTIAL POPULATION DENSITY (SOUTH)

Fremont Bl

Mission Bl

Paseo Padre Pw

High St

Hesperian Bl

Doolittle Dr

98th Av

Mow

ry Av

Blacow Rd

Foothill BlInternational Bl

Stev

enso

n Bl

Thor

nton

Av

San Leandro St

E 14th St

35th Av

Davis St

Niles Bl

Auto Mall Pw

Macarthur Bl

A St

Skyline Bl

Peralta Bl

Osgood Rd

Edes Av

Keller Av

S Grimmer Bl

E 12th St

Golf Links Rd

Washington Bl

Cent

ral A

v

23rd

Av

Warm

Springs Bl

Cushing Pw

Drisco

ll Rd

Boyce Rd

Redw

ood

Rd

82nd Av

Uni

on C

ity B

l

Hege

nber

ger R

d

Deep Creek Rd

W A St

Alvarado Bl

Industrial P

w

W Ja

ckso

n St

§̈¦880

§̈¦580

§̈¦880

¬«84

¬«92

¬«238

¬«13

¬«238

¬«84

Job and Residential Population Density (South)

Source: American Community Survey

0 1 20.5Miles ¸

S:\Research\GIS\GIS Projects\SRTP\Map 2 - Job and Residential Density (South).mxd




2.4.2 SERVICE TYPESAC Transit’s principal service types are rapid routes, trunk routes, major corridor routes, local routes, school routes and Transbay routes. Table 2.4 provides a summary of the service characteristics of AC Transit service.

SERVICE TYPES UNDER POLICY 550Service effectiveness is evaluated by service type. Service types are defined in part operationally, such as for trunk, rapid, and Transbay (express) routes. Several service types are defined by the land use characteristics of their corridors. These service types include urban crosstowns, suburban crosstowns, and very low density routes.

• Trunk Routes: The main routes that operate, primarily in a north-south direction, along major streets in high ridership areas, the “backbone” or “spine” routes of the AC Transit system

• Rapid Routes: Routes that operate along trunk corridors with elongated stop spacing and transit signal priority for greater speed

• Urban Crosstown Routes: The secondary routes in the higher density (generally over 10,000 people per square mile) that connect to the trunk routes and form a four direction system

• Suburban Crosstown Routes: Connectors and feeders similar to urban Crosstown routes in lower density (5,000-10,000 people per square mile) portions of the district

• Very Low Density Routes: Routes that operate in areas with population densities below 5,000 people per square mile.

• Transbay Routes: Routes that cross one or more of the San Francisco Bay bridges, operating between the East Bay and San Francisco or other West Bay destinations.

When the BRT line begins to operate, generally with in-roadway stations on a dedicated right-of-way, it will represent an additional service type.

Community Flex Routes, which provide service to an area rather than a delineated route, are another service type which is not currently used, although proposed for a pilot project.

RAPID BUS LINESAC Transit operates two Rapid Bus lines; lines 1R (International-Telegraph) and 72R (San Pablo). This service type is sometimes described as “BRT Lite.” The Rapids have various measures to improve travel times, including less frequent stops (generally ½-²∕3 mile apart), transit signal priority, and stops on the far side of intersections. They are intended to offer faster travel times than the local buses on the same corridor.

TRUNK AND MAJOR CORRIDOR ROUTESAC Transit operates eight trunk routes, five major corridor routes and 45 additional local routes.

Trunk routes typically operate along major streets and provide the most frequent service, have the longest operating hours and support the highest ridership. Examples include line 40 from downtown Oakland to Bay Fair BART along Foothill Boulevard; line 51A from Fruitvale to Rockridge principally via Santa Clara Street in Alameda and Broadway in Oakland; and line 57 from Emeryville to Foothill Square in Southeast Oakland along MacArthur Boulevard.

The trunk routes are the busiest routes, the “spines” of the AC Transit system. Trunk routes generally operate from approximately 5:00 a.m. to midnight on weekdays and 6:00 a.m. to midnight on weekends. Some trunk routes have “owl” or “all-nighter” service operating on modified routes between midnight and 5:00 a.m.



TABLE 2.4: SUMMARY CHARACTERISTICS OF AC TRANSIT ROUTES

Trunk and Major Corridor Routes

Rapid Routes Local Routes School Serving Routes

Express (Transbay)

Routes

13 2 45 51 29

Key Destinations Multiple destinations on main corridors

Multiple destinations on top corridors

Connect to BART stations, trunk routes

Middle and high schools

Downtown San Francisco, Stanford Univ.

Days of Operation

Daily Daily Most routes daily, some weekdays only

School days only (180 per year)

Most weekdays only, 3 routes daily

Hours of Operation

5:00 a.m.-midnight, some routes also have midnight-5:00 a.m. “allnighter” service

6:00 a.m- 8:00 p.m.

6:00 am- 8:00 p.m., some routes later

School arrival and departure hours only

Most are commute hour, commute direction only

Typical Frequency

Trunks: Every 10-20 minutes; Majors 15-30 minutes

12 minutes weekdays, 15 minutes weekends

15-60 mins. during peaks; 30-60 min. off-peak

Most routes have 1-2 round trips daily

10-30 minutes

Target Stop Spacing

Every 800-1,300 feet (.15-.25 miles)

1/2 mile 800-1,300 feet Less frequently than local stops

Examples of Type of Route

Trunks: 51B (College-University) & 57 (40th St.-Macarthur); Major Corridors: 88 (Sacramento-Market), 97 (Hesperian); 99 (Mission Blvd.)

1R (Bayfair BART to Berkeley BART via International & Telegraph), 72R (Oakland Amtrak-Contra Costa College via San Pablo Avenue)

45 (Sobrante Pk.-Eastmont); 52 (Albany Village) 54 (35th Ave.-Redwood Rd.); 74 (23rd St. Richmond/ San Pablo); 86 (Winton-Tennyson)

18 (Montclair to University Village, Albany); 663 (Atlantic Av and 3rd St. to Broadway and Blanding Ave); 667 (Korematsu Middle School to North Richmond)

7 day routes are F (Berkeley); NL (Macarthur Blvd.); O (Alameda). Other routes include LA (Richmond Pkwy.); P (Piedmont)

Notes These routes carry over ½ of AC Transit’s daily passengers

International Blvd. portion of 1R will be replaced by Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Network design goal is that local routes form a four quadrant grid of service

Provided for West County, Oakland, Hayward, Fremont school districts, some private schools

Transbay ridership has increased due to increased jobs in San Francisco



Saturday and Sunday schedules are generally the same, though a few differentiated schedules have been introduced. Major corridors are also key routes for the network, but generally operate somewhat less frequently and often along shorter routes than trunk routes. The district also operates seven “all-nighter” routes that run between midnight and 5 a.m.

LOCAL AND SCHOOL SERVICE

Most AC Transit routes provide local service, operating on arterial and collector streets within the AC Transit district in the East Bay. The agency operates 45 local lines, which are classified, based on surrounding land uses, as urban crosstown routes, suburban crosstown routes, very low-density routes, and one feeder route (line 339). Urban crosstown lines tend to have higher ridership, operate more frequently, and have longer hours of operation.

On school days, AC Transit operates 51 routes serving public and private middle schools and high schools. These routes are open to the public. Where possible, the agency is seeking to consolidate school service with nearby underlying local routes.

Local service is structured, where possible, as a grid of routes on major streets to maximize access. Northern and Southern Alameda County, and portions of West Contra Costa have grid-based service networks. The northern section of West County and Central Alameda County have roadways which are not generally on a grid pattern. Many of the AC Transit system’s busiest lines radiate out from Downtown Oakland, often following routes similar to historic Key System streetcar and bus lines.

EXPRESS (TRANSBAY) SERVICEAC Transit operates express service via freeways and bridges from the East Bay to San Francisco and the mid-Peninsula. These routes are known as “Transbay” routes. There are 29 Transbay routes, and all but four (lines DB, DB1, M and U) serve Downtown San Francisco. Transbay routes are designated with letters, rather than numbers, to help distinguish the service. Most Transbay routes (19) operate in the weekday peak direction only. Only a handful of routes provide reverse commute service.

Three routes to San Francisco including line F from Berkeley, line NL from Eastmont Transit Center, and line O from Alameda, operate all day, seven days a week. These routes operate in both directions all day, providing service for reverse commuters from San Francisco to Downtown Oakland and Downtown Berkeley. In 2013, Transbay routes carried an average of 18,536 people per weekday, or 9.6 percent of AC Transit’s total ridership. Some Transbay routes, particularly the all-day routes, have substantial ridership within the East Bay.

CONTRACT SERVICEServices listed below are provided in partnership with others, who provide funding contributions and/or policy oversight.

• Broadway Shuttle: The Broadway shuttle in Downtown Oakland is sponsored by the City of Oakland, funded primarily by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and operated by AC Transit.

• Dumbarton Express: Dumbarton Express service from Union City BART to Palo Alto, Stanford University, and the Stanford Industrial Park, is managed by AC Transit, and operated by MV Transit under contract. The service has an advisory board with members from multiple transit agencies known as the Dumbarton Bridge Regional Operations Committee (DBROC)

• Line U (Union City-Stanford): Line U is partially funded by Stanford University to help meet the University’s requirement to limit peak hour auto trips to campus.



ATYPICAL SERVICEA few routes have atypical service patterns: Lines 314, 356, and 391 operate two to three days per week as community service routes. Line 376 operates as a late evening (but not all night) circulator in West Contra Costa County. Line Z operates as a reverse commute route (eastbound AM) from San Francisco to Berkeley and Albany.

ACCOMMODATION OF BICYCLESAll AC Transit buses have front bike racks that can hold one or two bicycles. AC Transit was the first Bay Area transit agency to provide this accommodation. MCI buses used for Transbay service can hold additional bicycles in the luggage storage area of the bus. Some California transit agencies have three position bike racks, we are researching the use of these. Cities have also provided a number of bicycle parking facilities, racks and lockers at sites near major bus routes.

DEMAND RESPONSIVE SERVICEAC Transit participates in the East Bay Paratransit consortium with BART. AC Transit pays 69 percent of East Bay Paratransit costs; and BART pays 31 percent. East Bay Paratransit provides service to people who have been determined to be unable to use standard fixed route transit, such as AC Transit or BART. Trips are provided using vans. East Bay Paratransit service is available by reservation for destinations within ¾ mile of a bus stop during the hours when the bus operates. Commute-only service, such as Transbay service to San Francisco, does not make an area paratransit eligible. Paratransit passengers can access the Bay Area as a whole, although sometimes connecting to another vehicle is required. East Bay Paratransit projects that it will provide approximately 600,000 trips in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14, equivalent to about 1 percent of fixed route ridership on AC Transit.

The District is also planning to test demand responsive “flex” service in lieu of fixed route serve on low density, low productivity routes such as in Fremont, Newark, or possibly hill areas. Unlike paratransit service, there would be no restrictions on who could use this service.

2.4.3 CONNECTIONS WITH OTHER TRANSIT AGENCIESCONNECTIONS TO RAIL TRANSITBART: AC Transit’s most heavily used inter-agency transit connections are with BART, with AC Transit operating bus service to each of the 21 BART stations in the district. The bulk of transit trips in or through the AC Transit district are taken on AC Transit and/or BART. Within the AC Transit district, BART stations are located in Richmond, El Cerrito (2 stations), Berkeley (3), Oakland (8), San Leandro (2), Hayward (2), Fremont, and unincorporated Castro Valley. Union City BART is not within the AC Transit district, but is served by AC Transit routes. There are no BART stations in San Pablo, Albany, Emeryville, Piedmont, Alameda, or Newark.

An additional BART station is under construction in Fremont at Warm Springs. Measure BB provides funds to construct a third BART station in Fremont at Irvington. AC Transit anticipates serving these stations when they open.

AC Transit’s route network is integrated with BART. All AC Transit East Bay routes (exclusive of Transbay and school-oriented routes) serve at least one BART station, and many serve two or more. BART stations are among the busiest stops in the AC Transit system. In the 1980’s, AC Transit obtained funding to build transit centers (also known as “intermodals”). There are major bus hubs at the following BART stations: Richmond, El Cerrito Del Norte, Downtown Berkeley, 19th Street/Uptown Transit Center, 12th Street/Oakland City Center, Fruitvale, Coliseum, Bayfair, Hayward, and Fremont.

AC Transit lines serving Coliseum BART also connect to the recently opened Oakland Airport Connector (OAC)



at Coliseum BART. The OAC is a modern cable car which provides non-stop service between Coliseum BART and Oakland Airport. The OAC replaces the former AirBART shuttle.

Amtrak: Two Amtrak stations (Richmond and Oakland Coliseum) are at or adjacent to BART stations and bus stops. AC Transit also serves five additional Amtrak stations: Berkeley, Emeryville, Downtown Oakland, Hayward, and Fremont (Centerville). AC Transit connects with Caltrain commuter rail at the Hillsdale and Palo Alto stations on the San Francisco peninsula, both lying outside the district, and with Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) at the Centerville Amtrak station in Fremont. AC Transit serves ferry terminals at Jack London Square (Oakland) and Harbor Bay (Alameda).

BUS CONNECTIONS TO DESTINATIONS WITHIN THE AC TRANSIT DISTRICTAC Transit also connects with the other bus transit services, listed below, primarily at BART stations. Many of the services operate weekdays only, some, especially shuttles operate peak periods only. Many of the shuttle services are free to passengers. Of the 21 BART stations in the AC Transit district, 13 have connections to other bus transit/shuttle services. El Cerrito Del Norte BART is a prime transfer location, providing connections to North Bay lines. AC Transit provides transfer connections to every Bay Area county except Sonoma. Shuttles which require an employee ID to ride (e.g. Lawrence Berkeley Lab shuttles) are not listed.

• Richmond Circular Shuttles connection at El Cerrito Del Norte BART to various Richmond destinations

• Bear Transit to University of California, Berkeley, main connection at Downtown Berkeley BART

• West Berkeley Shuttle, connection at Ashby BART to Bayer Labs, other West Berkeley employers

• Hospital shuttles at MacArthur BART to Kaiser Hospital (Oakland), Summit Hospital

• Emery Go Round to Emeryville, main connections at MacArthur BART, 40th & San Pablo

• Estuary Crossing Shuttle between Laney College and Atlantic Avenue/College of Alameda

• LINKS Shuttle at San Leandro BART to West San Leandro (and soon Kaiser Hospital)

• Cal State East Bay Shuttle, connecting at Hayward BART and Castro Valley BART

BUS CONNECTIONS TO DESTINATIONS OUTSIDE THE AC TRANSIT DISTRICT • VINE (Valley Inter-neighborhood Express) to American Canyon and the city of Napa at El Cerrito Del Norte

BART

• FAST (Fairfield and Suisun Transit) to Fairfield and Suisun City at El Cerrito Del Norte BART

• Soltrans (Solano Transit) to Vallejo and Benicia at El Cerrito Del Norte BART

• Westcat (West Contra Costa Area Transit Authority) to Pinole and Hercules, major connections at El Cerrito Del Norte BART, Contra Costa College, and Richmond Parkway Transit Center

• Golden Gate Transit to San Quentin and San Rafael, major connections at El Cerrito Del Norte BART and Richmond BART

• MUNI (San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency) to San Francisco destinations, major connection at Transbay Terminal

• SamTrans at various locations to San Mateo County locations, especially along El Camino Real



• Union City Transit at Union City BART & Union Landing Transit Center to Union City destinations

• VTA (Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority) at Fremont BART to Milpitas and San Jose

2.5 FARE STRUCTUREAC Transit has recently undergone a major change in fare structure. Before July 2014, AC Transit used a base local fare ($2.10) and a transfer charge ($0.25). AC Transit was one of the last transit agencies in the country to switch from a base fare and transfer system. Most transit agencies throughout the country, have switched to a fare structure that provides free transfers or encourages use of an all-day pass. AC Transit’s recent change in fare structure simplifies fare payments and encourages use of Clipper cards rather than cash. Clipper usage has risen to 37% of fare payments, an all-time high for AC Transit.

The $2.10 local fare was retained with the new structure, and a $2.00 fare was implemented for those who pay with a Clipper card. The bus to bus transfer has been eliminated and replaced by $5.00 Day Passes, good for unlimited rides from their issuance until 3 a.m. the next morning. Many other basic elements of the previous fare structure are being retained: youth and senior/disabled fares are 50 percent of the adult cash fare; senior/disabled and youth passes are $20.00 per month, Transbay fares are $4.20 and $151.20 for a 31-day Transbay pass. The local adult pass price was reduced from $80.00 to $75.00, because it was considered to be overpriced relative to the local cash fare. Apart from the local/Transbay distinction, AC Transit has no fare zones, nor does it have peak period pricing.

AC Transit passengers can get a $0.25 discount when transferring to or from BART. Pilot programs to provide a deeper discount are being discussed by the two agencies. Table 2.5 below shows the current AC Transit fares.

TABLE 2.5: AC TRANSIT FARES (EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2014)CASH FARES

Adult (Age 19–64)

Youth* (Age 5–18)

Senior (Age 65+) & Disabled

Local Single Ride $2.10 $1.05 $1.05

Local Day Pass** $5.00 $2.50 $2.50

Transbay Single Ride $4.20 $2.10 $2.10

CLIPPER FARES AND PASSES

Adult (Age 19–64)

Youth* (Age 5–18)

Senior (Age 65+) & Disabled

Local Single Ride $2.00 $1.00 $1.00

Local Day Pass** $5.00 $2.50 $2.50

Transbay Single Ride*** $4.20 $2.10 $2.10

Local 31-Day Pass $75.00 $20.00 $20.00

Transbay 31-Day Pass $151.20 Not Available Not AvailableNotes:Local BART-to-Bus Transfer: $0.25 cash discount to and from BART with paper transfer issued at BART. Applied as $0.50 Clipper discount on bus trip away from BART only.* Children under 5 ride free.** Issued upon request when paying with cash; automatically applied on the third trip when using Clipper Cash. Good for unlimit-ed uses from time issued/activated until 3:00 a.m.*** Transbay-to-local transfers free and only available when using Clipper. Automatically applied on second bus when boarded within two hours. Also applies to local-to-transbay transfers



The District also offers the EasyPass, a deeply discounted systemwide pass, to groups such as colleges, workplaces, and residential complexes. Passes must be purchased for all members of the defined group. Prices are based on number of passes purchased and level of transit service available at the site. Pass prices range from $43 to $121 per year, or $3.58-$10.08 per month. Measure BB includes funding for a reduced cost student/youth transit pass pilot project, which the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) is leading the effort to develop.

Paratransit fares charged by East Bay Paratransit are based on distance:

• 0-12 miles: $4.00

• 12-20 miles: $6.00

• Over 20 miles : $7.00

Paratransit Fare to San Francisco:

• $6.00-$10.00, depending on destination.

• $2.00 surcharge if destination is outside BART service area

2.6 REVENUE FLEETThirty-foot buses are used on lower ridership routes, particularly in hill areas and in the southern portion of the district. Forty-foot buses are the district’s mainstay, used on local routes and to a limited extent on Transbay routes. Forty-five foot commuter buses are the primary vehicles used on Transbay routes. Sixty-foot articulated buses are used on major trunk lines, such as lines 1, 1R, and 40. The District is testing a double decker bus for possible future use of this vehicle type.

For more detail, see the fleet/vessel inventory in Chapter 6.

AC Transit’s facilities are listed in Table 6.4 in Chapter 6.

2.7 STATIONS AND TRANSIT CENTERSAC Transit does not currently maintain stations, though there will be stations as part of the East Bay BRT. Most bus stops in the AC Transit system are on-street. Off-street stops are located at 11 BART stations. The BART stations with off-street transit centers served by AC Transit are: Richmond, El Cerrito Del Norte, El Cerrito Plaza, North Berkeley, Fruitvale, Coliseum, San Leandro, Hayward, South Hayward, Fremont, and Castro Valley, and at VTA’s Great Mall (Milpitas) and Palo Alto Transit Centers. Off-street stops are also used at Richmond Parkway and Ardenwood Park-and-Rides, and at transit centers at Contra Costa College, Chabot College, Union Landing, Ohlone College Fremont, Ohlone College Newark, and Eastmont (the only transit center actually owned by AC Transit).


3.0 INTRODUCTIONThis chapter of the SRTP describes AC Transit’s goals, objectives, and standards as they relate to the District’s major activities. This is a key part of the picture of AC Transit that the SRTP paints. These goals, objectives, and standards help the Board, AC Transit management and staff, and the public at-large evaluate AC Transit’s performance. They also set directions for the future activity of the agency.

AC Transit’s system level goals, objectives, and standards derive not from one, but from three principal sources: the 2014 budget, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), and Board Policy 550 concerning Service Development. Policy 550 standards are discussed further in Chapter 4. Additional goals from other documents are also identified at the end of this chapter.

This chapter primarily deals with goals, objectives, and standards found in the District’s adopted budget and the KPIs. Service standards such as ridership, load factors, and hours of operation are generally discussed in Chapter 4: Service and System Evaluation. The Transit Sustainability Program (TSP) is discussed along with other financial management policies in Chapter 5 as part of the 10-year operating budget projection.

3.1 AC TRANSIT MISSION STATEMENTThe broadest statement of AC Transit’s reason for being is our Mission Statement: Connecting our communities with safe, reliable, sustainable service…we’ll get you there.

3.2 GOALS SET FORTH IN THE BUDGETAC Transit’s top level goals are set through the annual budget process. The current budget sets out five goals, four of which are broadly outward facing and concerned with AC Transit’s relationship with its customers and the public. One of the goals is primarily inward facing, concerning internal District operations. The organization’s adopted goals are:

1. Service-Provide Quality and Reliable Service

2. Safety-Create a Safety Culture

3. Cost Effectiveness-Use Financial Resources Efficiently and Effectively

4. Information-Effective Communication, Messaging, and Marketing

The inward facing goal is:

5. Workforce-Attract and Retain a High Quality Workforce

3.3 OBJECTIVES FOR BUDGET GOALSEach of the four outward facing budget goals listed below has a series of objectives further defining the goal. Goals adopted by other transit agencies are discussed at the end of the chapter.

GOAL 1. SERVICE—PROVIDE QUALITY AND RELIABLE SERVICEThe objectives for this goal set operational service benchmarks such as scheduled runs actually being operated, buses running on time and bus cleanliness.

Chapter 3: Goals, Objectives, and Standards



Service development goals are found in Board Policy 550 section of this chapter. The objectives for this goal are intended to be achieved by June 30 2015, the end of Fiscal Year 2014/15:

• Eliminate canceled assignments and reduce out late assignments to 125 monthly systemwide

• Improve Bus Cleanliness to 8.0 out of 10.0 rating

• Improve Mean Miles between Road Calls to 5,200 miles

• Improve On-Time Performance to 72 percent

• Improve Operator Courtesy as Evidenced by Reduced Complaints (5 percent reduction in complaints)

• Improve Scheduling Efficiencies to:

» Achieve a 10 percent reduction specialty school service

» Review service enhancements to the bus network

» Reduce Missed Trips to 300 total systemwide trips per month

GOAL 2. SAFETY—CREATE A SAFETY CULTUREThis goal has objectives that relate to safety from crime, safety on the road, and safety on the job. These objectives have various dates for achievement.

Improve District Emergency Response efforts, as follows:

• Implement new Alameda County Sheriff contract (completed)

• Implement new Contra Costa Sheriff contract (completed)

• Develop revised System Security Plan

Improve system security by implementing security enhancements, as follows:

• Reduce Crime Indicators for crimes on buses 5 percent

• Monitor and modify special high profile ALCO team

Reduce employee injuries and workers compensation costs, as follows:

• Implement injury frequency standards benchmark

• Install Automatic External Defibrillators (AEDs) by March 2015

• Reduce injury frequency rate by 5 percent from the established benchmark at each Division/Department

• Reduce accident rate to 7.25 per 100,000 miles by end of June 30, 2015

• Reduce passenger accidents/incidents per 100,000 miles to 3.25 percent

• Implement new safety programs:

» Initiate installation of cameras at transit centers

» Refine focus of the new Alameda County Sheriff Department special community based policing unit



GOAL 3. COST EFFECTIVENESS—USE FINANCIAL RESOURCES EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELYThis goal has objectives that relate to financial outcome measures, or how much is spent in a given expenditure category. It also has objectives to make internal processes more cost effective and efficient. This goal’s objectives are primarily ongoing in nature.

• Develop streamlined approach to District procurement process to ensure an average procurement cycle of 180 days or less for most procurements

• Review provisions of the Affordable Healthcare Act to determine the impact to the District as measured by overall plan cost. Healthcare premiums increased by about 8 percent for the new fiscal year. Evaluate healthcare program options by December 2014

• Implement a new Employee Development program to provide new learning opportunities for existing staff to assist in performing their current duties and to prepare for future advancement in the District

• Establish a standard set of project milestones and use them for all projects valued at over $250,000, to be completed by December 2014

• Reduce the Pay to Platform hours by an additional 1 percent to provide additional operating efficiencies

• Maintain overtime expenditures at 5 percent below budgeted levels for the fiscal year

• Maintain materials and supplies expenditures at 5 percent below budgeted levels for the fiscal year

• Maintain services expenditures at 5 percent below budgeted levels for the fiscal year

GOAL 4. INFORMATION—EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION, MESSAGING, AND MARKETINGThe objectives for this goal seek to improve both internal and external communications. The objectives listed here are primarily ongoing:

• Continue to improve awareness of key District initiatives as measured by a 15 percent increase in recall and understanding of District projects and programs. Enhance AC Transit’s image among external audiences as measured by a 15 percent improvement as determined by a public perception survey.

• Implement a new “Ask the GM” program to expand internal communication at the District

• Implement a new monthly/bi-monthly newsletter to improve internal and external communications

3.4 GOALS OF OTHER TRANSIT AGENCIESAC Transit’s top level goals are broadly similar to those set forth by other Bay Area transit agencies in their SRTPs. The set of top level goals used by an agency illustrates how it thinks about its goals and objectives. For example, BART’s draft SRTP includes “Customer Experience” as a main, top-level category. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) sets forth top level goals in its statement of Values, Goals, and Strategies. They are somewhat more broadly stated than AC Transit’s top level goals, as follows:

• Dependability in project delivery

• Quality in service and projects

• Sustainability, minimizing negative environmental impacts

• Safety, employee and public



• Integrity in business conduct

• Diversity, valuing the unique needs of the community

• Accountability for the agency’s actions and finances

Other Bay Area transit agencies set forth goals in areas (noted below) where AC Transit does not. AC Transit supports improvement in these areas through various actions and programs, but they are not part of the set of the goals set forth in the budget.

Information: AC Transit has no stated goal or objective to improve passenger information, although this is a major focus of the District’s marketing efforts. Goal 4 seeks improved public awareness of District initiatives and improved internal and external communications. However, it does not highlight passenger information specifically.

Bus Travel Time: AC Transit has made major efforts to maintain and reduce bus travel time along key routes. However, improving travel time is not a stated goal or objective, as it is for some agencies.

3.5 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (KPI)The KPIs are intended as a set of measurements which allow ongoing tracking of the District’s operations activity and service quality. They were developed and presented to the Board in June 2012.

The 11 KPIs have different relationships to budget goals and to District standards. All KPIs can be measured numerically, but some have no target standard. The KPIs with numeric targets are shown in Table 3.1 below. Most KPIs are also found in the budget objectives, but not necessarily with the same targets.

TABLE 3.1: KPI WITH NUMERIC TARGETS

Key Performance Indicator Target Also a Budget objective?

On time performance 72% Yes

Miles between road calls 5,200 Yes

Percent of scheduled service operated 99.5% Yes, with a different metric

Accident rate 4 per 100,000 miles Yes

Maintenance staffing availability 22% unavailability Yes, with a different metric

Operator unavailability 22.5% Yes, with a different metric

Bus operator logon rate 95% No

Customer complaints 15 per 100,000 boardings Yes

KPIs without a numeric standard:

• Ridership, measured by average daily passenger boardings

• Fare revenue (no stated unit of measurement)

• Ratio of paid hours for bus operation to platform (in service plus layover) hours. Reducing this “pay to platform” ratio is also a budget objective.



3.6 BOARD POLICY 550 GOALS AND OBJECTIVESThe Policy was originally adopted by the Board of Directors in 1994, and amended in 2004 and 2008. Listed below are the “Guiding Principles” (top level service goals) from Board Policy 550. Policy 550 is the District’s service development and planning policy.

3.6.1 CONCERNING SERVICE IN THE EAST BAY1. Stability: Service should be stable and cost effective

2. Simplicity: Service should be easily understood by passengers

3. Frequency: Service on high patronage lines should be frequent enough to be schedule-free

4. Productivity: Service should maximize ridership in order to support smart growth and alleviate climate change

5. Ubiquity: The AC Transit network should be a multi-destination system that is part of a seamless multi-agency transit system

The principles concerning East Bay service will be addressed in the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA), which will be submitted after the SRTP. More detailed proposals for providing and prioritizing service will be submitted at that time. The District has also initiated a review of Policy 550, which will be undertaken in mid-2015, after completion of the SRTP and the COA.

3.6.2 CONCERNING TRANSBAY SERVICE1. Commute Transbay service will be provided where other modes are reaching capacity; all day service will

be justified by patronage

2. The primary Transbay service will be walk-up, many to one service to Downtown San Francisco, but other models may be appropriate in some cases

3. Transbay services should be funded from fares and from regional funding sources

3.6.3 CONCERNING ALL NIGHTER SERVICE1. All Nighter service is part of a regional network and should serve BART stations and trunk bus routes

2. All Nighter service should be funded from regional funding sources

3.7 PARATRANSIT OBJECTIVESThe ADA paratransit program has its own set of KPIs, shown in Table 3.2 below.

TABLE 3.2: PARATRANSIT KPI WITH NUMERIC TARGETS

Key Performance Indicator Target

ADA passengers per trip (excluding attendants & companions)

1.55 or higher

On time performance 94% or higher

Trips more than 60 minutes late 0.2% or less

Roadcalls <5 per 100,000 miles



3.8 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICEAnother key goal for the District is meeting its Title VI federal civil rights information, analysis, and operational requirements, as set forth in the District’s recently adopted Title VI program and other Title VI regulations.

AC Transit is committed to ensuring that no person is excluded from participation in, or denied the benefit of services on the basis of race, color, or national origina as protected by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VI”).

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states “No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of , or be subjected to dioscrimintion under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Federal guidance highlights the District’s responsibility to ensure that Environmental Justice is incorporated into the District’s mission to provide safe, convenient, courteous, and reliable transit service for the greater East Bay. The District must also ensure that there is Title VI consideration whenever there is a change in fares or service that could impact minority or low-income communities. In particular, AC Transit must describe major service changes relating to hours or days of operation, headways or fares, etc., and provide an analysis of the effect that any such changes may have on minority and low-income communities. Because of the demographics of the AC Transit district, minority communities are defined as those having a non-white population of 70 percent or more.


4.0 INTRODUCTIONChapters 1 through 3 of the SRTP described AC Transit and its operating context. They discussed the AC Transit service area, operational structure, and goals. Chapters 5 through 8 project how AC Transit will be, including the operating plan and budget, capital budget, major capital projects encompassed in MTC Resolution 3434, and the vision for the long term future. This chapter provides a bridge between AC Transit’s past and future—by looking at how well AC Transit has performed in providing bus service to the East Bay. This chapter reviews a number of measures, such as route frequency, hours of operation, and on time performance, to evaluate AC Transit service.

This chapter draws on the KPIs outlined in the previous chapter as the basis for its evaluation. The outward-facing KPIs, which focus on passenger service measures and system-wide impacts, along with the service standards from Board Policy 550 are used in the evaluation.

This chapter also includes a review of planning and evaluation processes that AC Transit participates in, such as the Title VI program development process.

Key Performance Indicators used in this chapter:

• On Time Performance

• Ridership Level

• Fare Revenue

Policy 550 Service Standards Used in this Chapter:

• Frequency of Service by Service Type

• Span of Service by Service Type

• Distance to Bus Stops

Transit Sustainability Policy Standards used in this Chapter:

• Cost per Revenue Hour

• Cost per Passenger

On-time performance, ridership, frequency, and span of service are reviewed on a line-by-line level. Percentage of service operated, revenue service percentage, fare revenue, cost per revenue hour, and cost per passenger are reviewed on a system-wide level. Distance to bus stops is evaluated in terms of the percentage of the population with access to a bus stop.

Chapter 4: System and Service Evaluation

Chapter 4: System And Service Evaluation


4.1 EVALUATION OF SERVICEThese indicators measure three different areas; effectiveness, service availability and quality, and efficiency.

Ridership is generally considered the single most important measure of a transit agency’s performance. Transit agencies exist to carry passengers, ridership statistics measure to what degree we are doing so.

Since AC Transit’s purpose is to transport people, effectiveness is measured by the number of people who ride the buses. The metric used is passengers per revenue hour (revenue hours are hours that the bus is actually operating on its route and collecting passengers)

Service availability evaluates the ability of residents in the service area to access the bus system and the quality of that access. Is there a bus stop within reasonable walking distance? What hours does the bus run, what is it “span of service”? How frequently does the bus operate? Does the bus meet its schedule and what is its “on time performance?” Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 show area within one-quarter of a mile of the bus stops served by routes that arrive every 15 minutes or less for most hours of the day.

Efficiency considers the resources AC Transit uses to provide service.

The performance measures used by AC Transit are:

Effectiveness

• Ridership (passengers per revenue hour)

Service Availability and Quality

• Distance to Bus Stops

• Span of Service

• Frequency

• On Time Performance

Efficiency

• Cost Per Revenue Hour

• Cost per Passenger Mile

4.1.1 EFFECTIVENESSAC Transit sets a systemwide service goal of 72 percent on-time performance. The most recent data shows 68 percent of buses completing their routes on time. Systemwide ridership is tracked, but there is no formal target level. Similarly, efficiency, evaluated as the ratio between paid time and actual service time, is tracked without a target level

Policy 550 sets standards for the minimum target level of ridership for each type of AC Transit service. These standards are designed to assure that bus service provided is adequately productive. Different types of service are expected to carry different number of riders based on their service characteristics and land use characteristics. Trunks, major corridor lines, and Rapids should carry the most. Urban crosstown routes operating in denser areas are expected to carry more passengers than suburban crosstown routes, which operate in lower density areas.



FIGURE 4.1: WALKSHED AROUND FREQUENT SERVICE (NORTH)

High St

San Pablo Av

Foothill Bl

Broa

dway

International Bl

San Pablo Dam Rd

35th Av

Ashby Av

Adel

ine

St

Pacific Av

14th St

Otis Dr

Park Bl

23rd

St

Gian

t Rd

40th St

Central Av

Frui

tvale

Av

Dwight Wy

Tele

grap

h Av

Skyline Bl

Claremont Av

Barrett Ave

7th St

Cutting Blvd

8th St

Park

St

Macdonald Ave


Market St

Gran

d Av

12th St

Hollis St

Macarthur Bl

E 12th St

Arlington Av

Sacramento St

23rd Av

Appian Way

San Pablo Ave

73rd Av

Garrar

d Blvd

11th St

Central Ave

Snake Rd

Mai

n St

Hilltop Dr

14th Av

Rum

rill B

lvd

Lincoln Av

Moraga Av

Powell St

Web

ster

St

Colle

ge A

v

Atlas Rd

E 15th St

Broa

dway

Te

Shattuck Av

Buchanan St

E 7th St

Grizzly Peak Bl

Chur

ch Ln

§̈¦580

§̈¦80

§̈¦580

§̈¦80

¬«13

Walkshed around Frequent Service (North)

Source: AC Transit

0 1 20.5Miles

Walkshed

¸S:\Research\GIS\GIS Projects\SRTP\Map 3 - Quarter-mile Walkshed (North).mxd

Area within 1/4 mile of bus stops served by routes that arrive every 15 minutes or less for most hours of the day.



FIGURE 4.2: WALKSHED AROUND FREQUENT SERVICE (SOUTH)

Fremont Bl

Mission Bl

Paseo Padre Pw

Hesperian Bl

Mow

ry Av

Blacow Rd

Steve

nson

BlThor

nton

Av

E 14th St

Niles Bl

Bancroft Av

Auto Mall Pw

A St

Peralta Bl

Davis StOsgood Rd

Grimmer

Bl

S Grimmer Bl

Niles C

anyo

n Rd

Washington Bl

Redw

ood

Rd

Cushing Pw Warm

Springs Bl

Drisco

ll Rd

Boyce Rd

Decot

o Rd

Industrial P

w W

Doolittle Dr

Dutton Av

Uni

on C

ity B

l

Durham Rd

Jack

son

St

Deep Creek Rd

W A St

Foothill Bl

Edes Av

Alvarado Bl

Grand Av

Alvarado Niles Rd

§̈¦880

§̈¦580

§̈¦680

¬«84

¬«92

¬«238

¬«84

¬«238

Walkshed around Frequent Service (South)

Source: AC Transit

0 1 20.5Miles

Walkshed

¸S:\Research\GIS\GIS Projects\SRTP\Map 4 - Quarter-mile Walkshed (South).mxd

Area within 1/4 mile of bus stops served by routes that arrive every 15 minutes or less for most hours of the day.



The standard used to measure ridership is “passengers per revenue hour.” This is the average number of passengers who board a bus per hour that the bus is in operation, which is known as revenue service. AC Transit’s levels of bus ridership are among the highest in the region. Only San Francisco MTA (MUNI) consistently achieves higher ridership.

The ridership targets by service type, and AC Transit’s performance against those targets are shown in Table 4.1. Almost all service types meet or exceed their ridership target. Rapids had the highest ridership per hour, followed by trunks and major corridors, urban crosstowns, and suburban crosstowns. Only urban crosstowns fail to meet their designated standard, and on weekends only. The failure of urban crosstown service to meet its weekend ridership target may be in part due to the fact that many urban crosstowns operate on reduced frequencies on weekends. This is a result of financial constraints. In general, higher frequency service generated more passengers per revenue hour.

Very low density routes have no set standards under Policy 550 because they function purely as coverage routes. In 2012, the District conducted an exercise with South County to eliminate routes that carry less than 10 passengers per hour. In addition, the COA is investigating the potential to convert very low density routes to Flex Service. Similar low density service is provided by other agencies such as County Connection, LAVTA, SolTrans, TriDelta and WestCat typically carries between 14 and 18 passengers per hour.

TABLE 4.1: RIDERSHIP AND RIDERSHIP STANDARDS BY TYPE OF SERVICE (BY PASSENGERS PER REVENUE HOUR)

Service Type Weekday Service Standard

Weekday Service Actual (2013)

Weekend Service Standard

Weekend Service Actual (2013)

Trunks & Major Corridors 40 46.5 35 38.6

Rapids 40 49.3 35 46.2

Urban Crosstowns 30 33.3 25 24.3 Saturday 22.1 Sunday

Suburban Crosstowns 20 21.6 15 19.6 Saturdays 15.7 Sundays

Very Low Density No standard set NA No standard set NA

Transbay 25 per trip 31 per trip Most Transbay not operated

NA

4.1.2 TRUNK, CORRIDOR AND RAPID ROUTE RIDERSHIP BY LINERidership can vary considerably even within a service type. The trunk and major corridor lines average 46.5 passengers per revenue hour on weekdays. However on any given line, performance varies with average ridership ranging from 27 and 75 passengers per revenue hour. Most of the lines which fail to meet the ridership standard are major corridor routes rather than trunk routes, and have less frequent service than trunk routes. Shaded routes in Table 4.2A are below this productivity standard.

TABLE 4.2A: ROUTES RANKED BY PRODUCTIVITY WITHIN SERVICE TYPES, 2013: TRUNK, MAJOR CORRIDOR AND RAPID ROUTES

Route Type Route Description Weekday Passengers

Revenue Hours per weekday

Weekday Passengers per Revenue Hour

51B Trunk College-University 10,532 140.4 75.0

1R Rapid International-Telegraph Rapid

10,964 198.9 55.1






51A Trunk Broadway-Alameda 10,587 192.5 55.0

40 Trunk Foothill, Oakland 10,558 198.8 53.1

1 Trunk International-Telegraph local

12,005 238.6 50.3

57 Trunk 40th-Macarthur 7,543 157.5 47.9

73 Major Corridor 73rd Ave.-Hegenberger 3,096 66.9 46.3

18 Trunk Albany-Montclair 8,293 191.6 43.3

72R Rapid San Pablo Rapid 6,998 165.8 42.2

72M Trunk San Pablo- Macdonald 4,233 108.4 39.0

97 Major Corridor Hesperian- Union City 4,550 122.1 37.1

72 Trunk San Pablo 4,534 124.3 36.5

88 Major Corridor Sacramento- Market 2,745 78.5 35.0

99 Major Corridor Mission 2,786 102.1 27.3

210 Major Corridor Fremont Blvd. 1,743 68.2 25.5

4.1.3 URBAN CROSSTOWN ROUTESAmong urban crosstown routes, 13 meet the weekday ridership standard, while 11 do not. Of the routes that do not meet the standard, five routes are within two boardings per hour of meeting the standard. The routes meeting the standard generally operate more frequently and in areas with more transit-supportive land uses. Of the routes meeting the standard, eight of 13 operate every 20 minutes or more frequently in the peak period. By contrast, of the routes failing the standard, only two have 20 minute service or better.

The routes meeting the standard, 13 of 24 routes, generally operate in the higher density core cities of the district, especially Berkeley, Oakland, and Alameda. Only six of the 11 lower ridership routes operate in those cities, and of those that do, operate generally in the lower density areas. Shaded routes in Table 4.2B fall below the standard.

TABLE 4.2B: ROUTES RANKED BY PRODUCTIVITY WITHIN SERVICE TYPES, 2013: URBAN CROSSTOWN ROUTES



Weekday Passengers /Revenue Hour

52 Urban Crosstown

UC Berkeley-Albany Village

2,966 51.0 58.1

54 Urban Crosstown

35th Ave.-Redwood Rd. 2,561 44.2 58

39 Urban Crosstown

Fruitvale-Skyline 642 13.9 46.1

76 Urban Crosstown

Del Norte-Hilltop via N. Richmond

2,629 61.6 42.7

62 Urban Crosstown

West Oakland-Fruitvale 3,526 83.0 42.5

20 Urban Crosstown

Downtown-Alameda-Fruitvale

3,084 75.2 41.0`

14 Urban Crosstown

Downtown-Fruitvale BART 3,470 94.1 36.9





Weekday Passengers /Revenue Hour

46 Urban Crosstown

Coliseum BART-Oakland Zoo

491 13.4 36.8

22 Urban Crosstown

Winton-Tennyson loop 2,452 69.0 35.5

49 Urban Crosstown

Ashby-Dwight loop 2,273 66.4 34.2

26 Urban Crosstown

Emeryville-Lakeshore 2,636 79.7 33.1

12 Urban Crosstown

Oakland-Berkeley via Grand, MLK

2,490 76.4 32.6

21 Urban Crosstown

Oakland Airport-Dimond Dist.

1,975 60.9 32.4

45 Urban Crosstown

Sobrante Park-Eastmont 2,314 78.6 29.5

11 Urban Crosstown

Piedmont-Dimond via Oakland Ave.

1,654 56.5 29.3

70 Urban Crosstown

San Pablo Dam- Appian 1,261 43.1 29.3

31 Urban Crosstown

Alameda-Emeryville 1,841 65.3 28.2

58L Urban Crosstown

Downtown Oak-Macarthur 1,107 39.2 28.2

74 Urban Crosstown

Marina Bay- El Sobrante 1,189 46.4 25.6

32 Urban Crosstown

Hayward-Castro Vly.-Bayfair loop

768 33.3 23.0

25 Urban Crosstown

North Berkeley-El Cerrito loop

886 39.4 22.5

37 Urban Crosstown

Whitman-Santa Clara loop 501 28.9 17.3

47 Urban Crosstown

Fruitvale BART-Maxwell Park

134 7.9 17.1

48 Urban Crosstown

Bayfair-Castro Valley BART 440 28.7 15.3

4.1.4 SUBURBAN CROSSTOWN ROUTESSuburban crosstown routes are concentrated in Central Alameda County, with some additional routes in the Berkeley Hills.

Among the dozen suburban crosstown routes, seven met the ridership standard, while five did not. Four of the routes not meeting the standard are within two boardings per hour of meeting the standard. The suburban routes fell within a relatively narrow range of ridership. The most productive route, line 65 in the Berkeley Hills, had roughly twice as many passengers per hour as the least productive, line 94 in Hayward. This is a much narrower range than is experienced on the urban crosstown routes.

The suburban crosstowns clearly had lower ridership than the urban crosstown routes. Only one suburban crosstown route, line 65, would meet the urban crosstown productivity standard. Shaded routes in Table 4.2C fall below the standard.



TABLE 4.2C: ROUTES RANKED BY PRODUCTIVITY WITHIN SERVICE TYPES, 2013: SUBURBAN CROSSTOWN




65 Suburban Crosstown

Euclid-Grizzly Peak 921 29.6 31.1


San Leandro- Union Landing

876 30.6 28.7


Spruce St., Berkeley 322 12.5 25.7


Hayward BART-Kelly Park 420 15.4 27.2


Bayfair-San Lorenzo-Haywd.

751 30.7 24.5


The Arlington 743 30.9 24.1


Hayward BART- CSU East Bay

762 34.7 22.0


Winton-Tennyson 806 41.4 19.5


A St.-Tennyson, Hayward 588 31.4 18.7


San Leandro loop 1,241 67.0 18.5


Eastmont-Bayfair loop 545 29.7 18.3


East Av.-Hayward Blvd. 171 10.6 16.2

4.1.5 TRANSBAY ROUTESUnder Policy 550, Transbay routes are evaluated by a different standard than East Bay routes. Most Transbay routes are relatively long in both distance and time. They also often require “deadhead” not in service trips from San Francisco to the East Bay. So that these common characteristics do not overwhelm the comparative analysis, Transbay routes are evaluated by the number of passengers they carry on each trip.

Most Transbay routes, unlike most other AC Transit routes, operate only during weekday commute hours, often only in the main commute direction (i.e.. into San Francisco in the morning). Three Transbay routes, lines F from Berkeley and Emeryville, NL from the Grand/Macarthur corridor, and O from Alameda, operate all day, 7 days per week. Many passengers on these routes, especially the F and the NL ride within the East Bay rather than to San Francisco. This demonstrates that the local component of some Transbay routes is as important as the Transbay component.

The Transbay ridership standard is 26 passengers per trip. While 19 Transbay routes meet this standard, seven do not. Data is not available on 2 routes, and 1 route has been discontinued. Of those routes not meeting the standard, two are within two boardings per hour of meeting the standard. In general, ridership on Transbay buses has been increasing in the wake of BART crowding and the BART strike. Some Transbay lines now have more passengers boardings per trip than seats, which results in standing passengers. Policy 550, recognizing the length of Transbay trips, calls for a seat for each Transbay passenger, but AC Transit does not currently have capacity to meet this requirement.



As part of the Transbay Core Capacity Study, further analysis will be conducted to determine why Transbay routes vary in productivity. In addition, a comprehensive analysis will be conducted of the number of Transbay stops, the stop spacing and relative route distance on local streets with distance on freeways. The shaded rows in Table 4.2D below fall below the productivity standard.

TABLE 4.2D: ROUTES RANKED BY PRODUCTIVITY WITHIN SERVICE TYPES, 2013: PART 4, TRANSBAY ROUTES


Weekday Trips

Passengers per Trip

Number of WB Stops

U Commute Fremont-Stanford 531 11 48.3 11

F All day Berkeley-SF 3,344 78 42.9 43

L Commute El Sobrante-SF 697 19 36.7 30

SB Commute Newark-SF 477 13 36.7 35

FS Commute Shattuck/ University-SF 293 8 36.6 19

J Commute Sacramento St.-Emeryville-SF 697 19 35.9 19

H Commute Arlington-SF 597 17 35.1 49

G Commute El Cerrito/ Albany-SF 345 10 34.5 39

NL All Day Macarthur Blvd., Oak.-SF 3,193 93 34.3 19

V Commute Oakland Hills-SF 761 23 33.1 21

NX4 Commute Castro Valley-SF 360 11 32.7 50

NX Commute Eastmont-SF 293 9 32.6 29

NX1 Commute Dimond-SF 228 7 32.6 0 (EB Only)

O All Day Santa Clara St. Alameda-SF 1,981 63 31.5 31

P Commute Piedmont-SF 751 21 34.3 11

OX Commute Harbor Bay/ E. Alameda-SF 642 21 30.6 33

W Commute Alameda-SF 527 19 27.7 37

NX3 Commute Macarthur Blvd. south-SF 328 12 27.3 26

NX2 Commute Laurel-SF 268 10 26.8 0 (EB Only)

CB Commute Montclair/N. Oakland-SF 189 8 23.6 28

S Commute Hayward/ San Leandro-SF 258 11 23.5 44

LA Commute Richmond Pkwy.-SF 600 27 22.2 17

LC Commute Richmond Pkwy.-SF 63 3 21.0 0 (EB Only)

C Commute Piedmont Ave/ 40th St.-SF 272 13 20.9 29

E Commute Claremont Ave.-SF 267 14 19.1 12

B Commute Trestle Glen-SF 252 15 16.8 4

4.1.6 SERVICE AVAILABILITY AND QUALITYService availability and quality are key elements in how passengers judge transit, and can strongly affect their decision whether or not to ride. Several elements influence the service availability and quality as understood by potential riders:

1. Span of Service (Also known as “hours of operation”): Which hours of the day is the bus running? This may vary between weekdays and weekends.



2. Frequency: How often does the bus come? This is likely to vary between weekdays and weekends.

3. On-Time Performance: Does the bus operate on time and meet its schedule?

Staff is developing information on another key transit characteristic distance from the passenger’s origin and destination to bus stops. This information will be included in future versions of the SRTP.

Board Policy 550 establishes standards for hours of operation and frequency, while on time performance is part of the District’s KPI system.

SPAN OF SERVICE/HOURS OF OPERATIONA bus route is only useful to a passenger if it is operates at the time when the passenger needs it. Therefore, Policy 550 sets standards for the hours routes should be operating:

ROUTE TYPE SPAN/HOURS OF OPERATION• Trunks and Major Corridors: 19 to 24 hours per day, for example, 5 a.m. to at least midnight

• Rapids: 14 to 16 hours per day, for example, 6 a.m. to at least 8 p.m.

• Urban Crosstowns: 14 to 16 hours per day, for example, 5 a.m. to at least 7 p.m.

• Suburban Crosstowns: 14 to 16 hours per day, for example, 7 a.m. to at least 9 p.m.

• Very Low Density Routes: 14 to 16 hours per day, for example, 6 a.m. to at least 8 p.m.

Rapid routes have a shorter span requirement under the assumption that they will generally be operating on the same street as trunk and major corridor service which will be available for longer hours. Since most Transbay lines only operate in the commute period, they are effectively exempt from standards for hours of operation.

Most AC Transit lines meet or exceed their minimum requirement for span of service. Of 66 lines covered by the standard, only nine fail to meet it.

AC Transit’s standard for trunk line span of service is similar to other agencies, such as San Francisco Muni, Metro in Los Angeles and VTA. However, some systems, such as Muni and LA Metro, operate more extensive all night or “owl” service.

FREQUENCYFrequent service is fundamental to attracting and retaining passengers. Most passengers are unwilling to accept long waits for the bus. The transit industry in recent years has placed renewed focus on providing frequent service. Policy 550 sets these target frequencies for various service types during peak hours:

ROUTE TYPE TARGET MINIMUM FREQUENCY• Trunks and Major Corridors Every 15-20 minutes

• Rapids Every 10-14 minutes

• Urban Crosstown Every 15-20 minutes

• Suburban Crosstown Every 21-30 minutes

• Very Low Density Routes Every 31-60 minutes

• Transbay Every 21-30 minutes



Almost 60 percent (36 routes) of East Bay routes meet or exceed the frequency standard, while 26 routes do not. Trunks and major corridor routes generally meet the frequency standard. A number of urban and suburban crosstown routes, especially in West Contra Costa County and Central Alameda County, fail the standard. The Transit Sustainability Project has determined that improving frequency, especially on routes than run less than once every half hour, is important for service quality.

In addition to the frequency standards, Policy 550 sets goals for greater frequency for most service types. The goals are:

ROUTE TYPE FREQUENCY GOAL• Trunks and Major Corridors Every 10-14 minutes

• Urban Crosstown Every 15-20 minutes

• Suburban Crosstown Every 15-20 minutes

• Very Low Density Routes Every 21-30 minutes

• Transbay Every 15 minutes or greater during peak hours

The frequency of service by route can be seen in Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4.

ON-TIME PERFORMANCEOn-time operation of buses is critical for passengers. Passengers need to be able to rely on a bus to deliver them on time to work, school, medical appointments, and other activities. AC Transit sets a standard that at least 72 percent of the trips on a line should arrive on time. On-time is defined as between one minute early and five minutes late.

System-wide, 69.8 percent of weekday trips were on-time, as of July 2013. Lines which operate in lower density suburban areas were most likely to meet the on-time performance standard.

As a service type, trunk/major corridor, and Rapid lines are the most likely to be late, none met the 72 percent standard. These lines often operate on congested streets and serve the most passengers, resulting in longer dwell times. Because they serve the most passengers, the impact of late buses on passengers is magnified.

In comparison with other large Bay Area transit agencies, AC Transit’s on time performance is lower than Santa Clara VTA, which reports over 90 percent on time performance; however, AC Transit’s on-time performance is higher than San Francisco MUNI’s, which is approximately 60 percent.

Routes which failed to meet the standard are shaded in Table 4.3A, Table 4.3B, and Table 4.3C



FIGURE 4.3: FREQUENCY OF SERVICE BY ROUTE (NORTH)

High St

San Pablo Av

Foothill Bl

Broa

dway

International Bl

San Pablo Dam Rd

35th Av

Ashby Av

Adel

ine

St

Pacific Av

14th St

Otis Dr

Park Bl

23rd

St

Gian

t Rd

40th St

Central Av

Frui

tvale

Av

Dwight Wy

Tele

grap

h Av

Skyline Bl

Claremont Av

Barrett Ave

7th St

Cutting Blvd

8th St

Park

St

Macdonald Ave


Market St

Gran

d Av

12th St

Hollis St

Macarthur Bl

E 12th St

Arlington Av

Sacramento St

23rd Av

Appian Way

San Pablo Ave

73rd Av

Garrar

d Blvd

11th St

Central Ave

Snake Rd

Mai

n St

Hilltop Dr

14th Av

Rum

rill B

lvd

Lincoln Av

Moraga Av

Powell St

Web

ster

St

Colle

ge A

v

Atlas Rd

E 15th St

Broa

dway

Te

Shattuck Av

Buchanan St

E 7th St

Grizzly Peak Bl

Chur

ch Ln

§̈¦580

§̈¦80

§̈¦580

§̈¦80

¬«13

Frequency of Service by Route (North)

Source: AC Transit Schedules

0 1 20.5Miles

Frequency of Service10-15 minutes20 minutes30 minutes60 minutes

¸S:\Research\GIS\GIS Projects\COA Outreach 2014\PowerPoint Maps\Route Frequency\Map 5 - Weekday Frequency of Service by Route (North).mxd




FIGURE 4.4: FREQUENCY OF SERVICE BY ROUTE (SOUTH)

Fremont Bl

Mission Bl

Paseo Padre Pw

Hesperian Bl

Mow

ry Av

Blacow Rd

Steve

nson

BlThor

nton

Av

E 14th St

Niles Bl

Bancroft Av

Auto Mall Pw

A St

Peralta Bl

Osgood Rd

Grimmer

Bl

S Grimmer Bl

Davis St

Niles C

anyo

n Rd

Washington Bl

Redw

ood

Rd

Warm

Springs Bl

Cushing Pw

Drisco

ll Rd

Boyce Rd

Decot

o Rd

Industrial P

w W

Dutton Av

Uni

on C

ity B

l

Durham Rd

Jack

son

St

Deep Creek Rd

W A St

Foothill Bl

Alvarado Bl

Grand Av

§̈¦880

§̈¦580

§̈¦680

§̈¦880

¬«84

¬«92

¬«238

¬«84

¬«238

Weekday Frequency of Service by Route (South)

Source: AC Transit Schedules

0 1 20.5Miles

Frequency of Service10-15 minutes20 minutes30 minutes60 minutes

¸S:\Research\GIS\GIS Projects\COA Outreach 2014\PowerPoint Maps\Route Frequency\

Map 6 - Weekday Frequency of Service by Route (South).mxd

Frequency of service during peak commute periods



TABLE 4.3A: ON TIME PERFORMANCE: TRUNKS/MAJOR CORRIDORS, RAPIDS

Route Route Description Type of Service On Time Performance

51B College-University Trunk 71.0%

51A Broadway-Alameda Trunk 70.2%

88 Sacramento-Market Major Corridor 70.1%

73 73rd Ave.-Hegenberger Major Corridor 69.6%

18 Albany-Montclair Trunk 69.3%

99 Mission Blvd. Major Corridor 68.9%

40 Foothill Blvd., Oakland Trunk 67.9%

97 Hesperian Blvd. Major Corridor 66.6%

210 Fremont Blvd. Major Corridor 66.5%

57 40th St.-Macarthur Trunk 63.7%

72R San Pablo Rapid Rapid 60.9%

72 San Pablo Ave. Trunk 59.2%

1 International-Telegraph local Trunk 56.8%

72M San Pablo-Macdonald Trunk 53.7%

1R Interational-Telegraph Rapid Rapid 48.2%

TABLE 4.3B: ON TIME PERFORMANCE: URBAN CROSSTOWNS


48 Bayfair-Castro Valley BART Urban Crosstown 84.4%

BSD Broadway Shuttle Circulator 80.7%

70 San Pablo Dam-Appian Urban Crosstown 79.2%

52 UC Berkeley-Albany Village Urban Crosstown 75.9%

71 El Cerrito-Contra Costa Coll.-Richmond Pkwy.

Urban Crosstown 78.5%

22 Winton-Tennyson –Mission Loop, Hayward


37 Whitrman-Santa Clara loop, Hayward


45 Sobrante Park-Eastmont, East Oakland


46 Coliseum BART-Oakland Zoo Urban Crosstown 74.9%

12 Oakland-Berkeley via Grand, MLK


47 Fruitvale BART- Maxwell Park, Oakland


31 Alameda-Downtown Oak.-Emeryville via Peralta St.


25 North Berkeley-El Cerrito Loop Urban Crosstown 71.6%

26 Emeryville-Lakeshore Urban Crosstown 69.9%

11 Piedmont-Dimond Dist. via Oakland Ave.





20 Downtown Oakland- Alameda-Fruitvale


32 Hayward-Castro Valley- Bayfair loop


14 Downtown Oak.-Fruitvale BART Urban Crosstown 68.1%

54 35th Ave.-Redwood Rd. Urban Crosstown 67.7%

74 Marina Bay, Richmond - El Sobrante


21 Oakland Airport-Dimond District Urban Crosstown 65.5%

76 Del Norte BART-Hilltop Mall via North Richmond


49 Ashby-Dwight loop, Berkeley Urban Crosstown 65.3%

58L Downtown Oakland- Eastmont via Macarthur


62 West Oakland BART- Fruitvale BART


39 Fruitvale BART-Skyline Urban Crosstown 60.2%

TABLE 4.3C ON TIME PERFORMANCE: SUBURBAN CROSSTOWNS AND VERY LOW DENSITY ROUTES


86 Winton-Tennyson, Hayward Suburban Crosstown

85.1%

251 Paseo Padre-Thornton Very Low Density 80.1%

275 Union City BART-Lido Faire via Thornton

Very Low Density 80.1%

60 Hayward BART-Kelly Park Suburban Crosstown

79.5%

83 A Street-Hayward Industrial-Tennyson

Suburban Crosstown

78.9%

65 Euclid-Grizzly Peak, Berkeley Suburban Crosstown

77.1%

232 Paseo Padre-Cedar Blvd. Very Low Density 76.0%

7 The Arlington, Berkeley-Kensington-El Cerrito

Suburban Crosstown

75.5%

239 Fremont BART-Warm Springs via Grimmer


67 Spruce St., Berkeley Suburban Crosstown

68.6%

93 Bayfair-San Lorenzo- Hayward Loop

Suburban Crosstown

68.3%

215 Fremont BART-Warm Springs via Osgood Rd.


94 East Ave.-Hayward Blvd. Suburban Crosstown

66.1%




217 Mission Blvd. Fremont- Warm Springs Rd.


89 San Leandro Loop Suburban Crosstown

64.2%

200 Union City BART- Newpark-Fremont BART


212 Fremont BART- Pacific Commons-Newpark


95 Hayward BART-Kelly Park Suburban Crosstown

62.6%

216 Union City-Newpark via Stevenson


85 San Leandro-Union Landing Suburban Crosstown

53.6%

75 Eastmont-Bayfair Loop Suburban Crosstown

52.5%

4.1.7 EFFICIENCYThe previous section of this chapter evaluated service effectiveness, seeking to assess the quality and usefulness of AC Transit service. The evaluation of efficiency in this section measures how well the District is doing at minimizing the cost of providing that service. Increasing the efficiency of AC Transit operations would allow AC Transit to provide more service or to provide the same service at a lower cost.

MTC is focused on working with regional transit agencies on ways to improve transit operating efficiency. Plan Bay Area, approved by MTC and ABAG, seeks to increase the transit share of travel in the region. More transit service can be funded if operating costs are lower. This was a central concern of the Transit Sustainability Project (TSP). The TSP required the Bay Area’s major transit operators to commit to cost reductions, or at least slowing of the rate of cost growth. These reductions are to be achieved by FY 2016-17.

AC Transit has focused on three cost metrics as targets for reduction under the TSP: cost per unlinked trip, cost per passenger mile, and cost per revenue hour. The cost metrics compared in Table 4.4 below, cover fixed route service, excluding the cost of operating paratransit service.

TABLE 4.4 EFFICIENCY METRIC COMPARISON

Metric 2013-14 2016-17 Projected Increase/Decrease

Cost Per Revenue Hour $182.97 $190.87 4.3% (within acceptable TSP cost range)

Cost per unlinked trip $5.57 $5.45 -2.2%

Cost per Passenger Mile $1.71 $1.67 -2.3%

COST PER REVENUE HOURCost per revenue hour (hour when the bus is actually operating) is a fundamental measure of AC Transit operations, driving other District costs. Earlier in the 2000s, AC Transit’s per hour costs had been increasing faster than the Consumer Price Index, the rate of inflation, but this is no longer the case.



COST PER UNLINKED TRIPCost per unlinked trip is derived from the cost per revenue hour and the number of passenger trips taken in that hour. An “unlinked” trip is a single trip on a vehicle, regardless of whether the passenger transfers to another bus. A journey from origin to destination could include one, two, or occasionally more unlinked trips. A “linked” trip is a combination of multiple “unlinked” trips made by a single rider that involve transfers. By attracting more passengers to the system, AC Transit hopes to reduce the cost per unlinked trip.

COST PER PASSENGER MILECost per unlinked trip shows the cost of each trip, but trips vary in length. Cost per passenger mile introduces the element of distance to the analysis of efficiency. Unsurprisingly, longer trips, require more resources, primarily bus operating time, than shorter trips. The change in cost per passenger mile closely mirrors the cost per unlinked trip. This is because the average length of a passenger trip on AC Transit (3.25 miles) is not expected to change significantly over the life of the SRTP.

AC Transit’s cost per revenue hour is higher than most Bay Area bus operators, but lower than Muni or VTA. However, AC Transit’s cost per unlinked trip is relatively low, lower than most major operators except MUNI. This perhaps surprising combination occurs because AC Transit buses have more passengers per hour than other bus systems in the region, except for MUNI.

4.2 COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLANS (CBTPS)AC Transit has participated in MTC’s Community Based Transportation Planning Program (CBTP) in both Alameda and Contra Costa County. The areas covered by these plans are shown in Figure 4.5 below. The CBTPs are designed to help low income communities articulate their transportation needs, and serve as a basis for future planning and funding. The plans initially focused on transit needs, then expanded to include pedestrian and bicycle needs as well. The two counties are now taking different approaches to the Plans which have been developed.



FIGURE 4.5: COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN AREAS

Oakland

Hayward

Alameda

Berkeley

Orinda

Brisbane

Lafayette

San Francisco

Moraga

San Leandro

Foster City

South San Francisco

Albany

Walnut Creek

Union City

Richmond

San MateoBurlingame

Emeryville

Piedmont

El Cerrito

FremontHillsborough

West Oakland

Alameda

Central and East Oakland

South and West Berkeley



Community Based Transportation Plan Areas

Cities

Interstates

Highways

Arterial Roads

¯0 2 41 Miles

Community Based Transportation Plan Areas



ALAMEDA COUNTYBetween 2004 and 2009, five CBTPs were prepared for the Alameda County portion of AC Transit’s service area. In order from north to south, they covered the following areas:

• South and West Berkeley

• West Oakland

• Central and East Oakland

• City of Alameda

• Central Alameda County, focusing on Ashland, Cherryland, and South Hayward

The agency then known as the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) oversaw the development of these Plans. That agency, now known as the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), intends to consolidate and update all of these plans and integrate the result into the Countywide Transportation Plan in 2015/2016. The original plans were done separately from each other and varied widely in approach, analysis, and recommendations.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTYIn AC Transit’s Contra Costa County service area, a CBTP was prepared in 2004 for the Richmond area. It covered northwestern neighborhoods in the City of Richmond (including Parchester Village) as well as Old Town San Pablo. This plan remains in effect and there are no plans to update it.

4.3 PARATRANSIT SERVICE PROVIDEDAs a fixed route transit provider, AC Transit is required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to fund paratransit service. Paratransit provides shared point-to-point transportation for people who cannot use fixed route service. People must live within ¾ mile of a fixed route to receive paratransit service. The majority of residents in the AC Transit district meet this criterion, although some people living in upper hill areas fall outside of it. Service is provided during the same hours and days of the week as it is on adjacent fixed route service. Most rides are provided within the AC Transit district, but paratransit rides to other parts of the Bay Area may be provided as direct or connecting service.

AC Transit provides paratransit service through East Bay Paratransit, which is jointly managed by AC Transit and BART. Under the consortium’s agreement, AC Transit pays 69 percent of costs. This figure is estimated to be $24.9 million in the current Fiscal Year 2014-15. This figure is projected to increase to $29 million by Fiscal Year 2018-19.

In Fiscal Year 2012-13, East Bay Paratransit provided 716,681 rides. This figure is slightly over 1 percent of the rides taken on AC Transit’s fixed route service. The total cost (BART and AC Transit) of these paratransit rides was $34,015,000. The cost per ride was $47.46. Ridership was down from approximately 754,000 in 2011-12, which represented the highest level ever.

AC Transit provides training to assist passengers who can use fixed route transit rather than paratransit to do so. This provides more travel flexibility for the passenger and cost savings for the District.



4.4 TITLE VI REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICEAC Transit is required to assess its service performance on minority and non-minority transit routes. The most recent analysis was conducted in Spring 2014 using data from Fall 2011, 2012 and 2013. Staff assessed performance of each route according to definitions in Board Policy 550 and methods described in the FTA Circular. Minority transit routes are those where at least on-third of the route mileage is in areas where the population is at least 70 percent minority (70 percent is the district average non-white population). Differences found for the minority and non-minority transit routes in average load factor, maximum load factor, headway, on-time performance, service accessibility, vehicle assignment, and distribution of transit amenities were not indicative of any discriminatory practices.

In preparation for updating Title VI compliance related Board Policies, AC Transit conducted a series of public outreach activities in May and June 2014 before a public hearing. The public outreach activities were not required by the Title VI program, but they were provided to ensure populations protected by Title VI and Environmental Justice executive orders have a full and meaningful opportunity to participate in the development and review of the proposed Board policy updates. The most recent round of outreach activities included four community forums, one held in each of AC Transit’s planning areas, advertising on buses, information packets, and advertisements in both traditional and social media outlets. In addition, staff directly contacted 160 community-based organizations and made presentations to 22 of them, and spoke directly about the proposals with more than 575 individuals. Five of the presentations were provided in Spanish. In addition, the materials were translated into Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean and Tagalog.

On June 11, 2014, AC Transit held a public hearing to receive public comment on revisions to Board policies 163, 501 and 551 to meet Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements related to Title VI (Civil Rights Act) compliance. The Board subsequently adopted a revised Title VI policy and program (see Appendix A).

There are no triennial report issues which require changes in service.


5.0 INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate that funding will be available to support planned transit service. This chapter and Chapter 6 (Capital Improvement Program) represent the key implementation chapters of the SRTP. They lay out what the District hopes to achieve in the next 10 years.

Alameda County voters, with a ‘yes’ vote over 70 percent, approved Measure BB in November, 2014. Measure BB is an increase in the c\County’s transportation sales tax, which makes substantial additional revenues available to AC Transit for service. Other sources, such as the State’s new Cap and Trade funding programs, are expected to contribute additional, albeit smaller, amounts of operating revenue. The SRTP lays out a broad, high level, 10-year “road map” for the use of existing and anticipated future funds. Specific annual expenditures will be reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors in the annual budget.

The District is engaged in several planning activities, outlined below, which could generate new service plans that may require additional revenue. Staff is formulating a COA which will review and restructure service throughout the district, based on the earlier MTC-initiated COA and on Board service development Policy 550.

5.1 OVERVIEW OF SERVICE AND ANTICIPATED CHANGES• Measure BB will provide about $30 million per year in additional operating funds for Alameda County

• Measure BB will support approximately 256,000 platform hours of service per year, or a nearly 14 percent increase in service

• About 85 percent of anticipated Measure BB funding will be used for service expansion, with the remainder used to augment the District’s operating reserves and to make contributions to capital projects.

• AC Transit will continue to seek funds to improve service in the Contra Costa County portion of the district (Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, North Richmond, Kensington)

5.1.1 TRANSIT SERVICE ISSUES HIGHLIGHTED IN MTC SRTP RESOLUTION 3532SERVICE CUTSCurrent plans do not assume that any service cuts will be a financial necessity. However specific routes may be reduced, eliminated, or increased as part of service restructuring plans with the goal of increasing ridership overall.

TITLE VINo service changes are required now to address Title VI concerns. Major service changes will be reviewed under the District’s Title VI policy, which the Board of Directors adopted in October 2014.

5.1.2 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE—REVENUE HOURSIn Fiscal Year 2013-14, AC Transit operated 1,685,688 hours of revenue service. This is AC Transit’s baseline service level. Measure BB will allow the addition of some 230,000 new revenue hours, an increase of nearly 14 percent. AC Transit will then operate some 1,930,000 revenue hours annually. That was the level of service provided in 2008-09, the highest level of service in a decade, and the service level before the 2009-10 cuts.

Chapter 5: SRTP Operations Plan and Budget



In terms of comparative service intensity, AC Transit provides 1.19 revenue hours per resident of the district, Santa Clara County VTA provides 0.77 hours (bus and light rail) and MUNI operates 3.95 hours per resident (one of the highest levels in the US).

AC Transit operates local, trunk, rapid, and express (Transbay service), each of which will be affected differently by upcoming changes. Existing service is described in Chapter 2 and analyzed in Chapter 5. The COA is expected to increase the level of local and trunk service. The COA is not anticipated to propose changes in Transbay service, although changes may emerge from the Transbay Core Capacity Study. A majority of the

existing 1R Rapid line, the International Boulevard/East 14th segment, is being converted to Bus Rapid Transit.

5.2 OPERATIONS PLANNING5.2.1 INNER EAST BAY COMPREHENSIVE OPERATIONS ANALYSISINTRODUCTION TO THE COA AC Transit is currently in the final phase of a COA for the entire service area. District staff will soon make proposals for changes to routes and service patterns. Staff will undertake extensive outreach on these proposals. The AC Transit Board will be asked to vote on a package of proposed service changes.

A COA is a systematic analysis of all service that a transit agency provides. A COA is intended to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness (ridership) of a transit system. This is done through the following activities:

• Review of all transit services within a given area,

• Assessment of route performance,

• Assessment of demand growth and current and future travel patterns,

• Public surveys to assess use and potential use of the transit system (Gap Analysis)

• Recommendations on how to link trips better with the service

The Inner East Bay COA examines AC Transit’s current service and measures its effectiveness in providing a quality transit service throughout the AC Transit district. Based on this assessment (as described above), the COA will provide service recommendations to improve the route network and connectivity for the East Bay’s residents and employees.

BACKGROUND TO AC TRANSIT’S COA AND COA GOALSIn 2009, the MTC adopted Transportation 2035, the long-range transportation plan for the San Francisco Bay Area (now superseded by Transportation 2040). Transportation 2035 identified a $25 billion transit capital and operating shortfall over the 25-year period of the plan. The long-term financial challenges, coupled with current deficits requiring service cuts and fare increases throughout the region motivated MTC to initiate the TSP. The project progressed and focused its analysis on three main elements of sustainability:

• Financial Sustainability – Focused on operating costs, revenues and pricing strategies for the largest seven operators , which carry over 90% of Bay Area transit trips (MUNI, BART, AC Transit, VTA, Golden Gate, Caltrain and SamTrans)

• Better Service Delivery and Design – Focused on service design and delivery for the regional, sub-regional (local) and paratransit service analysis

• Institutional Reform – Focused on the “how” transit services are provided and reviewed alternative delivery approaches



A sub-study of the TSP was a specific review of service delivery called the “Inner East Bay Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA).” The COA reviewed and assessed service connectivity between AC Transit and BART throughout the District’s service area, although it did not include smaller transit operators such as Union City Transit and Westcat.

A service planning consultant, Transit Management and Design (TMD), was engaged by MTC to review AC Transit’s and BART’s current service. TMD assessed both the complementary and any potential competitive aspects of current service design to develop an optimally efficient service design. TMD reviewed the services provided by both agencies and, with MTC, developed recommendations that would meet the following goals of the COA study:

• Promote a seamless Inner East Bay bus and rail transit system

• Build the Urban Core to allow for spontaneous (not requiring a schedule) bus and rail network use by customers

• Match bus and rail service levels with demand, focusing on improving service productivity while increasing overall system ridership

• Ensure on-going financial sustainability

• Minimize the cost of network coverage

• Identify alternative service options tailored to specific market needs

Following this process, TMD worked directly with AC Transit staff to develop an existing conditions analysis and service recommendations that met the COA goals stated above. These were based on the following guiding principles:

• Focus resources on key urban trunk corridors to provide “spontaneous use service” in the urban core network

• Refine coverage strategies for areas with infrequent service (30-minutes or less frequent) and areas with frequencies at 15-minutes or more frequent

• Enhance Transbay service, using existing and new service designs

• Improve productivity and efficiency

• Ensure Title VI/EJ considerations are addressed in both service quality (spontaneous use) and coverage

TMD’s analysis and recommendations quickly became outdated as AC Transit and BART’s ridership began to grow in 2012 and ridership patterns changed for the region. This was further compounded by the 2013 BART strike that put more riders on AC Transit’s buses. Between 2012 and 2014, AC Transit’s ridership grew by nearly 5 percent overall and close to 20 percent on Transbay routes without any significant enhancements to the service network.

As a result of this change, Staff set aside the initial set of COA service recommendations and did not implement major service enhancements until 2014 due to a lack of financial resources. During this period it became clear that some of the Transbay passengers gained during the strike were continuing to ride AC Transit. With an improvement in AC Transit’s financial outlook and the passage of Measure BB, AC Transit re-initiated the COA process in the fall of 2014 to develop a service expansion plan based on Measure BB operating revenues.



EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO THE COA Between 2007 and 2012, AC Transit ridership and service levels dropped to the lowest levels in the past decade for the agency. The shrinkage is directly attributed to the economic recession, which forced AC Transit to reduce service by nearly 15 percent in 2010.

The goal of the 2010 service cuts was to reduce operating costs, while maintaining as much service coverage as possible. In order to achieve this goal, AC Transit reduced service frequencies, resulting in 40-minute to hourly service on crosstown routes and a reduction in trunk route frequency, including on lines 40, 51A/51B, 57, 97 and 99. The District also reduced the number of Transbay trips by 15 percent to reduce expenses and match the existing demand on lower demand routes. Most service dropped to 30-minute frequency. In addition to reducing local and Transbay service frequencies, AC Transit reduced spans of service. On many routes service ended at 8 p.m.

At the same time, AC Transit eliminated the most unproductive routes and route segments in order to further reduce operating costs. Though this action preserved service where it was needed most, it pieced together different route segments and made the overall route network less coherent to riders (and in some instances, different routes on weekdays and the weekend). This resulted in two prevalent route types for the service area:

1. Long routes created from interlining different route segments that saved on operating costs. Though these achieved the goal of the 2010 service reductions, they proved to be difficult to understand and operate reliably.

2. Circulator loop routes that started and ended at a common endpoint, mainly BART stations. These routes attempted to serve productive crosstown segments in Berkeley, Central County and South County, and they emphasized BART as the primary destination. The circulator routes did not have simple routing because of the complex road network of the service area. As a result, these routes became some of the most confusing and least used in the district.

Despite the degradation in the service network from the 2010 service cuts, ridership increased by nearly 5 percent from 2012 to 2014. The ridership growth is evident on Transbay routes and some trunk routes where AC Transit has received complaints of overcrowding.

Ridership gains can be attributed to both increased demand generated by the improved Bay Area economy and to improved bus operations as demonstrated by the greater number of scheduled trips actually operated. This increase directly correlates with AC Transit’s success in increasing the number of operators, the purchase of new buses, and greater maintenance attention. Still, between 2011 and 2014, AC Transit only made minor improvements to service frequency and the route network.

With the passage of the Alameda County Measure BB sales tax authorization, AC Transit is now able to address the deficiencies in the route network. As described earlier in this chapter, Measure BB revenues will allow AC Transit to increase service by 14 percent to pre-2010 levels. Based on the goals of the COA and the TSP, service will be increased to maximize efficiency and productivity.

COA PHASE ONE OUTREACH AND ANALYSISRecognizing the need for public input and support to advance the COA, AC Transit requested outreach support from MTC. MTC provided an on-call consultant in spring 2014. Outreach began in fall 2014.



METHODSAC Transit welcomed public input and interaction through a variety of channels. Each element is discussed in detail below:

PUBLIC WORKSHOPSAC Transit hosted eleven public workshops throughout the district between October 1 and November 10, 2014. Workshop locations were chosen to provide maximum coverage for public convenience and to allow focused conversation on specific areas. These workshops were designed to solicit feedback about existing service, explain common transit trade-offs and proposed new or restored service.

The majority of each workshop session was reserved for a small-group activity to design a transit network. Using maps and ribbon, groups were asked to create a network of 15- and 30-minute frequency routes constrained by current revenue hours. Workshops in Alameda County included additional ribbon to represent the potential benefits of Measure BB on operating funds. This hands-on activity allowed participants to explore common transit trade-offs like coverage versus frequency. Finally, a representative from each group shared major points from their discussion with all the attendees.

SURVEYSAC Transit designed a short survey to better understand public preferences. The survey had two major components: (1) ranking characteristics that influence an individual’s decision to use transit over other modes and (2) preferences about service and network trade-offs. The surveys also collected optional travel behavior and demographic data. The survey was available online in English, Spanish, and Chinese and on paper at the public workshops. 775 surveys were received.

COMMENT FORMSAC Transit accepted open-ended comments in the form of email, telephone voicemail, written comments, and verbal comments at the public meetings. Comment forms were available in English, Spanish, and Chinese at public workshops. Approximately 120 open-ended comments were submitted during this outreach process.

YOUTH ENGAGEMENTY-PLAN (“Youth – Plan, Learn, Act. Now!”) is a program championed by UC Berkeley’s Center for Cities and Schools to engage young people in civic activity and develop problem-solving and communication skills in a professional setting. AC Transit staff partnered with the Center for Cities and Schools and Oakland Unified School District to incorporate youth input in the COA outreach. Eleventh grade students from MetWest High School reviewed routes and ridership data, surveyed customers, and developed recommendations. On November 5 2014, students delivered their final presentations in the AC Transit Board Room.

FINDINGSAC Transit received almost 900 completed surveys and open-ended comments, as well as dozens of additional notes and annotated network maps from the public workshops. Staff analyzed this feedback and identified several common themes:

RELIABILITYAlthough the COA outreach focused on route and network design, schedule reliability is undeniably the primary concern among current AC Transit customers. Asked if improved frequency would reduce concerns about schedule adherence, members of the public cited bus-bunching on high frequency corridors (San Pablo, International /Telegraph, and Broadway/College) as examples of why reliability improvements are necessary



• Frequency: Essentially on par with improved schedule reliability, improved frequency was one of the most common requests. Frequency is critical to growing transit mode-share and implementing efficient network design. In general, participants were willing to accept moderately longer walking distances and less network coverage in exchange for improved frequency

• Speed: Improved speed (or reduced travel time) is also critical to growing transit mode-share. Route and stop design should emphasize minimizing passenger travel time

• Crosstown Service: New or improved crosstown (generally in the Bay-Hills direction) were a common request from participants

• Demographics and Mode Choice: Approximately half of respondents reported using AC Transit five to seven days per week. Only five percent of respondents reported never using AC Transit. Age of respondents was approximately normally distributed, with the largest portion (34 percent) between 35 and 54 years old. The median age of AC Transit passengers is 34 years old. Of respondents who reported race/ethnicity, most respondents (59 percent) identified as “white, non-Hispanic/Latino.” Of respondents who reported annual household income, the majority (53 percent) reported earning less than $75,000 per year.

RANKING OF TRANSIT PRIORITIESSurvey-takers were asked to rank transit characteristics that influence usage. Results are ordered by respondent priority in Table 5.1.

Survey respondents identified reliability as the most important transit characteristic, followed closely by frequency. These two characteristics far outweighed other options, consistent with research about consumer behavior and mode-choice.

Speed, span of service, and stop location were ranked third, fourth, and fifth most important transit characteristics, respectively. Speed and service span were common topics in conversation and written comments. Speed was usually mentioned in the context of peak-hour commutes, but frequently brought up with respect to non-commute trips (shopping, appointments, and entertainment). Slow travel speeds, combined with infrequent service, made transit uncompetitive with automobiles for these non-commute trips. Span was most often mentioned in residential areas where service is limited or unavailable in evenings and weekends.

Finally, coverage and network simplicity were ranked sixth and seventh, respectively. Existing customers may be both satisfied with the current coverage and familiar with the current routes.



TABLE 5.1: TRANSIT PRIORITIES

Question

Think about what you value about riding the bus. Which of the following characteristics would you prioritize in order to improve your experience? Which would most encourage you to take the bus over other alternatives? Please rank the following characteristics from 1 (most important) to 7 (least important).

Answer Choice Average Rank

Reliability. The bus should be on time, so I can plan my trip. 2.70

Frequency. The bus should come often, so I can plan my day easily. If I miss my bus, I should not have to wait long for the next one.

2.71

Speed/Time. The bus should get me to my destination quickly. 3.96

Hours of Operation. The bus should be available most hours of the day and on weekends, not just weekday rush hour.

4.01

Location. Bus stops should be close to my home and/or destination. I should not have to walk far to or from the bus.

4.16

Coverage. The bus should be widely available in most areas, including those with low de-mand.

4.83

Simplicity. The bus system should be easy to understand, especially when I need to take an unfamiliar route.

5.63

TRADE-OFFSSurvey-takers were asked to select a preference between pairs of common transit trade-offs. For each question, the majority of respondents expressed a preference for options that improve speed or frequency (between 55 percent and 81 percent). Staff will consider this strong preference for speed and frequency when developing route and network recommendations for public review. Complete trade-off survey and results are on the shown in Figure 5.1, Figure 5.2, Figure 5.3, and Figure 5.4.



FIGURE 5.1: SURVEY RESPONDENTS BUS NETWORK PREFERENCES

FIGURE 5.2: SURVEY RESPONDENTS BUS SERVICE EXPANSION PREFERENCES



FIGURE 5.3: SURVEY RESPONDENTS BUS STOP SPACING PREFERENCES

FIGURE 5.4: SURVEY RESPONDENTS BUS SERVICE ROUTE PREFERENCES



COMMENT FORMSStaff collected open-ended comments in the form of approximately 120 email, voicemail, and hand-written comment cards. A summary of the volume of comments related to general topics is shown in Table 5.2. Some comments addressed multiple topics, thus the number of specific comments exceeds the number of comment forms submitted.

TABLE 5.2: SUMMARY OF OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS

Subject # Received General Themes

Route or Stop-Specific

38 • Various

Workshop 24 • 20 positive comments thanking staff, complementing activity

• Insufficient internet presence

Span 21 • Longer span of service, particularly later service

Frequency 19 • Greater frequency of service

Other 18 • Various

Reliability 16 • Bus-bunching• Timed-transfers to/from BART or

buses• Missed trips

Customer Service 11 • Operator courtesy• Call-center

Vehicles 9 • Requests for larger buses, capacity issues

Speed 7 • Expansion of Rapid/Limited services

WORKSHOP RESULTSAt each public workshop, participants were asked to design an ideal service network using large-scale maps and colored ribbon to represent different frequencies of service. The length of ribbon was scaled to the map to reflect current revenue hours, plus additional ribbon to represent potential Measure BB improvement in Alameda County. Maps were digitized to scan for common high-priority corridors among groups. Several themes emerged from the activity:

• Simplified service. Participants generally mapped straight lines along major arterials with minimal diversions. This reflects a desire for a clean, legible network

• Higher-frequency cross-town routes. Participants expressed strong desire for new and improved cross-town routes to serve as a connection between major corridors or connection to BART stations

• BART connections. BART is a key destination, particularly in Central/Southern Alameda and West Contra Costa. This reflects a willingness to use bus-to-BART connections for commuting

• Grid Networks. Given a fixed set of resource, participants generally identified a grid of strong north-south and east-west routes to maximize access and mobility



SERVICE STRUCTURE GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR 2015Based on the goals and objectives set by the TSP, the results of the Phase One COA and associated outreach, and the passage of Measure BB, staff proposes the following guiding principles to establish the COA service restructuring recommendations:

FUNDING: • Establish a COA budget using 85 percent of Measure BB operating dollars. This allows for remaining revenues

to be used toward reserve and capital contribution. At this level of funding, AC Transit is able to increase service in Alameda County by 14 percent

DESTINATIONS:• Serve Priority Development Areas and transit-oriented developments

• Per Board Policy 550, establish more improved connections to attractors not previously served well (e.g. Union Landing Shopping Center)

• Re-establish connections to key destinations eliminated with the 2010 service cuts (e.g. Line 57 to Emeryville)

STREETS:• Serve designated transit streets as identified by the local jurisdictions (e.g. Fremont Boulevard)

ROUTE NETWORK: • Simplify corridor route design (e.g. San Pablo and MacArthur where there are three or more routes serving

the corridor)

• Implement a grid network where feasible

• Establish consistent weekday and weekend routing

• Design simpler routes with fewer turns to improve reliability and legibility

• Plan for timed transfers for the grid network, BART and schools

• Reconfigure confusing circulator loop routes

• Develop shorter routes to improve reliability (60-minute travel time or less)

• Implement Flex Service where warranted, beginning with Special District 2 (Fremont/Newark)

STOP SPACING• Change stop spacing so that it is more consistent with Board Policy 508-- remove or add stops where

warranted

FREQUENCY: • Increase frequency (improve to 30-minutes or better and only in conjunction with improving reliability)

• Replace 60 minute frequency routes with 30 minute frequency unless 60 minutes is warranted for the route function and demand

• Ensure 15 minute frequency or better on Major Corridors; 10 minutes or better on Trunk Lines



HOURS OF OPERATION• Develop consistent and improved service spans with 5 a.m. start times on trunk lines, 6 a.m. on other routes,

and 8 p.m., 10 p.m., or 12 a.m. end times depending on service type

• Operational Efficiency: Establish common endpoints for routes in order to access common operator restroom and break facilities, streamline road supervision, and create multiple routes to major destinations

TRANSBAY GUIDING PRINCIPLES• Increase span of service with existing fleet resources

• Increase stop-spacing to improve speed, reliability and efficiency

• Seek long-term recommendations under the San Francisco Bay Area Core Capacity Study being conducted by MTC

• Pursue pilots for new Transbay services that alleviate BART over-crowding (Montclair Village, Fruitvale Avenue and 73rd Avenue)

EVALUATION METRICS FOR THE COA To verify that the implementation of the COA recommendations is successful, AC Transit has developed a number of performance metrics to measure the benefits and impacts of the service improvements:

LEADING INDICATORS-THOSE PRECEDING IMPLEMENTATION• Ridership versus Coverage: Identify the ridership versus coverage ratio for routes and service hours based

on route classifications. Current ratio is 70 percent ridership/30 percent coverage. The COA’s goal is an 80 percent/20 percent split as measured by service hours with a frequency threshold of 30 minutes

• Walk-shed Analysis: Identify the change in number of residents who are within ¼ mile walk of frequent service (every 15 minutes or more frequent) or ¼ mile of any bus service. This metric should improve with the COA recommendations

• Isochronal Maps: Identify the distance a rider can travel within a given timeframe on the old network versus the proposed network

• Job Access Overlay: Spatially display the proposed network over an employment density map of the service area to determine if job access improves under the implementation of the COA

• Resident Access Overlay: Spatially display the proposed network over a population density map of the service area to determine if residential access improves under the implementation of the COA

• Paratransit Coverage: Analyze the paratransit coverage buffer around the proposed route network to determine if paratransit coverage increases or decreases under the implementation of the COA

• Title VI Compliance: Through various equity analyses (e.g. fare, trip travel time, service equity), identify impacts as defined by Title VI and mitigate accordingly

LAGGING INDICATORS-THOSE FOLLOWING IMPLEMENTATION• Ridership Increases: Though predicting ridership increases is difficult to estimate, AC Transit is confident that

ridership gains will result from the COA. Increases should be measured at least one year after implementation of recommendations and can be measured in net ridership gain and increase in rides per capita to accommodate for population growth



• Ridership Impacts: The recommendations will minimize ridership impacts (loss of passengers due to reduction/elimination of service) as much as possible but some will be proposed

• Ridership Productivity: In order to ensure that service hours are added efficiently, AC Transit will measure productivity of the individual route improvements and the service as a whole. Productivity is measured as the number of passengers per an hour of service

• Schedule Reliability: With shorter, straighter, simpler and more easily managed routes, AC Transit expects schedule reliability to improve. This is measured by route-level and system-wide on-time performance

HIGH-LEVEL SERVICE IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS BY PLANNING AREAAlso see Chapter 2 (Overview) for more information about planning areas and their communities.

SOUTHERN ALAMEDA COUNTY (SOUTH COUNTY)Southern Alameda County is defined as Fremont and Newark and is also known as Special District Two. The area has a separate return-to-source revenue structure that ensures the service area receives 11.67 percent of District revenue to operate service.

With the exception of lines 99 (Mission Boulevard) and 210 (Fremont Boulevard), service in South County is infrequent carries fewer passengers, and is less productive than the AC Transit average. Despite the dedicated revenue stream, South County only carries 6 percent of the District’s ridership. This is partially due to the fact that a majority of the routes in South County operate at 45 minute or hourly frequencies with a different route network on weekend versus weekday. In addition, the planning area is primarily suburban with low residential densities, dispersed jobs and lacking a strong central business district.

With the set operating revenues dedicated to South County, AC Transit is proposing to significantly overhaul the existing infrequent network and develop some key north-south and east-west high-frequency corridors that will operate at frequencies of 30 minutes or better. The remaining gaps in service will be served by Flex Service, which is a demand-response based transit system for low density areas. Under Flex Service, passengers will be able to schedule a bus trip in advance to travel anywhere within a defined zone. AC Transit will establish several zones to cover the entire area. In the fall of 2015, AC Transit will test the feasibility of Flex Service though a pilot program that will complement line 275 in the City of Newark.

CENTRAL ALAMEDA COUNTY (CENTRAL COUNTY)Central Alameda County is defined as the planning area south of Oakland and north of Union City and includes the Cities of San Leandro and Hayward, and the unincorporated areas of Alameda County, including Castro Valley, Ashland, Cherryland, and San Lorenzo. With the exception of lines 97 and 99, service in Central County is infrequent and carries fewer passengers and is less productive than the AC Transit average. Despite receiving 13 percent of revenues for service, Central County only carries 9 percent of the District’s ridership. This is partially due to the fact that a majority of the routes in Central County operate at hourly frequencies with six loop routes. In addition, though more dense than South County, the planning area includes low density residential neighborhoods, industrial areas and central business districts that are smaller than those of Oakland or Berkeley. Much of Central County has radial, rather than grid, patterns of streets, which make it harder to provide effective service.

Given the low productivity of service in Central County, AC Transit is proposing to significantly overhaul the existing infrequent network and replace all 60-minute frequency service with 30-minute frequencies or better. In addition to improving frequencies, loop routes will be replaced with straight routes to simplify the network. Finally, AC Transit will design the weekend network to be identical to the weekday network in order to minimize confusion and improve weekend ridership. Overall, this will result in somewhat less coverage in the area, though the vast majority of existing riders will still have access to the new and improved service network.



NORTHERN ALAMEDA COUNTY (NORTH COUNTY)Northern Alameda County is defined as the planning area south of the Alameda/Contra Costa County border and north of San Leandro. It includes the cities of Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Piedmont and Alameda. North County is the densest area of the AC Transit district and includes the most transit service. It also includes the five most heavily used, most frequently served and least reliable transit corridors in the district: San Pablo, Telegraph/International, College/Broadway, MacArthur and Foothill. North County includes two central business districts: Downtown Berkeley, with the adjacent University of California campus, and Downtown Oakland. There are also dense commercial districts in Emeryville and Alameda as well as elsewhere in Berkeley and Oakland.

Although service levels are higher in North County compared to the other planning areas, service is still not sufficient for most people to comfortably rely on bus service as a primary travel mode, particularly since the 2010 cuts. Service is particularly weak in the evening and on weekends. The COA recommends that AC Transit:

• Increase frequency where possible. Apart from trunk routes, most routes in North County run every 20 to 30 minutes or less often

• Establish a grid network where the road network allows

• Create simple yet productive north/south and east/west transit corridors

• Reconfigure the loop routes in Berkeley to straight, simple routes, as allowed by the roadway network

• Simplify the route structure to make the network more legible and usable by the public, including current non-transit riders. This is particularly relevant to the route network design in East Oakland

• Serve under-served commercial and residential markets such as Emeryville, Jack London Square, and West Oakland

• Match service with development growth throughout the planning area, including Downtown Oakland, Downtown Berkeley, and Alameda city growth areas

WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (WEST COUNTY)West Contra Costa County is the northernmost portion of the AC Transit district, defined as the area south of Pinole and north of the Contra Costa/Alameda County border. It includes the Cities of Richmond, San Pablo, and El Cerrito, and unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County including North Richmond, East Richmond Heights, El Sobrante, and Kensington. Though not as dense as North County, West County includes dense residential and commercial land uses primarily along the major corridors of San Pablo Avenue and MacDonald Avenue. In addition, it includes a commercial/light industrial area in South Richmond Marina and a major retail hub at Hilltop Mall. Contra Costa College is a major community college in San Pablo.

Since West County does not receive an increase in operating revenue from Measure BB, the improvements under the COA will be limited. AC Transit will explore the possibility of simplifying the route structure along San Pablo and MacDonald avenues; improve connections between West County and North County outside of San Pablo Avenue; improve all routes to 30-minute frequency or better; and better serve under-served or emerging markets such as the Social Security Office near Hilltop Mall and the future Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory facility in Point Richmond.

Given the limited resources available for service improvements, AC Transit will need to phase the recommendations described above based upon the availability of additional revenues such as a potential county-wide sales tax measure in 2016 for transportation improvements, including AC Transit.



IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULEThe COA informs the Major Corridors Plan that will determine the level of corridor capital investments and the development of future Short-Range Transit Plans. This presents a unique opportunity to address a full range of issues in a robust public outreach process, including routes and schedules, infrastructure, and policies. Figure 5.5 illustrates how these three planning activities are interrelated and respond to a range of questions about transit.

For legibility, clarity, and consistency, staff developed a single identity or brand for all three major planning activities called “PlanACT.” Characterized by clean design aesthetic and vivid color scheme, PlanACT marketing materials are meant to be contemporary, eye-catching, and interesting for existing and potential customers. The simple subheadings (Routes & Schedules, Infrastructure, and Policies & Vision) clearly communicate to the public the general topic and purpose for each piece of material.

FIGURE 5.5. FRAMEWORK FOR LINKING PLANNING ACTIVITIES

Implementation of the COA is part of PlanACT framework. As shown in the timeline in Figure 5.6, AC Transit will return to the public in March of 2015 with a set of route and network recommendations for community review. From there, AC Transit will gather feedback and refine the COA recommendations. AC Transit will then return to the public with the refined recommendations via a formal public hearing process scheduled for June of 2015. Pending approval of the COA recommendations by the AC Transit Board of Directors, AC Transit can implement the initial phase of the COA as early as August 2015 with remaining phases implemented over the following two years pending the availability of buses, operators and fleet facilities (such as the re-opening of the Division 3 bus yard in Richmond).



FIGURE 5.6. TIMELINE FOR PLANNING ACTIVITIES

5.2.2 OPERATIONS PLANNING IN ADDITION TO THE COA2014-15 SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PLANThe approved 2014-15 budget includes about $2 million in additional operating funds to improve service. In December 2014, there was an increase of peak hour frequency on line 97 (Hesperian) from every 20 minutes to every 15 minutes and line 99 (East 14th/Mission) from every 30 minutes to every 20 minutes. In January 2015, the Board approved operation of line 72R (the San Pablo Rapid) on weekends, previously the line only operated on weekdays. Weekend service is scheduled to begin in March.

FLEX SERVICEAC Transit is planning to implement “flex” service in low density parts of the district. Fixed-route ridership is generally low in these areas. Under the flex proposal for Fremont and Newark, fixed route service would be limited to a few major, frequent routes. Other service would operate from these trunk lines and BART stations to any bus stop within a specified flex zone. This model has been implemented by other transit agencies, notably the Regional Transit District in Denver. The Board of Directors has approved a pilot flex route to begin operating in summer 2015 as proof of concept. Ten buses have been purchased and delivered in FY 2014-15. The first use of these buses will be in the area currently served by Route 275.

BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)Construction and implementation of the East Bay BRT is ongoing and described in Chapter 7: Resolution 3434 projects.

MAJOR CORRIDORS STUDYThe Major Corridors Study (discussed further in the Capital Budget chapter) is primarily an analysis of appropriate capital improvements for each corridor where a major bus line operates. It may, however, lead to service changes in the SRTP time period. For example, corridors recommended for less intensive improvements, such as those funded by MTC’s Transit Performance Initiative project rather than BRT-scale projects, would be most likely to see corresponding service improvements within the 10 year plan horizon.



SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDYAC Transit is working with MTC, BART, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA), the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA), Caltrain and MUNI to prepare the San Francisco Bay Area Core Capacity Transit Study. This study is intended to develop a regional strategy to address short-, medium- and long-term transit capacity challenges confronting the major high-capacity corridors serving downtown San Francisco, including the Transbay Corridor. The region has been awarded a $1 million United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) TIGER 6 Planning Grant for this study. Combined with local funding, this will be a $2 million study.

OTHER AGENCIES’ TRANSIT PLANNING EFFORTSOther agencies located within the AC Transit district are also engaged in transit planning efforts. These could lead, although this is by no means certain, to additional service by either AC Transit and/or other agencies during the SRTP period. Key studies in this category include:

• West Contra Costa County High Capacity Transit Study (WCCHCTS): This study, being led by the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) and BART, is designed to evaluate transit solutions which could provide high capacity transit augmentations in the I-80 corridor. This study is multi-modal and could result in recommendations for either bus or rail projects.

• Contra Costa County Express Bus Study: This study is being managed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). It will update a 2002 study of express bus service in both the AC Transit service area and other parts of Contra Costa County. The study will make recommendations for improvements in express bus service, which could become part of a Contra Costa County transportation sales tax measure in 2016.

• Emeryville Berkeley Oakland Transit Study (EBOTS): This study was completed in January 2015. It was designed to recommend transit improvements for the West Oakland-Emeryville-West Berkeley corridor. The study is being managed by the City of Emeryville on behalf of the three cities in the corridor.

• Late Night Transportation Working Group: This study is sponsored by the City and County of San Francisco and explores solutions to improve late night service to and from San Francisco, including service to the East Bay along the Transbay Corridor. Recommendations from this study could include additional bus service between the AC Transit service area and San Francisco at times when BART is not operating. This study is scheduled for completion in mid-2015.

5.2.3 FINANCIAL PLANBACKGROUNDThis section of the SRTP outlines AC Transit’s overall operating budget assumptions and expectations for the next ten years. It is designed to show that AC Transit will have sufficient revenue to operate the level of service planned. The section includes the key revenue and cost assumptions for the upcoming decade, a brief description of the District’s general financial outlook recommends an approach to the key tradeoffs for using the increased revenue expected from BB and other sources.

The passage of Measure BB is anticipated to yield about $30 million per year in increased revenue beginning in FY 2015-16 (see Table 5.3). With these funds, staff is proposing a service improvement strategy which will bring bus service to the highest level in over a decade. The strategy is also designed to improve on-time performance. There are also other indicators of a much stronger economic recovery in the East Bay, suggesting that current operating revenues may be reaching levels not seen since before the Great Recession.



The overall fiscal context for the SRTP financial projections for operating expenses is framed by MTC’s TSP. The TSP requires that the seven largest transit agencies in the Bay Area submit and update strategic plans to MTC. The plans show reduction of cost metrics, such as cost per passenger, to an agreed upon level by FY 2017-18. In March 2014, the AC Transit Board approved an update to the five year projected TSP operating expense budget through FY 2017-18. This updated projection is the basis of the current SRTP operating budget forecast.

TABLE 5.3: TEN-YEAR FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS

Note: Alameda CTC developed a five-year projection for Measure BB revenue. Because this is a ten-year document, AC Transit staff estimated revenues for the final five years.

FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE TEN-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN

REVENUES• Baseline or existing revenues (as of 2014) are estimated to grow at a faster pace in the initial part of the

projection period. This is due to the improved economic performance in the San Francisco Bay Area economy and in the East Bay between late FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15

• There will be biennial fare increases scheduled similar to the originally Board-adopted long-term fare policy but adjusted to better reflect projected CPI inflation trends for the San Francisco Bay Area for the upcoming years.

• Other operating revenues like those received for Contracted services and other miscellaneous revenues would experience relatively minor growth

• Sales tax-based subsidies other than State Transit Assistance Fund (STA), such as the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Measure BB and AB1107 (a half-cent sales tax collected in the BART district), would experience higher growth in the initial years of the SRTP than projected by MTC. They provide confirmation to the AC Transit FY 2014-15 Adopted Budget revenues expected for this category

• Property tax-based subsidies, in particular the main property tax account (excluding Measure VV), will also experience slightly higher growth in the first few years of the SRTP long term forecast timeline

• State Transit Assistance (STA) subsidies will experience a gradual decline due to the reduced demand for diesel fuel. STA funds come from a tax on diesel fuel sold in California. In late FY 2013-14, MTC reported a rescission in funds accruing to the District. This was due to a faster than expected drop in diesel fuel volume consumption statewide combined with lower than expected diesel prices

AC Transit SRTP DraftYear 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10

FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25

Total Operating Revenues 358,801 365,057 372,547 385,074 386,009 394,957 408,656 417,128 428,041 442,090

Total Operating Costs 348,006 357,257 367,507 379,395 383,831 394,621 403,942 416,921 427,580 440,922

Operating Surplus/Deficit - Before Measure BB

10,795 7,800 5,040 5,679 2,178 336 4,714 207 461 1,167

New Measure BB additional revenue*

29,577 29,932 30,291 30,654 31,023 33,842 35,027 36,428 37,885 39,400

Operating Surplus/(Deficit) - After Measure BB

40,372 37,732 35,331 36,333 33,201 34,178 39,741 36,635 38,346 40,567

Reserve Contribution 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 - - - - -

District Capital Contribution 27,547 12,960 9,920 10,218 4,635 7,967 11,938 7,656 8,407 9,528

New Service Enhancement Operating Cost (net of addtl. farebox)

8,825 20,772 21,411 22,115 22,800 23,554 24,287 25,142 26,029 27,053

SRTP Surplus/(Deficit) (0) (0) (0) (0) 1,766 2,658 3,516 3,837 3,910 3,987



• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit related revenues grow at an average 3 percent, trending towards faster growth rates towards the end of the projection

• There will be no federal operating assistance revenue during the period other than that associated with the ADA program

• The MTC Lifeline program will continue, with funding provided every three years

OPERATING EXPENSES • Operating expenses are based on existing level of operations and enhanced services funded by Measure BB

• Salaries and wages are projected to increase at a rate commensurate with San Francisco Bay Area inflation and a wage structure based on existing labor agreements

• Fringe benefits would grow at a net rate two percent higher than projected in the original TSP Strategic Plan (a change reflected in the recently updated TSP) due to the lower projected contributions towards healthcare by the unions. Healthcare costs are now projected to grow at a rate that is two percentage points higher than originally projected

• Savings on fuel and related costs are driven by projected reductions in the long term price of diesel fuel, as indicated by market futures

• The cost of consumption of bus parts, building repair materials and other office supplies is projected to decline as the average age of the fleet declines

• The SRTP reflects greater savings than previously in insurance premiums, liability and casualty costs. These are due to general safety improvements at the facilities

THE SRTP AND OTHER BUDGET DOCUMENTSThe SRTP differs from previous projections in that it includes updates reflecting trends and results confirmed during the second half of FY 2013-14. These updates also affect the SRTP’s financial forecast for the period beyond FY 2017-18, a five-year period not included in the MTC TSP forecast. Also, since the TSP does not include a projection for revenues, the present draft SRTP long term forecast presents for the first time a detailed update of all revenue sources for the ten-year forecast period included in this financial plan.

TEN-YEAR OPERATING FINANCIAL OUTLOOKThe long term financial outlook is significantly better now than what was envisioned in past years. The District’s existing operating revenue sources are projected to grow at an initially strong rate of 2.3 percent up to FY 2016-17, then moderately, and then again in a more conservative manner in the outer years. Revenues would stay higher than operating costs during all of the next 10 years. Figure 5.7 shows the ten-year financial projections.



FIGURE 5.7: TEN-YEAR FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS WITH NEW MEASURE BB

In addition to Measure BB, this projection assumes the continuation at current revenue levels of Measure VV, a parcel tax measure in Special District 1 (the entire district excluding Fremont and Newark). Renewing this measure requires a two-thirds affirmative vote from the public. The long term financial forecast includes the effect of estimated biennial fare adjustments under the adopted fare policy, which would maintain the inflation-adjusted revenues in place for existing fare media. The projection also assumes projected ridership growth. Because service will be increased, ridership growth is projected to be greater than this level, and will reduce the District’s cost per passenger trip. However, estimated ridership growth is limited in the initial project years due to capacity constraints until the Richmond Bus Division opens and the District expands its fleet.

The forecasted operating surplus is projected to peak in FY 2015-16, then gradually decline. The factors below reflect the projected growth trend for the District’s operating revenues during the SRTP time period compared to other benchmark variables.

• Staff’s projection for revenues is somewhat higher than MTC’s most updated forecast. The reason is that MTC’s forecast uses a much lower baseline starting point due to its reliance on lower economic expectations for the current FY 2014-15. By comparison, staff’s baseline reflects the most current information. For the same reason, staff’s revenue projection starts accelerating earlier than the forecast provided by MTC

• Staff projects that revenues will grow at a rate that is slightly lower than the average for past years for the District. This is a conservative assumption considering the higher growth rates after the Great Recession

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

FY14‐15 FY15‐16 FY16‐17 FY17‐18 FY18‐19 FY19‐20 FY20‐21 FY21‐22 FY22‐23 FY23‐24 FY24‐25

In $ Tho

ousand

s

New Measure BB

Operating Surplus Before NewMeasure BB

New Service Additions onMeasure BB

SRTP Operating Surplus After New Measure BB, New Service Additions, No Additional Reserve, No Additional Capital Contributions



• However, staff’s projections show revenues growing at a slightly higher rate than both regional economic growth in Plan Bay Area, the U.S. and inflation. This reflects the improved performance of the regional economy since Plan Bay Area was finalized and the better economic performance of the San Francisco Bay Area compared to the rest of the nation. Inflation is projected to grow at a very subdued pace

The budget projection assumes a continuation of current trends and existing legislation and ongoing labor contracts. It also assumes the continuation of the positive effect of cost improvement initiatives in areas such as insurance/liability and safety expenses, and lower costs in bus parts consumption due to a reduction in the age and maintenance cost of the fleet. Among notable new items, total operating costs will increase for the delivery of BRT service and for the higher net cost of operating a reopened Richmond Division. The costs of reopening Division 3 are mitigated somewhat by about $1 million annual savings in deadhead costs.

Revenue growth has been strong in the last two years. Based on preliminary pre-audited figures, the District has received greater funding than previously budgeted from sales tax sources in FY 2013-14. These include the TDA and AB 1107 funds. Given the strong property market in the Bay Area, AC Transit’s property tax revenues are also expected to increase more than originally expected in the short term. Finally, farebox revenues are expected to increase with higher ridership. These sources of funding contribute quite importantly to the earlier years’ improved forecast for the District’s operations.

The long term financial plan indicates the District’s operating budget should remain sustainable and balanced, given the planned level of service. Budget operating expenses include additional costs, major initiatives, and the implementation of BRT service. The planned reopening of an operating division in Richmond (Division 3) to provide service both within and beyond Contra Costa County will also create additional operating costs.

TRADEOFFS IN ALLOCATING FORECAST OPERATING SURPLUSESThere are three potential and, to some extent, mutually exclusive strategies for the operating surpluses forecast described above:

• Capital Projects: Fund the District’s contributions to the cost of capital projects, estimated to require an average of $10 million per year.

• Reserves: Continue funding increases in the District’s operating reserves. The District has currently $40 million in operating reserves or approximately 11.5 percent of the operating budget. Current policy recommends but does not mandate a maximum 20 percent of the operating expense budget. Reaching this maximum would set an annual maximum target level of $12 million under current policy and given current economic and operating factors. That level of reserve contributions would reach the maximum in three to four years.

• Service: Increase annual revenue service hours.

The long-term financial plan operating surplus presented in this chapter is not adequate to fully fund all of these expenses at the same time. The surplus could be used to partially fund one or more areas.

The Board of Directors will need to set a policy on the allocation of operating surpluses outside of the development of the SRTP. The Board will need to consider how to allocate this projected stream of operating surpluses in the context of both the COA and the SRTP. Allocations could vary on an annual, semiannual, or quarterly basis depending on the District’s needs, the status of the local, regional, state and national economy, potential natural disasters, and available new revenues.

Recommendations: As a draft proposal for consideration, staff recommends the following allocation of surplus funds:



1. Service: AC Transit would add 560,000 platform hours annually.

2. Reserves: The District would add to reserves until reserves are at 15 percent of the annual operating budget.

3. Capital Projects: The District would use remaining funds for capital projects.

• Service: Adding service would benefit passengers and would increase ridership. Another rationale for the proposed scenario is the fact that the District needs to achieve the cost reduction targets mandated by the MTC TSP. By increasing ridership and controlling costs, we expect to achieve a reduction in the cost per passenger that will meet TSP goals

• Reserves: The scenario presented here would prioritize increasing the operating reserve to 15 percent of the operating expense budget and not the maximum 20 percent as recommended but not mandated in the policy. A 15 percent share of the operating expense budget would be approximately $52 million or $12 million more than the current level. This could be accomplished by dedicating $2 million, $5 million, and $5 million from the forecasted operating surpluses projected for FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17, respectively. An operating reserve at this level would also be in compliance with the best practice set forth by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), as it would represent approximately two months of operating expenses

• Capital Projects to 2016-17: In this allocation scenario, the next element would be dedicating the remaining balance of the forecasted operating surplus up through FY 2016-17 to fulfill the requirement to fund the District contribution to capital projects. This would continue to renew the District’s infrastructure. It would help achieve a state of good repair and help assure adequate performance of critical facilities and equipment. It could also generate operating budget savings by reducing maintenance and continuous repair costs

• Capital Projects in the Out Years: Continue prioritizing reinvestment and renewal of the capital assets infrastructure in the out years by allocating the projected operating surpluses to fund the District’s capital projects program as needed


6.0 INTRODUCTIONThis chapter presents AC Transit’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP is a 10-year snapshot of AC Transit’s capital needs and potential capital funding sources. The purpose of the CIP is to provide an overview of the capital projects that are needed to meet AC Transit’s goals of maintaining a state of good repair and providing an efficient and financially sustainable service. The CIP is not financially constrained so it should not be considered a capital budget. Instead, it should be seen as overview of projected needs against reasonable funding forecasts. AC Transit maintains the flexibility to prioritize certain aspects of the CIP based on timing, funding, impact on overall agency goals, and capacity for project delivery. While the District has identified capital funding that it could reasonably access over the next 10 years, there is still a significant shortfall between projected need and available funding. Additional funding at the federal, state, and local levels will be needed to fully fund AC Transit’s capital program.

One of the key components of the CIP is identifying its interaction with the Operating Budget. The most direct relationship is the capital contribution from the Operating Budget. Each year AC Transit contributes funding from the operating budget for capital projects to fulfill local match requirements of grant funds and for projects that do not qualify for grant funds. The capital contribution has averaged $9 million over the last four years (FY 2012–15). Further service enhancements or cost efficiencies identified in the operating budget may need to be supported by associated capital investments. A clear example of this is an Operating Budget that calls for the expansion of service would require a capital investment in additional transit vehicles. The Operating Budget in this SRTP calls for additional services funded by Measure BB. This additional service will require expansion vehicles and facilities expansion, along with other capital needs that will require an average annual capital contribution of $17 million from a variety of sources.

6.0.1 OVERVIEW OF CAPITAL NEEDS AND FINANCIAL OUTLOOKAC Transit used the financial assumptions in Plan Bay Area: Final Financial Assumptions document to guide the capital funding projections in the SRTP. As in Plan Bay Area, the SRTP divides funding into committed funding and discretionary funding. Committed funding is funding already allocated or programmed to AC Transit, funding identified in an agreement or resolution, or funding that can be reasonably assumed to be available to AC Transit. Discretionary funding is more speculative as it may require voter approval, legislative action or is part of a highly competitive discretionary program. Plan Bay Area identifies possible sources of discretionary revenues, and assumes a new regional bridge toll; a regional gas tax; and other anticipated, but unidentified revenues. Section 6.6 will further describe the sources and methodology for the funding assumptions.

AC Transit has identified $1.5 billion in capital project needs over the 10-year SRTP time period (FY 2015–24). Assuming the District receives all committed and discretionary funding listed there is still a $301 million (19 percent) shortfall. The $1.5 billion is comprised of $669 million in committed funding and $592 million in discretionary funding. Assuming that the District only receives committed funding, there is an $893 million (57 percent) shortfall against the full CIP. This further highlights the need for new funding sources at the federal, state, and local levels. A summary of the CIP needs and the capital financial outlook is shown in Table 6.1 and Figure 6.1.

CHAPTER 6: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Chapter 6: Capital Improvement Program


FIGURE 6.1: CIP PROJECT NEED AND FUNDING COMPARISON

TABLE 6.1: CIP PROJECT NEED AND CAPITAL FINANCIAL OUTLOOKYears 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total %

CIP Need $131,670,000 $98,637,998 $91,209,781 $139,263,704 $191,711,645 $251,191,246 $228,123,150 $136,483,878 $116,264,192 $126,388,803 $1,510,944,397

CIP Funding (Committed)

$114,039,000 $85,470,000 $59,230,000 $63,928,000 $51,845,000 $70,677,000 $59,148,000 $50,366,000 $55,617,000 $59,238,000 $669,558,000 44%

CIP Funding (Discretionary)

$7,000,000 $19,000,000 $20,000,000 $60,000,000 $62,390,000 $98,390,000 $87,390,000 $102,390,000 $68,390,000 $67,390,000 $592,340,000 39%

Committed Shortfall ($841,386,397) 56%

Combined Shortfall ($249,046,397) 16%

6.0.2 CIP CHAPTER OVERVIEW The remainder of the cost section of the CIP chapter is organized around AC Transit’s major capital program categories: Fleet, Facilities, Corridors, Customer Service, and Information Services and Communications. Each of those sections will discuss existing conditions of that program, pertinent agency policies and/or plans governing the implementation of the program, and the recommended CIP projects and associated cost projection for the program. Figure 6.2 shows the funding of the CIP broken down by program category. The final section of the chapter will discuss the financial assumptions and provide an overview of all the capital funding sources.

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

CIP FU

NDING (in M

illions)

YEAR

CIP Need

CIP Funding (Committed)

CIP Funding (Discretionary)

CIP Funding (Committed+Discretionary)



FIGURE 6.2: CIP PROGRAM CATEGORIES AND FUNDING

6.1 FLEET (INCLUDES REVENUE, NON-REVENUE, AND PARATRANSIT VEHICLES)AC Transit has a fleet of 586 revenue vehicles (buses) that is comprised of 354 40-foot vehicles, 90 30-foot vehicles, 86 60-foot vehicles, 46 45-foot vehicles, and 10 van-size “cutaways” (see Table 6.2 for more details). AC Transit maintains a spare ratio of 19.75 percent of its maximum service peak vehicle need of 471 revenue vehicles.

$‐

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

CIP FUNDING BY CATEGORY (in M

illions)

YEAR

GHG Reduction Initiatives

Transit Centers/Park and Rides

Corridor Improvements

Technology

Facilities Expansion

Facilities Rehab

Vehicle Expansion

Vehicle Rehab



TABLE 6.2: REVENUE FLEET OVERVIEW

Manufac-turer Series Bus # Range Year # of

VehiclesLength (Feet)

Seating Capacity

Wheelchair Capacity Vehicle Type Service

TypePower Mode

Retirement Year Age Unit Cost

MCI 6000 6003 6040 2000 7 45 57 47 Over-the-Road Coach

Fixed Route Diesel 2016 15 $445,600.44

Nabi 4050 4051 4090 2002 40 40 35 29 Urban Bus Fixed Route Diesel 2015 13 $269,640.77

VanHool 2000 2001 2057 2003 30 60 47 43 Articulated Bus


VanHool 1000 1001 1110 2003 88 40 32 28 Urban Bus Fixed Route Diesel 2015 12 $283,893.75

MCI 6050 6041 6079 2003 39 45 57 47 Over-the-Road Coach











VanHool - Fuel Cell FC 4 16 2010 12 40 30 26 Urban Bus Fixed

RouteFuel Cell 2022 5 $1,232,095.00

Gillig 1300 1301 1365 2013 65 40 37 29 Urban Bus Fixed Route Diesel 2025 2 $413,826.00

Gillig 6100 6101 6116 2013 16 40 36 29 Urban Bus (Commuter)


New Flyer 2200 2201 2223 2013 23 60 52 46 Articulated Bus


Gillig 1400 1401 1468 2014 68 40 37 29 Urban Bus Fixed Route Diesel 2026 1 $453,977.94

Gillig 6100 6117 6154 2014 38 40 36 29 Urban Bus (Commuter)


El Dorado 3500 3501 3510 2014 10 24 14 12 Cutaway 2021 1

AC Transit has a fleet of 154 non-revenue vehicles (everything other than buses) that is broken up into 48 full-size cars, 30 pieces of support equipment (i.e., forklifts and yard tugs), 19 SUVs, 36 trucks, and 21 vans (see Tables 6.3 for more details). Two of the full-size cars are hybrids.

TABLE 6.3: NON-REVENUE FLEET OVERVIEW

Program Type Quantity

CarFull Size Car 46

Full Size Car (Hybrid) 2

Truck

Heavy Duty Truck 9

Light Duty Truck 9

Mid Duty Truck 18

SUV Sport Utility Vehicle 19

VanLight Duty Van 16

Mid Duty Van 5

Support Equipment

Forklift 18

Scrubber 2

Sludge Removal 2

Trailer 3

Yard Tug 5

Total 154



The current average revenue fleet age is 7.2 years, somewhat above the target average age of less than 6.0 years. The target average age is based on an optimal average age that is half the useful life of the buses in the fleet. The federally-established standard useful life for urban transit buses is 12-years and is 14-years for over-the-road commuter buses. Achieving the target average age would be accomplished by maintaining the replacement schedule based on the useful life. Deviations from that target occur due to late or missed procurements, or extended periods of time from order to manufacture based on supplier backlog. Table 6.4 shows the revenue vehicle replacement plan over the 10-year life of the SRTP (FY 2014-15 to FY 2023-24).

The current average age of the non-revenue fleet is 11.5 years. AC Transit’s goal for non-revenue vehicles is calculated in a similar manner to buses; it is based on the useful life of the vehicles. The target average age for the fleet can vary a bit more than for non-revenue vehicles because the types and mix of non-revenue vehicles can vary based on District needs. Table 6.4 also shows the non-revenue vehicle replacement plan over the 10-year life of the SRTP (FY 2014-15 to FY 2023-24).

The COA and the resultant SRTP Service Plan show a need for an expansion of the fleet by 47 vehicles over the period 2015-24. Table 6.5 shows the vehicle expansions over the 10-year life of the SRTP (FY 2014-15 to FY 2023-24). AC Transit may not necessarily implement the magnitude of vehicle expansion shown in the table.

The vehicle replacement plan shown in Table 6.4 assumes replacing vehicles at the end of their 12-year useful life. AC Transit regularly evaluates the fleet mix and needs of current and planned service, and makes required changes in fleet replacement projects.



TABLE 6.4: VEHICLE REPLACEMENT COST

TABLE 6.5: VEHICLE EXPANSION COST

Type Qty 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

Bus - 40' Urban Hybrids 25 $17,900,000 $17,900,000

Bus - 40' Urban Diesel 40 $21,200,000 $21,200,000

Bus - 40' Urban Diesel 37 $19,923,760 $19,923,760

Bus - 60' Articulated Diesel 29 $24,985,472 $24,985,472

Bus - 40' Commuter Diesel 29 $15,865,775 $15,865,775

Bus - 40' Commuter Hybrid 10 $7,390,953 $7,390,953

Bus - 30' Urban Diesel 37 $18,005,319 $18,005,319

Bus - 30' Urban Hybrid 14 $10,483,526 $10,483,526


Bus - 60' Articulated Hybrid 3 $3,328,803 $3,328,803



Bus - 40' Urban Hybrid 27 $20,928,848 $20,928,848

Bus - 30' Urban Hybrid 39 $30,628,453 $30,628,453


Cut-Away - Under 26' 5-Year Gasoline 10 $916,375 $992,069 $1,908,444

Non-revenue vehicles 154 $400,000 $408,000 $416,160 $424,483 $432,973 $441,632 $450,465 $459,474 $468,664 $478,037 $4,379,888

Total 484 $39,500,000 $45,317,232 $23,672,888 $51,799,633 $1,349,348 $21,370,480 $41,552,384 $459,474 $468,664 $1,470,106 $226,960,209

Type Qty 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

Bus - 40' Urban Diesel 15 $8,250,000 $8,250,000

Bus - 40' Urban Diesel 25 $13,966,128 $13,966,128

Bus - 40' Urban Diesel 4 $2,271,902 $2,271,902



Bus - 40' Urban Hybrid 25 $25,203,638 $25,203,638

Vans - Paratransit 209 $11,974,763 $12,097,932 $24,072,695

Total: 313 $8,250,000 $13,966,128 $28,643,305 $5,541,531 $25,203,638 $11,974,763 $12,097,932 105,677,297



6.2 FACILITIES (INCLUDES MAINTENANCE AND FUELING FACILITIES, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, AND OTHER OPERATIONAL FACILITIES)6.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONSAC Transit has six operating and administrative facilities in regular use and seven transit centers that are utilized in regular service:

• Three open operating facilities (D2, D4, D6)

• One central maintenance facility (CMF)

• One Administrative facility (GO)

• One training facility (TEC)

• Seven transit centers (Transbay Terminal, Ardenwood, Richmond Parkway, Eastmont, Contra Costa College, San Leandro BART Terminal, Uptown Transit Center)

AC Transit is also currently in the process of rehabilitating another operating facility (D3) for regular use.

Table 6.6 details the size, location, age, and other characteristics of the facilities.

TABLE 6.6: FACILITIES OVERVIEW

Name AddressProperty Owner

Year Built Age Size (sq ft)

General Office (GO) 1600 Franklin St, Oakland, CA 94612 AC Transit 1989 25 100,000

Central Maintenance Facility (CMF)

10626 E. 14th St, Oakland, CA 94603

AC Transit 1984 30 517,000

D2 - Emeryville Division 1177 47th St, Emeryville, CA 94608 AC Transit 1987 27 392,000

D3 - Richmond Division (closed)

2016 MacDonald Ave, Richmond, CA 94801

AC Transit 1989 25 266,000

D4 - East Oakland (Seminary) Division

1100 Seminary Ave, Oakland, CA 94621

AC Transit 1987 27 579,500

66th Avenue (D4 Annex)

905 66th Ave, Oakland, CA 94621 AC Transit 1982 32 453,000

D6 - Hayward Division 1758 Sabre St, Hayward, CA 94545 AC Transit 1987 27 833,500

TEC - Training and Educational Center

20234 Mack St, Hayward, CA 94545 AC Transit 1987 27 29,000

TT - Transbay Terminal (Temporary)

First and Missions Sts, San Francisco, CA 94105

TJPA 2011 3 156,000

Ardenwood Transit Center

34867 Ardenwood Blvd, Fremont, CA 94555

Caltrans 2009 5 144,000

Richmond Parkway Transit Center

Richmond Pkwy and Blume Dr, Richmond, CA 94806

Caltrans 1998 16 136,000

Eastmont Transit CenterFoothill Blvd and 73rd Ave, Oakland, CA 94605

Eastmont Mall

1997 17 30,800

San Leandro BART Transit Center

1299 San Leandro Blvd, San Leandro, CA 94577

BART 1972 42 48,500

Uptown Transit Center20th St and Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612

Oakland 2007 7 7,000

Contra Costa College Transit Center

Campus Dr, San Pablo, CA 94806 CC College 1996 18 33,000



6.2.2 NEEDS AT OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FACILITIES• Facilities State of Good Repair: Most of AC Transit’s operating and maintenance facilities are 25-30 years

old and are in need of significant rehabilitation and replacement of systems. Isolated projects to replace the most-aged components such as roofs and yard paving/concrete have been completed in recent years, and a systematic rehabilitation schedule to address obsolete and aged components is being developed through the State of Good Repair Asset Management Project

• D3: AC Transit is beginning the process of reopening the Richmond D3 facility. With the District nearing capacity at its current facilities, re-opening D3 is necessary to allow for proposed service expansion. The current schedule projects the facility fully opening for service in 2016. At the same time, the City of Richmond has expressed interest in having AC Transit move the facility so the City can develop the site for other residential and commercial uses, given its proximity to the Richmond BART Intermodal Station. They are in the process of identifying other suitable sites for AC Transit to occupy. With a suitable alternate location and reasonable financial and operational terms, AC Transit would consider relocating the facility.

• New Paratransit Facility: AC Transit, through the East Bay Paratransit Consortium, operates demand-responsive paratransit service for eligible passengers in its operating area. The service uses three contractors who operate their own facilities, and pass the cost of maintaining those facilities along to AC Transit through the contract costs. AC Transit could acquire or construct its own facility the operators could use, thereby to reduce contract costs or could restart AC Transit provided paratransit service out of its own facility

• Additional Bus Facility: The re-opening of D3 will provide capacity for several years of service expansion, but AC Transit must continue looking toward future conditions and the possible need for another facility

Table 6.7 details the facilities rehabilitation and expansion costs.

6.2.3 NEEDS AT TRANSIT CENTERS/PARK AND RIDES Transit centers are focal points of District service, often at route terminals and/or intermodal connections such as BART stations. They are served by multiple bus routes. While the District does not have an overall formal policy for the development of transit centers, they often arise from a natural combination of service design, intermodal connectivity, and land use characteristics.

AC Transit’s development of park-and-ride transit centers is guided by Board Policy 317 “District Operated Park And Ride Lot Pricing and Cost Recovery Policy”. To summarize, the policy states that because park-and-ride facilities are not a part of the District’s primary on-street pickup service design, they should only be used where on-street pickup is ineffective. Park-and-ride facilities must have a thorough planning process and be self-supporting through user (parking) fees.

AC Transit is also a member of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA), an agency created to develop and operate the new Transbay Transit Center in downtown San Francisco. AC Transit currently operates 30 Transbay lines to San Francisco, providing commute and some all-day service in an era when BART is at or above capacity. The TJPA created a temporary terminal near the site of the new Transbay Terminal for use by AC Transit and other operators during the construction period. The District is the major bus operations tenant of the temporary terminal and will be the main tenant when the new Terminal opens in late 2017. In 2008, the District signed a Lease and Use Agreement with the TJPA which includes a capital commitment of $57 million in 2011 dollars by 2050 and an operating commitment for the terminal. The District has contributed nearly $13 million of capital funding, and will program another $22 million in FY 2016 and FY 2017. The remainder of the capital commitment will likely be funded by a passenger facility charge to be added to the standard rider fare, but the exact mechanism is still being developed.

AC Transit and the TJPA currently receive Regional Measure 2 (RM2) funding to cover the operating costs of the Temporary Terminal. Costs will increase when the new Terminal opens; this may require significant additional



operating funding starting in FY 2018 above the current grant-funded costs incurred at the temporary terminal. TJPA is currently working on updated operations cost estimates along with plans for increased grant funds.

The plan provides for the rehabilitation and maintenance of current transit and park-and-ride locations. Expansion projects in this category consists of a second District 2 park-and-ride facility based on the success of the Ardenwood facility in Fremont and a Downtown Oakland “hub” transit center as the downtown revitalizes and grows in regional prominence.

A summary of transit center and park-and-ride costs is shown in Table 6.8.

6.3 TECHNOLOGY (INCLUDES ALL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTSAC Transit is in the middle of major technology upgrades and must continue to plan for replacement and upgrade of these systems. They have a relatively short useful life and there are efficiencies and opportunities that new technologies can bring. Major systems upgrades in progress include:

• Computer Aided Dispatch/Automatic Vehicle Location/Radio System (CAD/AVL/Radio)

• PeopleSoft financial tracking

• Hastus Integrated Operations (HIOPS) bus scheduling

The CAD/AVL/Radio project is AC Transit’s largest and most costly ongoing system enhancement and will provide schedule adherence information for the operator, real-time vehicle location and schedule adherence information for the controllers, and automatic data collection of the date, time, and location of many on-board events such as door openings, wheelchair ramp/lift use, and dwell times at service stops. The system provides an effective means for operators and controllers to share information on the current status of service, and is expected to improve on-time performance. The current project is budgeted at over $39 million and is expected to be completed in 2018. A related project will relocate the Operations Controls Center from D2 to CMF to better serve the upcoming BRT line and reduce the potential effect from evacuation scenarios. A summary of project technology costs is shown in Table 6.9.



TABLE 6.7: FACILITIES REHABILITATION/EXPANSION COST

TABLE 6.8: TRANSIT CENTERS/PARK AND RIDES COST

TABLE 6.9: TECHNOLOGY COST

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

OCC Relocation (for CAD/AVL) $3,000,000 $3,000,000

Systems (CAD/AVL + other) $23,110,000 $500,000 $23,610,000

D3 Technology refit $1,000,000 $1,000,000

Transbay Terminal & BSF IT Equipment $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000

Hastus, DailyOps Upgrade $2,000,000 $2,000,000

Electronic Fare Media Usage Promotion $5,000,000 $5,000,000

Off Board Fare Payment $5,000,000 $5,000,000

PeopleSoft Upgrade (post 9.2) $4,000,000 $4,000,000

Storage Area Network Replacement $2,000,000 $2,000,000

Misc upgrades (LAN, WAN, Firewall etc) $750,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 $2,500,000

Total: $26,610,000 $2,500,000 $5,750,000 $2,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 $49,610,000

Type 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

D3 Reopening/Rehabilitation $18,000,000 $18,000,000

Other Facility SGR - GO/D2/D4/D6 $4,310,000 $7,820,766 $7,820,766 $7,820,766 $7,820,766 $7,820,766 $7,820,766 $7,820,766 $7,820,766 $7,820,766 $74,696,891

Relocate Division 2 $10,000,000 $45,000,000 $45,000,000 $100,000,000

Relocate Division 3 $10,000,000 $45,000,000 $45,000,000 $100,000,000

New Paratransit Facility $5,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $50,000,000

New Bus Facility (Expansion) $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $80,000,000

Total: $22,310,000 $7,820,766 $7,820,766 $7,820,766 $17,820,766 $57,820,766 $97,820,766 $57,820,766 $72,820,766 $72,820,766 $422,696,891

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

Intermodal Transit Center Rehabs $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $60,000,000

Downtown Oakland Transit Hub $2,000,000 $13,000,000 $13,000,000 $28,000,000

New Park and Ride in District 2 $1,000,000 $1,000,000

Transbay Capital Commitment $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $42,000,000

Total: $13,000,000 $13,000,000 $13,000,000 $9,000,000 $12,000,000 $22,000,000 $22,000,000 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $131,000,000



6.4 CORRIDORS (INCLUDES BRT, LINE 51, TERMINAL UPGRADES AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SERVICE ON THE ROUTES) AC Transit pursues corridor enhancement projects to improve efficiency and reliability of its service. The major corridors are particularly important, given that they carry almost half of AC Transit’s ridership. Corridor enhancements include a range of treatments, including physical improvements like bus bulbs, queue-jump lanes, and traffic signal modifications for bus priority. “Rapid Bus” improvements package physical and signal enhancements with service redesign of a specific line (e.g., reducing the number of stops) to reduce travel time and often includes special branding. At the high end of corridor enhancements is BRT, which the District is implementing on East International Boulevard/ East 14th Street between Downtown Oakland and San Leandro BART. The East Bay BRT project includes all of the elements of the Rapid Bus projects, as well as level boarding , as well as in conjunction with specially designed bus fleet, raised platform center-median and side stations with enhanced lighting and security, off-board fare collection and vending, bus-only lanes, and further enhanced branding. The East Bay BRT project, scheduled to open for service in late 2017, will be the Bay Area’s first full BRT.

The Line 51 Corridor project, currently in construction and planned for completion in the spring of 2015, aims to improve performance along the 51A/B routes from Alameda through Oakland and into Berkeley. AC Transit has also received funding from MTC’s Transit Performance Initiative for signal and other improvements on line 97 from Hayward to Union City. Beyond these projects, AC Transit is currently working on a Major Corridors Study to identify the appropriate level of treatment for the District’s top 10 corridors and build local support for their implementation. See Table 6.10 for a summary of corridor enhancement costs.

6.5 GHG REDUCTION INITIATIVES As noted in Board Policy 550, AC Transit’s greatest contribution to greenhouse gas reduction comes from shifting travelers from cars to buses. The District is also deeply involved in efforts to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions.

AC Transit is the leading partner in the regional Zero-Emissions Bay Area (ZEBA) effort and a national leader in bringing fuel cell powered bus transit to commercial reality. The District has been operating buses powered by hydrogen fuel cells for nearly 14 years, with the current fleet of 12 fuel cell buses in their third year of operation. The buses run on many District routes and together have driven nearly 900,000 miles and carried over 3.2 million passengers. As part of this effort, the District has built two hydrogen fueling stations and converted one maintenance bay to handle the fuel cell buses, with a second maintenance bay conversion in progress. Both of the fueling stations feature on-site hydrogen generation to meet the California State SB 1505 renewable hydrogen generation requirements. At Division 2, the electrolyzer for generating hydrogen is partially powered by solar, and, at Division 4, the whole facility including the electrolyzer is powered by a directed-biogas fed solid-oxide stationary fuel cell. The District has also installed solar power generation at two additional facilities in an effort to reduce both power costs and greenhouse gas emissions.

The ZEBA effort was initially prompted by still-pending California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations that will likely require some level of zero-emission vehicles in public transit bus fleets. CARB plans to announce the updated regulations at the end of 2015. The District is currently developing a strategy to meet expected zero-emission regulations, and projects in this category will pursue that end. Most of the funding for these projects is expected to come from grant sources and agencies such as CARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), or the Cap and Trade grant programs being developed. In the near term, the District is investigating the expansion of its zero-emission bus fleet and the replacement of key propulsion systems in the existing fuel cell bus fleet.

Emissions reductions through strategic facilities investments are also regularly considered, along with low- and zero-emissions vehicles for the District’s non-revenue fleet. See Table 6.11 for GHG reduction initiative costs.



TABLE 6.10: CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENT COST

TABLE 6.11: GHG REDUCTION INITIATIVES COST

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

Corridor Improvements $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $200,000,000

Fixed Guideway Conversion (future BRT)

$5,000,000 $70,000,000 $100,000,000 $30,000,000 $205,000,000

EB BRT Extension (SL to BF) $50,000,000 $50,000,000

Contra flow lane on Bay Bridge

$8,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $50,000,000

Alternative Transit Access (Alameda/Oakland)

$5,000,000 $5,000,000 $10,000,000

Total: $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $148,000,000 $134,000,000 $64,000,000 $34,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $515,000,000

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

GHG reduction initiatives $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $20,000,000

Alternate Fuel Enhancement Program

$8,000,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $40,000,000

Total $2,000,000 $10,000,000 $2,000,000 $10,000,000 $2,000,000 $10,000,000 $2,000,000 $10,000,000 $2,000,000 $10,000,000 $60,000,000



6.6 OVERVIEW OF FUNDING SOURCESThe chapter now shifts from discussion of the District’s spending needs to discussion of the funding sources which are available to pay for those needs.

One of the key methodologies used to develop this funding projection was MTC’s recently approved Core Capacity Challenge Grant program (MTC Resolution No. 4130). This 15-year funding program for the three largest operators in the Bay Area, AC Transit, BART, and MUNI, includes funding for fleet replacements, fleet expansions, and facilities upgrades. AC Transit’s share of the Core Capacity program includes a total of $1.138 billion to be used for fleet replacements ($780 million), fleet expansions ($90 million), and facility rehabilitation and replacement ($268 million). The funding is split among several fund sources, including FTA formula funds, Cap and Trade funds, AB 664 Bridge Toll funds, Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) project savings, and various local fund sources. AC Transit used the assumptions in this program as a baseline for all of those sources.

6.6.1 COMMITTED FUNDINGCommitted funding (see Figure 6.3 for projections) is funding already allocated or programmed to AC Transit, funding identified in an agreement or resolution, or funding that can be reasonably assumed to be available to AC Transit.

FIGURE 6.3: COMMITTED FUNDING PROJECTIONS

FEDERAL SOURCESFederal Transit Administration Formula Funds: The main source of AC Transit’s FTA funding is from the Section 5307 program. AC Transit is eligible to receive this funding within the San Francisco-Oakland urbanized area along with 10 other operators, including BART and MUNI. The large needs of this group of operators generally

$‐

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

COMMITTED FU

NDING (in M

illions)

YEAR

Local Total

State Total

Federal Total



outstrip available funding. To handle the funding distribution, MTC manages the Transit Capital Priorities (TCP) process to determine funding priorities on a recurring basis. For this SRTP, AC Transit used the FTA funds programmed in MTC’s Core Capacity program to project available funds over the term of the SRTP. The Core Capacity program includes $481 million in FTA funds over a 16-year period (FY 2015-30) or $30 million/year. AC Transit assumed $38 million per year in FY 2015 based on MTC programming recommendations. This leaves $443 million for the remaining 15 years of the Core Capacity program, or $29.53 million per year. This assumption is on par with amounts received by AC Transit over the past several years. See Table 6.12 for complete committed funding projections.

Surface Transportation Program/Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Funds: Both of these fund sources originate from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Surface Transportation Program (STP) is generally considered flexible funding that can be used on a variety of transportation projects, including transit, bicycle, pedestrian, road, and highway projects. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funding requires that projects reduce air pollution in areas that are considered to be in non-attainment under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. These funds are apportioned to the region and administered by MTC. AC Transit is eligible to receive funding from both of these federal programs through a variety of discretionary programs established by MTC and the Congestion Management Agencies for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. These programs include, but are not limited to, the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program, the Transit Performance Initiative (TPI) program, and the Freeway Performance Initiative program. Plan Bay Area assumes $186.3 million total from these two funding sources in FY 2013, with a 3 percent escalation rate per annum throughout the life of Plan Bay Area. AC Transit estimates that it could receive this funding distributed through a variety of regional programs (e.g., TPI and OBAG) at a rate of $7 million bi-annually. This amount is on par with amounts received by AC Transit over the past several years.

STATE SOURCESRegional Transportation Improvement Program: The Regional Transportation Improvement Program identifies projects programmed to receive various state and federal funds, and acts as a proposal from MTC and the Congestion Management Agencies for Alameda and Contras Costa Counties to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for programming State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds. AC Transit anticipates $26 million in funds in the RTIP in the SRTP period for the East Bay BRT project.

Infrastructure Bond Funds: In November 2006, the voters in the state approved Proposition 1B entitled the “Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006”. Proposition 1B authorized the sale of $19.9 billion in general obligation bonds to fund state and local transportation projects aimed at relieving congestion, improving movement of goods, improving air quality, and enhancing safety and security of the transportation system. AC Transit receives funding from two Prop 1B programs: the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) and the Transit System Safety, Security & Disaster Response Account (TSSSDRA). By the end of FY 2014-15 AC Transit will have received approximately $100 million in PTMISEA funding and $15 million in TSSSDRA funding. Staff estimates that $43 million of that funding will be used for capital priorities within this SRTP; the bulk of which are existing projects that are carrying forward into this time period.

Cap and Trade (Low Carbon Transit Operations Program): The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) is one of the main Cap and Trade funded programs that can be accessed by transit operators. Unlike the other programs, LCTOP funding will flow to transit operators and the region by formula. The funding must be used to support operating and capital projects that lead to greenhouse gas reductions, with a priority to delivering those improvements to disadvantaged communities. AC Transit will receive $573,227 in FY 2015 and the draft state budget would approximately double this amount for FY 2016. How these funds would be used has not yet been determined.



TABLE 6.12: COMMITTED FUNDING PROJECTIONS

Funding Sources 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

Committed Funding

Federal

FTA Formula Funds $38,400,000 $29,530,000 $29,530,000 $29,530,000 $29,530,000 $29,530,000 $29,530,000 $29,530,000 $29,530,000 $29,530,000 $304,170,000

STP/CMAQ $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $35,000,000

Federal TOTAL $45,400,000 $29,530,000 $36,530,000 $29,530,000 $36,530,000 $29,530,000 $36,530,000 $29,530,000 $36,530,000 $29,530,000 $339,170,000

State

RTIP $12,000,000 $12,000,000 $2,000,000 $26,000,000

Existing Prop 1B PTMISEA FY 15 Budget

$14,160,000 $14,160,000

Existing Prop 1B PTMISEA $2,000,000 $2,000,000

New Prop 1B PTMISEA $21,000,000 $21,000,000

Prop 1B TSSSDRA $2,100,000 $2,100,000 $2,100,000 $6,300,000

Cap & Trade TBD

Low Carbon Transit Operations $652,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $23,152,000

State TOTAL $18,912,000 $25,600,000 $4,600,000 $14,500,000 $2,500,000 $14,500,000 $2,500,000 $4,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $92,612,000

Local

AB 664 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $15,000,000

RM2 $15,000,000 $15,000,000

TFCA $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,500,000

BATA Project Savings $5,180,000 $5,180,000 $5,180,000 $5,180,000 $5,180,000 $5,180,000 $5,180,000 $5,180,000 $5,180,000 $5,180,000 $51,800,000

ACTC - VRF Program $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000

Measure BB $10,700,000 $3,000,000 $12,000,000 $2,000,000 $11,000,000 $38,700,000

District Funds $27,547,000 $12,960,000 $9,920,000 $10,218,000 $4,635,000 $7,967,000 $11,938,000 $7,656,000 $8,407,000 $9,528,000 $110,776,000

Local Total $49,727,000 $30,340,000 $18,100,000 $19,898,000 $12,815,000 $26,647,000 $20,118,000 $16,336,000 $16,587,000 $27,208,000 $237,776,000

Total $114,039,000 $85,470,000 $59,230,000 $63,928,000 $51,845,000 $70,677,000 $59,148,000 $50,366,000 $55,617,000 $59,238,000 $669,558,000



LOCAL SOURCESAB 664: AB 664 is an increment of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay, San Mateo-Hayward, and Dumbarton Bridge tolls and is intended to fund transit capital projects that relieve congestion in the bridge corridors. MTC commits these funds to match federally-funded transit projects. MTC Resolution 4123 - Transit Core Capacity includes $25 million in AB 664 funds over a 16 year period (FY 2015-30) or $1.5 million per year for AC Transit Core Capacity projects.

Regional Measure 2 (RM2): Approved by voters in March 2004, RM2 increased tolls on the state-owned bay bridges. RM2 allocates additional bridge toll revenues for various transportation projects and operations within to reduce congestion or to make improvements to travel in the toll bridge corridors. AC Transit anticipates $15 million in RM2 funds in the SRTP period to fund existing projects including the renovation of Richmond Parkway Transit Center, purchase of replacement buses for the Dumbarton Express Bus Service, and the East Bay BRT project.

Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA): TFCA funds have been developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). They are available through two main channels: the Regional Fund and the County Program Manager Fund. Eligible projects must result in the reduction of motor vehicle emissions within the Air District’s jurisdiction. The Regional Fund receives about 60 percent of the TFCA revenues and is administered directly by BAAQMD. The Program Manager Fund receives approximately 40 percent of the TFCA revenues and is administered in coordination with the Bay Area’s nine county congestion management agencies (CMAs). The primary CMAs in the AC Transit service area are the ACTC and the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA). Both of these fund sources are available through discretionary programs on an annual basis. Generally, $4 million is available from the regional program annually and approximately $1 million is available from the county program annually for transit projects. AC Transit believes it can secure a small portion of that funding for projects that enhance existing operations. See Table 6.12 for committed funding projections

Bay Area Toll Authority Project Savings: With the completion of the Regional Measure 1 highway and bridge projects and the opening of the New East Span of the Bay Bridge, BATA project savings are proposed to be directed to the Core Capacity Challenge Grant Program. Staff has determined that these transit projects are eligible bridge improvement projects because they will improve functioning or use of one or more of the state-owned bridges. As such, these project expenditures, in an amount of $250 million, are proposed to be added to BATA’s long-range plan and budget. AC Transit anticipates receiving $83 million in BATA Project Savings over a 16-year period (FY 2015-30) or $5.18 million per year.

Alameda County Transportation Commission Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF): The Measure F Alameda County VRF Program was approved by the voters in November 2010. The fee generates about $11 million per year from a $10 per year vehicle registration fee. The goal of the VRF program is to sustain the County’s transportation network and reduce traffic congestion and vehicle-related pollution. The program includes 25 percent for Transit for Congestion Relief, which seeks to make the existing transit system more efficient and effective, and improve access to schools and jobs. AC Transit believes it can secure a small portion of that funding for projects that enhance existing operations.



Measure BB Capital: ACTC’s Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) includes $35 million for four Rapid Bus projects over 30 years (FY 2015-45). This is a project specific program so AC Transit is assuming the use of funding for at least three of the four projects within the SRTP timeframe. The TEP also includes $300 million for Community Development Investments that improve transit connections to jobs and schools, or $10 million per year. AC Transit assumes $1 million every two years in capital funding to mitigate the impacts on transit of new development.

District Funding: AC Transit provides funding from its operating budget to support capital projects. From FY 2012–15 AC Transit provided an average of $9 million per year in capital funding. MTC Resolution 4123-Transit Core Capacity includes a required contribution of $341 million in local funds from AC Transit over a 16 year period (FY 2015-30) or $21 million per year. Early years of the commitment (FY 2015-16) are offset by $38 million in Prop 1B PTMISEA funds. This lowers the necessary commitment to $18 million per year. This SRTP includes an increase of District funding to an average of $17 million per year. The increase may be partially supported by the recent passage of Measure BB. AC Transit assumes that other state and local funds will be available to help offset this need.

See Table 6.13 for a comparison of CIP cost projections and committed funding levels over the life of the SRTP.

TABLE 6.13: OTHER LARGE OPERATOR CIP ASSUMPTIONS

Total CIP Cost Committed Funding %

BART $9,600,000,000 $4,800,000,000 50%

Caltrain $1,854,789,000 $1,784,320,000 96%

Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District

$343,000,000 $343,000,000 100%

Samtrans $269,000,000 $269,000,000 100%

SFMTA $15,749,025,000 N/A* N/A*

VTA $826,000,000 $522,800,000 63%

AC Transit

Current $1,510,944,397 $669,558,000 44%

2010 Mini $1,258,053,582 $809,851,389 64%Note: * SFMTA does not provide 10-year constrained CIP



6.6.2 DISCRETIONARY FUNDINGDiscretionary funding is more speculative as it may require voter approval, legislative action or is part of a highly competitive discretionary program. AC Transit used Plan Bay Area as a source for discretionary revenues and therefore this estimate (see Table 6.14 and Figure 6.4) includes a new regional bridge toll; a regional gas tax; and other anticipated, but unidentified revenues, a residual funding category used by MTC.

FIGURE 6.4: DISCRETIONARY FUNDING PROJECTIONS

$‐

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

DISCRE

TIONAR

Y FU

NDING (in

Millions)

YEAR

Local Total

State Total

Federal Total

FEDERAL SOURCESFTA New Starts Program: AC Transit is working through a Major Corridors plan that will identify strategies for improvements for the 10 highest volume bus corridors in the service area. Those improvements could be as minimal as transit signal priority and as large as new proposed BRT projects. For the purposes of the SRTP, staff assumes that it will secure a $75 million Small Starts grant towards a future BRT project.

Other US Department of Transportation (DOT) Discretionary Grants: There are several discretionary federal programs that are specific to the U.S. DOT (i.e., FHWA and FTA) and which could support AC Transit projects. These include the TIGER program, the Elderly and Disabled, Alternative Fuel, Research and Development, Asset Management, and Safety programs.

Other Federal Grants: There a few federal programs outside of the U.S. DOT that could support AC Transit projects, particularly advancements to the zero emission bus projects. AC Transit has included some probable funding from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for possible enhancements to the zero emission bus projects. AC Transit has also included funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and/or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to support safety and security projects.



TABLE 6.14: DISCRETIONARY FUNDING PROJECTIONS

Funding Sources 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

Discretionary Funding

Federal

FTA New Starts Program $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $75,000,000

Other US DOT Discretionary $3,000,000 $13,000,000 $3,000,000 $13,000,000 $3,000,000 $35,000,000

FEMA/DHS Grants $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $5,000,000

DOE Grants $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $5,000,000

Federal TOTAL $5,000,000 $15,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $40,000,000 $5,000,000 $120,000,000

State

ATP $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $9,000,000

Cap and Trade TBD

Transit and Intercity Rail Capital, and Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Programs

$5,000,000 $13,000,000 $13,000,000 $13,000,000 $13,000,000 $13,000,000 $13,000,000 $13,000,000 $13,000,000 $13,000,000 $122,000,000

Low Carbon Transportation $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $11,000,000

CEC $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $9,000,000

State TOTAL $7,000,000 $14,000,000 $20,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $20,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $20,000,000 $14,000,000 $151,000,000

Local

Additional Bridge Toll $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $34,800,000

Regional Gas Tax $11,590,000 $11,590,000 $11,590,000 $11,590,000 $11,590,000 $11,590,000 $69,540,000

Other Anticipated, but Undetermined Revenues

$31,000,000 $31,000,000 $31,000,000 $31,000,000 $31,000,000 $31,000,000 $31,000,000 $217,000,000

Local Total $31,000,000 $48,390,000 $48,390,000 $48,390,000 $48,390,000 $48,390,000 $48,390,000 $321,340,000

Total $7,000,000 $19,000,000 $20,000,000 $60,000,000 $62,390,000 $98,390,000 $87,390,000 $102,390,000 $68,390,000 $67,390,000 $592,340,000



STATE SOURCESActive Transportation Program (ATP): The ATP consolidates existing federal and state transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and State Safe Routes to School (SR2S), into a single program. The purpose of ATP is to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation. AC Transit assumes that it can secure a modest amount of funding from this program to help support corridor projects, particularly complete street projects that are done in coordination with local jurisdiction. AC Transit may be able to draw on this program to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to transit centers and stops.

Cap and Trade (Transit and Intercity Rail Capital and Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Programs): The Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program and the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program are both discretionary programs where AC Transit could compete for capital funding at the state-level. The focus of both of these programs is capital projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions with a priority focus on those reductions in disadvantaged communities. AC Transit is looking at these programs through MTC Resolution 4123 - Transit Core Capacity, which includes $207 million in Cap and Trade funds over a 16 year period (FY 2015-30) or $13 million per year for AC Transit.

Cap and Trade (Low Carbon Transportation) and California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Air Quality Improvement Program: The Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) is designed to support development and commercialization of advanced technologies that are necessary to meet California’s air quality and climate goals. Because of the program’s success, AQIP continues to expand. The Governor’s FY 2014-15 proposed budget identifies $200 million from the state’s share of auction proceeds under CARB’s Cap-and-Trade program to be spent on Low Carbon Transportation projects that reduce GHG emissions primarily in disadvantaged communities. In FY 2015, CARB staff combined the two funding sources (AQIP and Low Carbon Transportation Investments) into one funding plan. The key program of focus for AC Transit is the Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Pilot, which has $20 to $25 million available in FY 2015. AC Transit assumes it could receive $2 million from this program in FY 2015 and $1 million per year for the remainder of the SRTP.

California Energy Commission (CEC): The CEC’s Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program has a $100 million Investment Plan in FY 2015. AC Transit would most likely be eligible for the $15 million Medium-and Heavy-Duty Advanced Vehicle Technology Demonstration Program, $15 million from the Electric Charging Infrastructure program, and $20 million from the Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure program. The latter two programs have more of a light-duty focus so AC Transit would need to identify non-revenue fleet needs to compete for those funds. AC Transit estimates it could receive $3 million every three years from this program based on prior awards from the program.

LOCAL SOURCESAdditional Bridge Toll: A $1 bridge toll increase (on state owned bridges) is assumed in Plan Bay Area is expected to generate $2.7 billion over the life of Plan Bay Area, FY 2013-40, or $96 million per year. AC Transit received 6 percent of RM2. That assumption for the additional bridge toll, sometimes called RM3, would yield $5.8 million per year.

Regional Gas Tax: Plan Bay Area assumes $5.1 billion over a 22-year period starting in 2018, or $231 million per year from an increase in regional gas tax. AC Transit assumes that it will be able to capture 5 percent of this revenue (approximately $11.6 million per year).

Other Anticipated, but Undetermined Revenues: Plan Bay Area assumes $14 billion over a 22-year period starting in 2018, or $636 million per year. AC Transit assumes that it will be able to capture 5 percent of this revenue (approximately $31 million per year).


7.0 INTRODUCTIONResolution 3434 is MTC’s program of major transit expansion projects for the Bay Area, most recently amended and adopted in 2008. The Regional Transit Expansion Program approved by Resolution 3434 will, when fully built out, provide 140 additional miles of rail service, 600 miles of new express bus routes, and a 58 percent service increase on certain existing transit corridors. Ferry facilities will also be expanded. Projects included in Resolution 3434 are highlighted for special attention in MTC’s SRTP Resolution 3532.

AC Transit has two projects included in Resolution 3434. One is the East Bay BRT line from Downtown Oakland to San Leandro BART. The BRT project was referred to as “AC Transit Berkeley/Oakland/San Leandro Bus Rapid Transit,” at that time it was assumed that the BRT would extend to Downtown Berkeley via Telegraph Avenue but Oakland and Berkeley did not approve that part of the BRT.

The other Resolution 3434 project is the Major Corridors improvement project, described in the Resolution as “AC Transit Enhanced Bus Hesperian/Foothill/MacArthur corridors,” with a cost to MTC of $41 million. In Attachment C to the Resolution: Funding Strategy, the same $41 million is designated for “AC Transit Enhanced Bus Grand/MacArthur Corridor.” Taken together, along with Telegraph Avenue, these corridors make up most of the Major Corridors study area. They also reflect the Major Corridors concept in an earlier stage of its evolution. As noted previously, the District along with the ACTC, has undertaken an update of the Major Corridors study. It could recommend changes to the recommendations of the earlier plan.

The construction of the new Transbay Terminal is also part of Resolution 3434. However, since the TJPA is the sponsor of Transbay Terminal, it is not included in this chapter.

7.1 EAST BAY BUS RAPID TRANSITCapital Cost: The capital cost to construct the East Bay BRT is currently estimated at $178 million in year of expenditure dollars. Resolution 3434 estimated the cost as $250 million. At that point, the planned BRT extended to Berkeley on the north end and Bayfair BART on the south end. The current project is roughly two-thirds the size of the original one.

Capital Funding: The East Bay BRT project is fully funded. The only potential cash flow issue would be if the FTA is unable to deliver the remaining unallocated $27.6 million in Small Smarts funds (of $75 million total Small Starts funding) in 2015, as expected. The project is currently holding a $5 million contingency for financing, should FTA funding be delayed.

Construction Schedule: The BRT project is nearing completion of final design, in conjunction with the cities of Oakland and San Leandro. The key projected dates going forward are:

• Completion of Final Design Spring/Summer 2015

• Start of Major Construction Fall 2015

• Completion of Major Construction Spring 2017

• Start of Revenue Service Fall 2017

Chapter 7: Resolution 3434 Projects—Bus Rapid Transit and Major Corridors

SRTP Chapter 7: Resolution 3434 Projects—Bus Rapid Transit and Major Corridors


Land Use: The BRT project has been a catalyst for transit-oriented planning along the BRT corridor. The City of Oakland prepared the International Boulevard Transit Oriented Development Plan (IBTOD) in 2011. That plan had major sections concerning strategies to implement TOD. Although the plan is completed, no environmental document was prepared for the plan, and it was not formally approved. City staff indicate that the IBTOD has the status of a policy document for the corridor.

At the same time, the City reviewed the zoning designations of International Boulevard and other commercial corridors around the City. New zoning designed to be simpler and to promote development was approved for these corridors. AC Transit participated in both IBTOD and the rezoning as a member of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).

The City of San Leandro approved its Downtown Transit Oriented Development Strategy in 2009. The Strategy covers the area within a ½-mile radius of East 14th Street & Davis Street, excluding areas zoned for single-family residential use. The strategy rezoned the downtown and BART station area for more intensive commercial and residential use. BRIDGE Housing has started construction on a 115 unit affordable housing development directly across from San Leandro BART, the terminus of the BRT. AC Transit participated actively in the development of the TOD Strategy.

7.2 MAJOR CORRIDORS PROJECTAC Transit’s Major Corridors project has begun the process of Evaluation of key service corridors for potential capital improvements. Initial outreach meetings will begin in March 2015. The Major Corridors study is being done in conjunction with the ACTC’s Countywide Transit Plan. ACTC is also conducting a countywide Multi-modal Arterials Plan which could have a major impact on the major transit corridors. A plan with proposals for recommendations is expected to be complete in June 2016. At this early stage it is not possible to project the capital or operating cost or its land use impacts.


8.1 AC TRANSIT’S VISION FOR 2040In 2040, the East Bay will have a great transit system, second to none among similar places. Residents, workers, and visitors will be pleased to rely on transit as their principal mode of travel for trips longer than walking distance. AC Transit will be a leading green transit agency: not only reducing automobile trips by providing its service, but acting as a leader in green business practices in the transit industry. AC Transit will support, and be recognized as supporting, residential and commercial development in the major Priority Development Areas (PDA’s) in the District. See Figure 8.1 for the location of the PDA’s within the district.

This vision is further elaborated below.

8.1.1 CONTEXT FOR THE VISION, PLACES—GROWING IN THE PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS (PDAS)To realize this ambitious vision, AC Transit will need a supportive development pattern. What will the urban/suburban environment of the East Bay be like in 2040? Will it help AC Transit achieve its goals? Trends are generally positive, but significant challenges will remain.

Housing: Over the next 26 years, through 2040, the AC Transit district will evolve, but the broad outline of development will remain similar to today. Population in the district is expected to grow significantly by 2040, but not to transformative levels. Plan Bay Area projects population growth in the AC Transit district of some 300,000, or just above 20 percent of the existing 1,425,000.

Plan Bay Area projects that ¾ of the population growth (76 percent) will occur in the PDA’s. As a result, the PDA share of population in the district will increase from 35 percent to 43 percent, approaching one-half. This growth pattern would channel new development into denser, more urban areas, but existing zones of single family detached houses, with hundreds of thousands of units, will remain. Even as the East Bay of the 21st Century is being built, the overhang of the latter 20th Century will remain.

Oakland is projected to receive the largest share of this PDA growth, over 100,000 people. Fremont, the second largest city in the district, would be the second largest gainer, with almost 30,000 new residents clustered around existing and new rail stations.

Jobs: Job growth is projected to be somewhat greater, but still would largely strengthen existing employment concentration. The district would add 230,000 jobs, 36 percent of the existing total. Expected job growth in Oakland is particularly strong, 85,000 jobs or 45 percent of the existing total, focused in Downtown and West Oakland. Fremont again would be second, with the majority of its new jobs in the Warm Springs/South Fremont area around the new BART station. Warm Springs, the former Alameda Point naval base, and West Oakland are the three areas where the number of jobs is projected to more than double.

Caution is advisable in making long term development predictions. 25 years ago analysts might not have predicted Downtown Oakland’s post-2000 growth spurt. Berkeley’s rigorous development review process might have led observers to underestimate the growth which took place and is taking place in Downtown Berkeley. 26 years ago, Alameda Point was still functioning as Alameda Naval Air Station.

Chapter 8: VISION 2040—An AC Transit that is Great, Green, and Golden



FIGURE 8.1: PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS

Oakland

Hayward

San Francisco

Richmond

Fremont

Alameda

Brisbane

Berkeley

Redwood City

Orinda

Foster City

Tiburon

Newark

Lafayette

Walnut Creek

San Mateo

South San Francisco

Concord

Moraga

Union City

San Leandro

Pacifica

Albany

Menlo Park

Daly City

Pleasant Hill

Belmont

San Bruno

Burlingame

Hillsborough

Danville

Martinez

Millbrae

San Rafael

El Cerrito

San Carlos

Colma

Pinole

Emeryville

San Pablo

Belvedere

Piedmont

Half Moon Bay

Sausalito

San Ramon

Hercules

Priority Development Areas

Cities

Interstates

Highways

Arterial Roads

¯0 3 61.5 Miles

Priority Development Areas



8.1.2 CONTEXT FOR THE VISION, PEOPLE—NEW PEOPLE, NEW MOBILITYNumerically, most of the East Bay’s 2040 residents are already here. But, as individuals, many of the people will be new arrivals (by birth or net in-migration) or in newly formed households. Will this turnover of people help or hurt AC Transit’s ability to implement this vision? The signs are strongly positive.

The large “Baby Boom” generation (born roughly 1945-1964) has been seen as the dominant demographic group in the United States in recent decades. Now the “Millennial” generation (roughly 1985-2000) is becoming increasingly prominent. The attitudes and lifestyles of Millennials seem to be substantially different than Baby Boomers. Baby Boomers have been seen as the quintessential suburban generation. Over the course of the Boomers’ 20th Century (1950-2000) the suburban share of population in the U.S. more than doubled, 23.3 percent to 50.0 percent, while the central city population stagnated. The U.S. was often described as a suburban nation, and thus inevitably a car-dependent nation.

But in the 21st century there has been a U-turn in car usage, especially among the young. While miles driven dropped overall between 2001 and 2009, the average yearly number of miles driven by 16- to 34-year-olds dropped a remarkable 23 percent.

Even well-off young people are making changes. A study by the Frontier Group (research arm of the US Public Interest Research Group) showed that from 2001 to 2009, young people (16-34 years old) who lived in households with annual incomes of over $70,000 increased their use of public transit by 100 percent, biking by 122 percent, and walking by 37 percent. Millennials also express a much stronger interest in living in central cities, and central cities now provide a broader range of options than in the latter 20th Century. We can only hope and assume these trends continue among the “post-Millennial” generations.

8.1.3 VISION 2040—GREAT: AC TRANSIT WILL, ALONG WITH OTHER AGENCIES, OPERATE GREAT TRANSIT SERVICEGreat transit service in 2040: Residents, workers and visitors to the AC Transit district will be pleased to rely on transit as their principal mode of travel for trips longer than walking distance.

People traveling more than a mile generally use either a car or transit, with a smaller percentage biking. As using a private car becomes more expensive, and perhaps less socially acceptable, the role of transit will increase.

Common Fares: Great transit requires a system that is fast, frequent, reliable, understandable, safe, convenient, affordable, and pleasant. As Board Policy 550 notes, AC Transit is part of a “total transit system for the region.” While most trips, today and in the future, will be on only one system, it will be critical to make the bus/BART interface as seamless as possible in terms of fares, transfers, and information. BART will have reached Downtown San Jose by 2040, and perhaps built other extensions or infill stations. Using AC Transit and BART should feel like a using a single system, whatever the institutional arrangements. 26 years should be long enough to develop common fare policies.

Frequent: AC Transit’s Service Guiding Principles say that “a large part” of the system should operate schedule-free, which would provide a frequency of 10 minutes or better. The nine major corridors which carry more than half of AC Transit’s passengers would be the obvious target for establishing such service. Most of these corridors are longstanding and long-developed travel routes, the oldest, Telegraph Avenue, dates back to the mid-19th century. So it is reasonable to assume that they will remain key corridors, all the more so when reinforced by PDAs.

Faster: A faster transit system, and therefore one that supports more frequency and reliability, will be supported by roadways that minimize the delays cars (and to some extent bicycles) cause to bus operations. Cities will need to provide improved facilities for both buses and bikes, and to assure that roadway modifications for bicycles do not degrade the travel time or reliability of bus service.



Vehicles: The transit service will be great with or without new types of transit vehicles. Both recent and projected Bay Area transit improvements use existing transit modes. Unlike the hillside suburban favelas in Medellin, Colombia that generated the aerial tramway, the East Bay has no service gap which can only be served with a new transit mode. Indeed, a transit technology originally developed in the 19th century, the streetcar, has gained new popularity. It may be that upgraded capital investment to a streetcar or light-rail type service is appropriate on one or more corridors. The only new transit vehicle technology recently implemented here is the modern cable car on the Oakland Airport Connector. It may also be that new forms of recreational transit (like San Francisco’s cable cars) emerge, but not as key elements of the system.

A transit system can only be convenient if most people can reach it easily. By 2040, AC Transit will have established and achieved a goal that if an area’s population density exceeds 10,000 per square mile, the great bulk of residents will be within one quarter of a mile of a bus stop. It will be easier to achieve this goal because population will be somewhat concentrated; hopefully cities will also upgrade their walkway network where needed.

8.1.4 VISION 2040—GREEN: AC TRANSIT WILL BE A LEADING GREEN TRANSIT AGENCYA green transit agency: In addition to service which reduces automobile trips, AC Transit will be a leader in green business practices in our vehicles and facilities.

Providing great service, service that supplants driving trips, is AC Transit’s most important environmental contribution. As Board Policy 550 (Guiding Principle 4) states “… AC Transit’s greatest role in alleviating climate change is to get as many people out of their cars and onto its service as possible.”

Yet it is all too likely that climate change will be even more serious and damaging by 2040. As a major vehicle operating entity, AC Transit will want to minimize its carbon footprint. Even if buses are largely electrically powered, a possibility by 2040, the District’s carbon footprint would still be substantial. The District’s vehicles, particularly the revenue vehicles, are used far more intensively than private vehicles. The vehicles need to be stored, serviced, and maintained. In addition, AC Transit will continue to operate four divisions (bus yards), the Central Maintenance Facility, and the General Office. This scope of operations and facilities means that AC Transit may create a substantial environmental footprint, but has numerous opportunities to reduce that footprint.

8.1.5 VISION 2040—GOLDEN: SUPPORTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTEconomic development: AC Transit service will support, and will be recognized as supporting, residential and commercial development in major PDAs in the district.

Surface transit in the East Bay began as “development oriented transit,” streetcars built to sell real estate along the Key System routes. In the mid-21st century, with the increasing prominence of transit, surface transit will again play that role. The access value created by BART stations has long been recognized, as the region becomes more transit-oriented, surface transit will again be critical. The trunk routes in particular will be a key complement to a BART system which is likely to still be straining to carry ever-increasing loads. Cities will recognize that having more people traveling along their major surface transit corridors means more people seeing their businesses, and more people using city businesses at bus stops. Some people already buy houses with reference to bus service; this will become more common as time goes on.

Surface transit has often struggled in the 20th and early 21st centuries. Resources have been inadequate, attention has focused excessively on trains, and bus passengers have been stigmatized. But as the 21st century advances, the critical role of surface transit will become increasingly evident. This will present opportunities for AC Transit to seize, for AC Transit to become great, green, and golden.

Documents

Short-Range Transit Plan · of the 10-year operations plan and operations budget. Continuing the budget focus, Chapter 6 sets out the capital budget. Chapter 7 discusses projects