Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
5.1 Pleasanton/Dublin Transit Study
CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 14, 1983 SUBJECT Pleasanton/Dublin Transit Study EXHIBITS ATTACHED Executive Summary; Memorandum from DKS to Policy Committee dated November 3 , 1983 ; Task 5 . 3 Report Environmental Assessment Initial Study; Task 5 . 4 Report on Alternatives Analysis RECOMMENDATION'S See Below FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Undetermined DESCRIPTION On September 26 , 1983 , Staff and Councilmember Jeffery gave a status report to the City Council on the Pleasanton/Dublin Transit Study. In accordance with City Council input, the Transportation Consultant undertook a more detailed analysis of operational alternatives 1, 2 and 4 . The Consultant also evaluated several different Joint Exercise of Powers alternatives for managing the transportation system. This analysis is detailed in the Task 5 . 4 Report on Alternatives Analysis ( see attached) . In addition to the evaluation undertaken above, the Consultant has prepared Task 5 . 3 Report Environmental Assessment Initial Study ( see attached) . Both the Transit Advisory and Policy Committees have met and reviewed the above reports . As a result of the discussions at both Committee meetings , it was determined that it was necessary for the City Councils/Boards of each participating jurisdiction to take the following actions : 1 . Identify its preferred operational alternative, with a fall-back alternative . 2 . Identify its preferred management alternative, with a fall-back alternative . 3 . Comment on the Environmental Assessment Initial Study. 4 . Identify specific concerns and issues about the transit service and management alternative, which should be addressed by the Consultant. OPERATIONAL ALTERNATIVE REVIEW As shown in the Comparative Evaluation of Operational Alternatives ( see 11/3/83 memorandum from DKS) , it is evident that Alternative 2 provides the best overall service to Dublin. This is most evident in terms of route miles ( 30 compared to 23 , and 24 in Alternatives 1 and 4 ) , and also frequency ( 30 minutes as compared to 60 minutes in Alternatives 1 and 4 ) . However, since Pleasanton expressed a concern that some of its activity centers , including Foothill High School, were not being covered in Alternative 2 , Pleasanton preferred Alternative 4 . As a compromise, the Consultant prepared Alternative 4A which would reduce Dublin' s route mileage from 30 to 28 and would provide 30 minute headways on one route only during peak periods . Given the fact that Dublin would generate no more than 250 of the TDA funding, this compromise alternative appears equitable . MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE REVIEW The Comparison Evaluation of Management Alternatives sYiown in the Executive Summary (see attached which identifies the advantages and disadvantages of a Pleasanton/Dublin Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) ; a Tri-Valley JEPA, including Livermore and Alameda County; and the expansion of the Central Contra Costa County Transit Authority (CCCTA) JEPA to include Pleasanton and Dublin . Both the Advisory and Policy Committees rejected the concept of the CCCTA JEPA due to the great loss of local policy control that would result. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: ITEM NO. "5. 1 PLEASANTON/DUBLIN TRANSIT STUDY Agenda Statement Page 2 It appears that the issues which the Council must evaluate when comparing the Pleasanton/Dublin JEPA versus the Tri-Valley JPA are as follows : 1 . Will a Tri-Valley JPA reduce the local policy control of Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore? If so, can limitations be developed on the types of issues which Livermore and Pleasanton/Dublin could address with respect to each others operating system? If this alternative is most desired, what limitations should be developed? 2 . Given the geographical distance between Livermore and Pleasanton/Dub- lin, can any cost savings be realized by going to a Tri-Valley JEPA. If so, how much? 3 . Given Livermore ' s ability to fund its present system with TDA funds, is it important to form a Tri-Valley JEPA in hopes that more federal funds could be received? 4 . If a Pleasanton/Dublin JEPA is established, is it possible to coordinate bus connections without having Livermore as a member of the JEPA? The above issues should be discussed by the Council, and a preferred management alternative identified. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INITIAL STUDY Since Pleasanton is the lead agency, it has the responsibility to actually approve the Environmental Assessment. However, Dublin should comment on the Environmental Assessment since there will be some impact on the City if the transit system, as proposed, is implemented. Staff has reviewed the Environmental Assessment prepared by DKS and has determ .ned that the report accurately identifies the impact on the environment, with the exception of the failure to address the impact, if any, on the residential portion of Amador Valley Boulevard. As shown on page 14 in the Environmental Assessment Report, all proposed transit routes would utilize the following residential streets : Hansen Drive/Amarillo Road Silvergate Drive Peppertree Road Shannon Avenue Da,%ona Drive Amador Valley Boulevard These streets were used in order to provide access to a transit system to the greatest number of Dublin residents . Staff ' s concerns are as follows : 1 . There will be an increase in perceptible noise during peak operational periods on Hansen Drive/Amarillo Road and Davona Drive, which will result in some complaints from the residents . Does the convenience of close access to transit offset the noise, odor and aesthetic impacts on these streets? 2 . Amador Valley Boulevard east of Village Parkway should be considered in terms of environmental impact by the Consultant.: 3 . The road surface on Peppertree Road and possibly Davona Drive will have to be improved in order to handle the additional weight of buses on those streets . Road repair is planned for Peppertree Road during 1984-85 . PLEASANTON/DUBLIN TRANSIT STUDY Agenda Statement Page 3 RECOMMENDATIONS 1 . Staff recommends City Council consideration of Alternative 4A as the preferred operational alternative . 2 . Staff recommends the Dublin/Pleasanton JEPA or the Tri-Valley JEPA with specific recriprocal limitations on the ability of Livermore and Pleasanton/ Dublin to have input on transit decisions which are primarily local in nature . 3 . Staff recommends that the City Council request that the Consultant review the environmental impact of the transit system on Amador Valley Boulevard. It also recommended that the City Council provide direction to the Consultant with respect to whether or not the route along existing residential streets is acceptable . 4 . It is also recommended that the City Council identify any other concerns it has with the transit system and direct Staff to forward those concerns to the Transit Consultant. Councilmember Jeffery will provide the Council with a status report of the actions taken at the last Policy Committee meeting. In addition, representatives from DKS, the Transit Consultant, will be at the meeting to answer any questions the Council might have with respect to the Transit Study. "- Route 1 r ;R L {� �N•••� Route j • BART U line Coverage Area aA x, .� ,- fix' Elementary/Middle School fH 1m ss ' 'i: 0 High School T Major Medical Building F Senior Citizen Center/ Community Services �+ c r 0 Convalescent Home ❑ Senior Citizen Housing V r � * Mobile Home Parks >00t Commercial Strip _ Shopping Center t- fr Regional Shopping Center/CBD �s * Major Employment Center(Existing) 0 Public Housing N. librar y Park Le Community/Recreation Center t e City Offices ��'�` u sz O Post Office t 'AS /r s r I� 8 r , 1 . •_�,..= �— ,_ .�.:i.ti,! cur �o j r � Route I Ik.ute 2 ••••• BART U Line Coverage Area A Elementary/Middle School Nigh School y T Major Medical Building 0 Senior Citizen Center/ Community Services £a �¢ L O Convalescent Home 7 13 Senior Citizen Housing - z...•. r �k Mobile � � �"`�`` Home Parks { ` bol Commercial Strip , MIM Shopping Center } Regional Shopping Center/CBO .. `f' - ? .,•s `'" * Major Employment Center(Existing) } Public Housing 5 © Library yy ® .Park Community/Recreation Center 0 City Offices Post Office AM- AN 3 Y _ z-r 04 iTa haass 1417�Op 4 h J f �, 5 t ��'� Flaure 2 ..ft Mf •c �k � a we � � t Ata �- '_i ds ,k'a^a.���s��tx— ""�� �ten.: ■ LAPP Wt `�Ar • atd_ r-� d c- f, t t �a�s, 00 MUM - �— fs G r 50 COMPARISON EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL ALTERNATIVES 9 Alt. I Alt. 2 Alt. 4 Maximum High Direct Criterion Null Coverage Frequency Connections Coverage - Dublin/Pleasanton j (Percent Population Served) 46/32 89/81 89/77 89/81 Accessibility - Dublin/Pleasanton Activity Centers Covered 16/27 30/53 30/50 30/53 Activity Centers Not Covered 15/29 1/3 1/6 1/3 Annual Operating Cost N/A $732,700 $694,600 $641,000 TDA Funding Percentage Dublin/Pleasanton/Alameda County 23/71/6 23/71/6- 23/71/6 23/71/6 Percent Route Miles by City (Dublin/Pleasanton) N/A 23/77 30/70 21/79 Route Mileage on Residential Streets N/A 26/23 26/27 26/21 Fleet Size (Including Spares) N/A 8 1'0 8 Ridership/Day N/A 900 1,150 1,100 Productivity—Riders/Hour N/A 11.5 15.1 15.5 Frequency - Peak/Off-Peak (Minutes) 30/30 60/60 30/60 /60 Peak Capacity /ra0 . N/A 180 Seats 3-6$Seats 71 90 Seats Service to High Schools Amador All All but All . .Valley Foothill Directness Excellent in Some In- Some In- Most Direct Limited Corri- direct direct dors routing routing Connectivity Does not connect Essentially equal connectivity large portions of between homes and activity study area to activity centers. centers. COMPARISON EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL ALTERNATIVES Alt. I Alt. 2 Alt. 4 Maximum High Direct Criterion Null Coverage Frequency Connections Coverage - Dublin/Pleasanton (Percent Population Served) 46/32 89/81 89/77 89/81 Accessibility - Dublin/Pleasanton Activity Centers Covered 16/27 30/53 30/50 30/53 Activity Centers Not Covered 15/29 1/3 1/6 1/3 Annual Operating Cost N/A $732,700 $694,600 $641,000 TDA Funding Percentage Dublin/Pleasanton/Alameda County 23/71/6 23/71/6. 23/71/6 23/71/6 Percent Route Miles by City (Dublin/Pleasanton) N/A 23/77 30/70 21/79 Route Mileage on Residential Streets N/A 26/23 26/27 26/21 Fleet Size (Including Spares) N/A 8 I"0 8 Ridership/Day N/A 900 1,150 1,100 Productivity—Riders/Hour N/A 11.5 15.1 15.5 Frequency - Peak/Off-Peak (Minutes) 30/30 60160 30/60 30/60 Peak Capacity N/A 180 Seats 360 Seats 160 Seats Service to High Schools Amador All . All but All . .Valley Foothill Directness Excellent in Some In- Some In- Most Direct Limited Corri- direct direct dors routing routing Connectivity Does not connect Essentially equal connectivity large portions of between homes and activity study area to activity centers. centers. �U 1 COMPARISON EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES A. Null B.Pleasanton/Dublin JEPA C. Tri-Valley JEPA D. CCCTA Exppansion Membership o Pleasanton,Dublin. Role and o Pleasanton,Dublf o Pleasanton,Dublin would Integration of Alameda County Livermore ameda County join existing nine member not clear. JEPA. Role of Alameda County unclear. o Could be expanded to Tri-Valley JEPA at later Jule.. Local Policy Control o No local control over o In the short-lean,limits con- o Some loss of local policy o Greater loss of local policy Pleasanton/Dublin services trot to Dublin and Pleasanton. control particularly in. control than with other Livermore dLDu.A+-rn....- of ternot ives. Service Provision/ o Local and Inlet-Valley a. Effective'servlce coordination o Capable of occommodaling o Logical extension of Route 6811 Coordination services limited in scope. within and between Pleasanton& mast local and infer-vulley transit services into Dublin and Dublin needs In future. Pleusanton. o 'No rrusoaable khxt of o As long-term solullon,not re- o Service coordiiolion with o Difficult to uecummodate joint maintenance or service sponslve to Inler-valley service Son I(anon(C:CC[A)nary be Intra-valley needs be- possible for Livermore. needs. difficult. tween Pleasanton and Livermore. o Less voice In dealing with 13ART o Larger voice in working o Problem of being on edge of than with Tri-Vulley JI:PA. with LlAltr. CCCTA service area. Possible Types of o Operations linked to other o Variety of operational types o Some as Pleasanton/Dublin o Utilize CCCTA public operation Operm ians DART express service--con- possible--agency staff,cunt ruct JI:I'A. type of service. trocted to AC Transit Capital facilities o No new facilities needed. o May not be able to justify new a Economies of scale may o Potential use of proposed (mainherxince,admin., capital facilities. Possible use justify new facilities. sutellile CCCTA maintenance etc.) of City facilities. facility fn 1-680 corridor. Morxigernent a Management provided by o High overhead due to small o Reduced overhead due to o Experienced,low-cost BART system size. larger system size. management system alreudy established. Furdiig Potential a Local TDA funds go to o Eligible for TDA funds. o Eligible for TDA funds. o Maximum overall potential for BART,but services funded Federal,other funds. out of general revenues. o Competition for funds with o Inadequate size to maximize o More potentful for Federal o State and Federal trunsit all other BART services. federal funding potential. funding due to larger size, funding would be pooled into but may not use in short- overall CCCTA account, range. however. o MTC may not be respaisive to Livermore requests for federal grants due to small size of operation. Implementation o No services to Implement. o Requires estoblishment of a Requires estublishrnent of o Most readily implemented,due management,operations,policy management,operations, to established management, framework, policy framework. operations,policy framework. o Not clear who would take lead o Purticipation and possible o But potential legal questions role. leadership of Livermore, concerning crossing County with existing operation, boundary. would make implementation easier. ACCOtT�HYO. Alternative I Alternative Z Iso. u..n.Alternative 4 'yam d WTro 'y ' � JS µi00st ruuT OCYO. �• ONl/N�l ro. moo• C� I 9 1 o e� J .g ' ge P"ITAI errs 1~• , 4 8 4/t P. Is- Y tidy CotT tu000 Figure 4 RESIDENTIAL STREETS USED IN TABLE 3 ESTIMATE OF RESIDENCES AND POPULATION IN DIRECT PROXIMITY TO BUS ROUTES, 1985 ALTERNATIVES Route Miles in � ? 4 Residential Areas Pleasanton 6.2 5.1 6.6 Dublin 2_1 2_1 2_1 Total 8.3 7.2 8.7 Number of Dwelling Units Fronting on Bus Routes* Pleasanton 780 640 780 Dublin 185 185 185 Total 965 825 965 Number of Residents in Dwelling Units Fronting on Routes** Pleasanton 2470 2015 2470 Dublin 630 630 630 Total 100 2645 3100 *Based upon existing development with adjustments for projects planned by 1985. _ **Based upon 198D Census tract data on persons per household. TABLE A-4 PREDICTED NOISE IMPACT OF BUS OPERATION ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS L10 Without Predicted Bds Operation Increase Due Street Seqment ADT, 1985 (Null Alternative) to Bus Operation Remarks DUBLIN: Amarillo Road 1,500 55 dBA 58-60 dBA Narrow (361-401 ) roadway, Nielson - (near Hansen Dr) School, John Knox Presbyterian Church and Day Care Center; perceptible increase Peppertree Road 1,500 54 dBA 56-57 dBA 2-3$ gradient (near 'Shannon Ave) Predicted increase <3 dBA would be imperceptible Davona Drive 4,300 60 dBA 62-64 dBA Stop nd (near Alcosta Blvd) P go conditions] perceptible increase Village Parkway 13,000 65-66 dBA no .change (near Davona Dr) PLEASANTON: Springdale Ave 1,700 56-58 dBA (south of 58-60 dBA 48 gradient] Stoneridge Dr) perceptible increase Muirwood Drive 900 53 dBA 59-61 dBA Stop and go conditions; (east of Springdale Ave) noticeable increase Kottinger Drive 2,600 58 dBA 59 dBA Narrow roadway (301 ) 1 change (at 2nd St) <3 dBA would be imperceptible Touriga Drive 2,100 55 dBA 59 dBA 5% average gradient; (south of Tawny) increase perceptible TABLE A-5 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION NOISE STANDARDS* DESIGN NOISE LEVEL/LAND-USE RELATIONSHIP DESIGN NOISE LAND-USE LEVEL, CATEGORY L 1 DESCRIPTION OF LAND-USE CATEGORY ' 1 A 60 dBA Tracts of land in which serenity and quiet (exterior) are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need, and where the preservation of those qualities is essential j if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Such areas could include amphitheaters, particular parks or portions of parks, or open spaces that are- dedicated or recognized by appropriate local officials for activities requiring special qualities of serenity and quiet. B 70 dBA Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting (exterior) rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, and parks. C 75 dBA Developed lands, properties or activities (exterior) not included in categories A and B. D - For requirements on undeveloped lands see FHPM 7-7-3(3) E 55 dBA Residences, motels, hotels, public .meeting (interior) rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. *FHPM, Vol. 7, Ch. 7, Sec. 3(3) . Source: NCHRP Report 174, 1976. A-11 � RECEIVED associates NOV 111933 Traffic Transportation • Engineering CITY OF DUBl.lM Principals: Charles E.De Leu".Jr.P.E. ° hS E ki 0 R A N D U M William H.Dietrich,PE. Larry R. Grove,P.E. I Michael A.Kennedy,PE. r Hans W Korve,P.E. v Richard T.Sauve,P.E. TO: Policy Committee ;',,embers Daniel T.Smith,Jr,P.E. FR0M.: >'Jchcel A. i� ennecy, Project i,,',anager DATE: i<ovember 3, 1:03 SU3JECT: Pleasanton/Dubiin Trcnsit Stuuy P083006 1-2 s This is a reminder that the next Policy Cornrnittee meeting is scheduled for: Friday, November 18th 1:30 P N Dublin Public Library 7606 Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin As with previous meetings, it be open to the public. Our agenda for the meeting is to reach a consensus on a preferred alternative - service on6 monagement - to detail cut in the final study phase. Hopefully, you will all have received inputs and policy directions from your respective Councils/Boards, including a fall-bcci< position. It is our further hope that we will get feedback: on specific concerns and issues about the tronsit service and management structure that should be addressed in the final phase. This could, for example, include guidelines on what might be ccceptcole or. unacceptable to Your Council in c Joint Exercise of Powers Aareement. As e supplement to our earlier report, we have considered a variation on Service Alternative 4 (called 4A) that would extend an additional route into Dublin during peak periods. It % ould provide 30 minute service on the Dublin "loop" in the pea�< direction, -pile the other direction would continue with 60 minute service. A brief memo is attached to describe the alternative. We look forwarc to seeing you at the meeting,. if you have any questions on the material, please do not hesitate to call Steve Lowens, John Dowden, Pat Gelb or me. 1AYom:I b 1419 Broaowa�, ScV,- ,00. Oa.k'an; . Ca!i=orri 9461--2069 =15 .7 6�-�06" .r associates Traffic Transportation • Engineering Principals: Charles E.De Leuw.Jr.,P.E. William H.Dietrich,P.E. F Larry R. Grove,P.E. M M E O R A N D U N, Michael A.Kennedy,P.E. Hans W.Korve,P.E. Richard T.Sauve,P.E. Daniel T.Smith,Jr.,P.E. TO: A6visory an6l Policy Committee r',/embers FROM: Steve Lowens I DATE: ivovember 3. 1 S0`3 . f SUBJECT: Pleasanton/Dublin T rg^sit Study Update Po3061-2 ' 1 At the Pleasanton/Dublin Policy Committee -neetine of Lctober 25, 1983, the Consultants were requested to investigate one additional alternative. This alternative would extend Route 3 in Alternative 4 into Dublin in the peal; hours and create thirty minute frequency on one of the Poop routes in Dublin (the remaining route would have sixty minute service). 1j;'e have developed the cost and ridership data for this alternative and included it as Alternative 4A on the attached table. The extension of Route 3 in peak hours into Dublin is the only difference between Alternatives 4 and 4A. It appears that this modification could be made within the available funding for the Pleasanton/Dublin area, and would create a condition w-ith a fairly equitable distribution of funding between the two cities. It would add about $-.;0.000 in annual operating costs over Alternate 4 but would be comparable to Alternate 2. 1we have .also made minor corrections to the table supplied in our memo of October 21. The percent miles-by City for Alternate 4 has been corrected, as was peak capacity.row anc the high schools served in Alternate 2. 1419 Broacwa', Su:a 730 Oak an^. .- 20FQ "5 206' Revised 11/3/83 COMPARISON EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL ALTERNATIVES Alt. 1 .41t.2 A1 1'. 4 Alt. 4� Nlaximum Hiah Direct Direct Criterion Null Coverage Frequency Connections ConneC?10 Covercg,- - Dublin/Pleasanton (Percent copulation Served) 4o J32 8:/01 05/77 _ C., Accessibility - Dublin/Pleasanton ;=Activity Centers Covered 16/27 30/53 301150 ;G/.J 3:;/ „ctivity Centers Not Covered 15/201 I/3 I/6 . 1/3 I j C 33^, 0' 7 0 $602�0 Annual operating Cost i�/,� ,,7..� 706 So.=x,600 $641 GG0 Net Operating Cost (Cost less fares) N/A $655,900 $5907300 $550,506 $594,3 TDA Funding Percentage Dublin/Pleasanton/Ala,medc County 23,/7 1/6 23/71/6 23/7 1/6 :3/; U6 23%7 I Dublin/Pleasanton alone 25/75 25J75 25/75 25/75 25/ Percent Route I,,1 i les by City (Dublin/Pleasanton) 1'/ 23/77 30/76 24,76 28/ Route V ileage on Residential Streets N/A 26/23 26/27 26/21 26/ Fleei Size (Including Spares) Ni/A 8 10 8 R dership/Day h:/A 900 1,150 !.]Go 1,2 Productivity - Ricers/`:our 11.5 1-.1 Frequency - Peak/Off-Peak (w'linutes) 30/30 60/60 30/66 . (0p/too 1� Peek Capacity N/A 180 seats 240 seats 150/180 150/2 Service to High Schools Amador All All All c Valley Directness Excellent in Some In- Some In- t;iost Direct Most Dire, Limited Corri- direct direct dors routing routing Con,ncctivity Dees not connect Essentially eauo! connectivity bet��,,een names large portions of study and activity centers. crec to activity centers. } -1!t. L hCS thirl\' MinUT:. ^ gr. -erlod service or, one rcutt In DuGI! has SI\tom ii lll ':: SerUICe or) -OUteS. J PLEAS ANION/DUBLIN TRANSIT STUDY DRAFT Task 5.3 Report Environmental Assessment (Initial Study) I I DKS Associates in association with i i De Leuw, Cather & Company i I! ij _.� October 13, 1983 i II . I �I �I TABLE OF CONTENTS �i Page itSummary . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Introduction. . • . • . . • . . . • . . • • - - 1 2. Need for and Description of Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 3. Proposed Alternatives and Mitigation Measures . 4 4. Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. List of Agencies and Persons Contacted. . . . . . • . . . . . .. . 22 Appendix: A-1 Air Quality Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . A- 1 A-2 Noise Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A- •7. A-3 Energy Requirements and . . . . . . . . . A-14 Potential for Conservation Tr I . SUMMARY Provision of local transit services in the Pleasanton/Dublin area helps to reduce private vehicle miles of travel and mitigate the air pollution and traffic con- gestion impacts of growth. Transit services are specifically needed to provide mobility to local transit-dependents; particularly the elderly and the young. Transit access to employment and commercial opportunities also helps to realize a local economic development goals. No significant negative impacts are indicated. This Environmental Assessment/ Initial Study helps, however, to articulate the trade-off between maximum cover- - age and direct access to bus services in residential areas, and some perceived negative impacts of bus operations. Although the route alignments have been designed to mitigate these effects, some residents may object to the noise, vibration, odor and appearance of buses routed along residential streets. Pre- dicted effects are well within acceptability standards for residential and other sensitive land uses, nonetheless. Appropriate bus treatments and marketing con- cepts can be developed to enhance the image and acceptability of the service. The low frequencies of bus service contemplated at this stage of .transit system development are not expected either to increase congestion or encounter diffi- culties maneuvering in traffic. The pollutant emissions which would be created by the bus service are almost wholly offset by the anticipated reduction in private vehicle miles of travel. The bus alternatives will consume more energy l during initial operations than continued private vehicle use for the diverted trips, however. Efforts to identify and utilize quiet, fuel-efficient and attractive bus vehicles will help to mitigate these impacts. ii 1. INTRODUCTION This Task 5.3 Report constitutes the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study of transit alternatives proposed for the Pleasanton/Dublin Transit Study. The four alternatives were selected for detailed evaluation based upon Advisory and Policy Committee and public reactions to the preliminary screening of conceptual alternatives. The reader is referred to the companion operational and management evaluation report for detailed „ descriptions of the alternatives incorporated:by reference here. Applicable Federal and State Environmental Guidelines i i This report was prepared in accordance with UMTA Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Assessments (UMTA C 5620. 1 ) , based upon Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations* for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) . The Pleasanton/Dublin Transit Plan is being evaluated as a Class 3 action under these guidelines, in order to clarify areas where there is any doubt concerning the impacts of the proposed transit alternatives on local environmental quality.** If significant impacts are indicated, an Environmental Impact Study will be required to address them; otherwise the Environmental Assessment provides the basis for a Finding of No Significant Impact. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Initial Study of Environmental Effect be conducted for all projects which may have a significant effect on the environment. The purpose of the Initial Study, as with the Environmental Assessment, is to identify potentially significant environmental effects requiring preparation of an Environmental *Council on Environmental Quality, "Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act." **Categorical exclusions (Class 2) , for which only the simpler Project Description and Setting document is required, include planning and _- technical studies that do not involve a commitment to a particular course of action. 1 Impact Report. Otherwise the Initial study provides the basis for a Negative Declaration, that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. This document fulfills the CEQA requirements of an Initial Study as well as meeting Federal requirements for an Environmental Assessment. 2. NEED FOR AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ut Need for Transit i { One of the most rapidly growing residential and employment areas in the San Francisco J3ay Area, the Pleasanton/Dublin area has only recently j attained the size to warrant additional transit services. The current _ BART Express Bus service to San Leandro, Hayward, and Walnut Creek and the areawide elderly and handicapped dial-a-ride service have provided a E modicum of local access and connections to the regional transit system. s ' The transit needs assessment conducted in Phase I of the Study, however, revealed the inadequacies of these limited services to fully address local needs. Key findings of the needs assessment were: o Pleasanton and Dublin are typical of smaller suburban communities in that automobile ownership and reliance are generally high. o Nonetheless, a significant transit dependent population exists: approximately 13 percent of the local population reported problems travelling either within the study area, or between the- study area and work places elsewhere in the East Bay, in San Francisco, or in central Contra Costa County. In particular, the youth market is expected to generate demand for local transit. o High growth projections for the area suggest that the existing street system will not be able to accommodate the generated traffic. Transit service will be needed to carry a proportion of these trips. t 2 o While currently most of the area's work trips have destinations outside the area, employment projections highlight the need for transit to serve a growing number of in-commuting employees. 0 Preliminary population projections prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments foresee an increase of 5270 new households, or 17,500 people (a 36% rise) between 1980 and 1990. ABAG also project's app- roximately 11 ,000 new area jobs during this time period. Population and employment 'forecasts based upon currently approved or proposed projects _ . identified by the Pleasanton and Dublin Planning Departments are even higher. - In addition to current needs, therefore, a local transit service -�r linking to the regional transit system and providing for intra-area work, shopping and recreational trips, is an integral element for realizing local development objectives. Providing for transit will help to mitigate the traffic congestion, air pollution and other negative effects of growth. Description of Project The proposed project entails supply of fixed-route local transit services -... in the Pleasanton/Dublin area. The local systems envisioned comprise one to four routes, 7 to 15 miles long, and supplementing continuing BART Express Bus service. Local service is provided at 30- or 60-minute intervals between 6 am and 7 pm on weekdays and from 9 am to 6 pm on Saturdays. Alternative routes and service frequencies have been developed to articulate the trade-off between frequency of service and total geographic coverage. L' Initial service would utilize six to eight 30-foot, 30-passenger buses, although larger vehicles might be considered for use during peak periods on certain routes. The alternatives refinement and decision-making processes are discussed in the next Section. 3 No administrative, maintenance, and storage facilities have been specified at this stage of plan development, since the type and location of needed facilities will depend upon the management and organizational structure - selected. Alternative site or expansion proposals will need to be evaluated according to appropriate environmental impact assessment guidelines prior to plan implementation. 3. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION MEASURES Alternatives and Decisionmaking Process _ F ZI Seven preliminary alternatives for supplying local transit service were -- developed and subjected to a preliminary screening and Steering, Advisory and Policy Committee and public review. An initial ranking of the alternatives was prepared according to the following evaluation criteria: o geographic coverage o accessibility to activity centers o connectivity - direct service between local residential areas and activity centers o frequency of service o productivity in terms of riders per service unit and cost per unit o transfers required o service duplication o cost :1 3 Steering/Advisory Committee and Policy Committee* meetings were held on August 2, August 4, September 1 and September 7, 1983 to present and discuss the preliminary alternatives. *Publicized and open to the general public. 4 Service Alternatives On the basis of project committee and public comments, a subset of four service alternatives was identified to be carried forward to detailed evaluation and environmental assessment. These alternatives have been refined and modified since the Task 4 report to respond to comments received. a -"Null" Alternative - No change to existing services Alternative 1 - Maximum coverage, local service Alternative 2 = Increased peak period frequencies Alternative 4 Direct connections with increased frequencies to. activity centers The alternatives are described in detail in the accompanying operational and management evaluation report, and depicted here in Figures 1 through 3. Table 1 presents summary data on service and operating characteristics for the three bus alternatives. Mitigation Measures In developing and refining the alternative routes and service characteristics, the study team has attempted to incorporate primary mitigation measures. Bus routes are limited insofar as possible to arterial streets, consonant with the objective of increasing accessibility to and from residential areas. In several cases, the decision was made to bring the bus to the residents by using local collector streets. Utilization of small, 30- foot, 30 to 35 passenger vehicles and limitations on nighttime and weekend morning service are incorporated to minimize noise impacts in the residential neighborhoods. A marketing program will be developed for the plan to enhance the image, attractiveness and productivity o,f the selected system. Some latitude remains for appropriate mitigation measures to be applied and coordination with local developers to be employed in the siting of bus stops, shelters or turn-outs. These features will be developed following selection of the preferred alternative system. 5 \\�\�\ ! AL[OSTA nro. r.� Route 1 VZY ?\). ..r.... Rou to 3 ® \\\\�OF)t \\�� �y�l �\ �\\ `"°, �?` .... BART U Line \�\A�\\\� Coverage Area N6 \\p \ A' Elementary/Middle School �Qv�v \\ High School -- w + Major Medical Building Senior Cit(zen Center/ \\\y Community Services \\sw\ "I \\\ OC Convalescent Home \�\a�\� \\Q\\� -.�"� !\����k' !)t�\�a ❑ Senior Citizen Housin g - \\\a\\ J,aP a�\ \�1 wm `1s"' �� Mobile Home Parks . \'`r •.asp"\u ""y1 �a`.�ika �� ,>00C Commercial Strip • aatil +�\tiep �ua� `P ` r \ i a° Shopping Center ' .. iS"\a7 •a 's'K't)3 °`�,r�ci rf c� \Y�\, ,..?- \P.\\Q� - I Regional Shop ping Center/CBO � Ni \ Major Employment Center(Exist t y tip\tia !v \�\ ;,��Ca^4 • h\'�u\\a Public Housing Library ay ® Park Ni • a r\\ a\\\\\\ y .., -;. ® Community/Recreation Center \ ,ENO,, T �\ o\ as \ \a a to City Offices O Post Office go a\\w. w• r a �7 E M II_@.,mss a. .z� �? k a F\ " t.�3 Gs�\1 • Y y`�`5)sq e T r ra ° a \ a Pt+`�\a'' .�: 1 a� �'�r �, ..s,"'z`ar 3 �S ,.e;, -;✓ � ti\) \ \ \ \\ •,.� -r' -LAS"S1TAS!lvr \ r a Q aw y\.� < !..\ \\ •t 'C' C r)\ \ F\P�wi%ax ♦ r ? g v� £"7,V. f"MExa • yrr G x '�e r <""'� _- \ N fr .a.F'<Yi X_i gr ......... Mi. 4 a;e yt Pt \ 0 �3di "� •�\� sG�.f•,.M. tfr2><..a�P\..��..Pry *"a '� ',<• tea`\• � ,� �. �- T�r. F�was\\Y'� \ ..•e �.sx.:�w��.1 a�� ��'r/ ''I8R„ ;;1 i { � \\s O �\\„rc� Za �wt�,s �.� {`j \•�kP-zy. *�s �"'S cur n, �d \ \ �\4\y\ \\ y � . Figure 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 associates LOCAL SERVICE MAXIMUM COVERAGE _ 1y111�111I1tt , ALtosu uao. �11 a 5, h ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1`111111�h + ih 1 Routc I I1�r ' ® 11111��1'il'' 4a$t. 'yo7' y .� u 1 e E 2 , Mp'1',@ BART U Linc h1''t� l \x�' `I �h" 'Ar r1�u1\�7 \Y Coverage Area � aa G Elementary/Middle School 1 d Ir 1, a , N ,q'I�Iti,� -€ tsar 0% "ill`tl. High School + Major Medical Building t^ret \ �Yl F4jr.. aa ;yt.��J ��, 0 Senior Citizen Center/ `Id ItI, *"Yl���'' s `b�'" yl,•4iLr�.""4� ' Community Services \U h ` *�' v•\,'���+'i:+ .L7' i�d'Itj1t', t ,a r,l .`v,._ Convalescent Home s:a �"ntiiL I. + ��,r�14,?kl`,wll�,hi'1°II Y ❑ Senior Citizen Housing wr t � �1 ;"'�`1w `uiya@t44�yhlr,4tFn � �k Mobile Home Parks t1� e � -p•' �vM wuAl m �� � Commercial Strip Shopping Center. Regional Shopping Center/CBD •k 4 z ?,j'1 �= * Major Employment Cente'r(Exis[ing ,\ti2 Y O Public Housing 6� Library Park Community/Recreation Center ' w T s W, c! � A City Offices i, r F O Post Office N e r �„ � ���ik� � �y-�:. f�f�� s��_-� 'J`O •yep RD. y RemG,4e _5,y3 4 G r� .' r4 O ae ' . Figure 2 ALTERNATIVE 2 associates LOCAL SERVICE HIGH FREQUENCY I011y �� Route 1 .tcoir.uvo. .. Flout r. 2 m I 1 t' + rrrrx.. RoWc 1 .r.. Route 4 (School Hours Only) at-ra:Y. Isay��syu BART U Line ".1 1�t11�11,�Jtl►p...... g4'y , ,I,1)1 A?aV ,a} , il,llls Lhw 2 �� y bw'. Coverage Area 111'll'llllll t 'lliitd 1911 1 4� wl 11�I11 II h�lg4+ ' ;�h I,PII yf y�'IP1'1 A Elementary/Middle School a " High h School � .M�;4 1 N.aH + '+' Major Medical Building ., 1� SrM1< °.. k �l,��? a llil'lll `' sMAV Z. 0 Senior Citizen Center/ '_N.�'A .� Community Services � n ; � � © Convalescent Home * 11 } i dk fi y L 11y ` : � 14Mb}tr:y*si2A Senior Citizen Housing 47 9 a . `.' • 'OCaLIy_" Mobile Home Parks •iF .,^" +�. F )o0c Commercial Strip Aw Shopping Center IrY - cs � h ' � Cxj ® Regional Shopping Center/CBD - r d� nl a fr x1a�in x} * Major Employment Center(Existing) I Public Housing - Library - - m ® Park :. ar . • - ,- ,�4 ,_-f" - .L _ ® Community/Recreation Center s y 0 City Offices 0 Post Office ..� y Ti � ✓` f9 S i la J _ ; nrrrrrt > �.I#141AYt3� .. r r _ jam Ji 3 4 s }�. i Y. CAS Lv000 '+v,.. k6o'� Id.Ln 1� i 1 1 Figure 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 associates LOCAL SERVICE DIRECT CONNECTIONS TABLE 1 SERVICE AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF BUS ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Number of Routes 3 2 4 Route Mileage 35.1 27.0 39.5 Number of Buses Peak 6 8 6 Off-Peak 6 4 5 Service Hours - Weekdays 6 am - 7 pm 6 am - 7 pm 6 am - 7 pm Saturdays 9 am - 6 pm 9 am - 6 pm 9 am - 6 pm Daily Bus Hours* 78 76 71 of Service Daily Route Miles 938.6 1,026 915.8 of Service *Generally equal one-way bus runs s 9 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Process Environmental impacts have been assessed for each of 19 specified impact categories. According to federal and state guidelines for preparing environmental assessments, detailed analyses are performed only for .. those categories where there is potential for significant impact. A low-frequency, one-to-four route bus service designed to minimize i negative environmental impacts has generally low potential for significant environmental impacts. Indeed, as a primary- me asure' to mitigate the negative impacts of increasing local and regional travel demand, introduction of transit service can be expected to produce a net benefit areawide. Of the. 19 impact categories, only eight were initially found to be potentially significant, as shown in Table 2. Following two public Policy Committee meetings, several Advisory/Steering Committee meetings and consultations with various interested agencies to define key issues and the .scope of the Environmental Assessment, the list of categories appearing to require any further analysis was narrowed to six: o Air Quality o Noise o Traffic and Parking o Energy o Aesthetics o Consistency with Local Plans -- The following paragraphs present the summary of findings for each of the 19 impact categories. Supporting technical documentation and communications are presented in the Appendix. 10 TABLE 2 POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AMONG IMPACT CATEGORIES Potential for Impact Generally Not Possibly Generally Significant Significant Significant 1 . Land Acquisition & 0 Displacements a 2. Land Use and Zoning 0 :3. Air Quality 0 4. Noise 0 5. Water Quality 0 4 1 6. Wetlands 0 7. Flooding 0 B. Navigable Waterways & 0 Coastal Zones 9. Ecologically Sensitive Areas 0 ' 10. Endangered Species 0 11 . Traffic and Parking 0 12. Energy Requirements and 0 Potential for Conservation 13. Historic Properties & 0 Parklands 14. Construction 0 15. Aesthetics 0 16. Community Disruption 0 ?' 17. Safety and Security 0 18: Secondary Development 0 19. Consistency with Local Plans 0 Sources: UMTA C 5620. 1 , October 16, 1979; also State of California EIR Guidelines as amended through January 27, 1982. 11 4. 1 Land Acquisition and Displacement No administrative, maintenance or storage facilities to support the new transit system are being specified at this time since the need for and type of facilities required depends upon the management and organizational structure adopted. An Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, as appropriate, may be required once the need for capital a . . facilities has been established. 4.2 Land Use and Zoning Local bus operations will not conflict with applicable zoning regulations _ along the suggested routes, for any of the alternatives. 4.3 Air Quality An assessment of the potential impacts of the bus alternatives on areawide air quality was conducted, based upon relative emission factors for the bus and private vehicle modes and the ratio of bus trips to estimated private vehicle trips replaced by the bus (see Appendix) . The bus alternatives will generate an additional 71 to 78 daily one-way bus trips, for an additional 916 to 1 ,026 daily vehicle miles of travel. These are expected to be more than offset by a reduction of from 1,070 to 1 ,370 daily private vehicle miles. one bus trip is expected to replace from four to five private vehicle trips, on average. This reduction in private VMT will substantially offset the pollutant emissions produced by the bus service and no significant negative impacts are anticipated. Verbal concurrence in this finding and the assessment approach adopted t has been obtained from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Nonetheless, the cities can mitigate the air quality impacts of the bus service by identifying and utilizing the most fuel-efficient and non- polluting vehicles. 12 4.4 Noise A noise assessment (see Appendix) was conducted, based upon worst case . _ assumptions for noise impacts of bus operations in residential neighborhoods at 50 feet from the center of the roadway during the quietest midday period. Results 'suggest that the increased noise levels (Leq) would fall in the 60-61 dBA range, well within USDOT and USHUD acceptability standards for "residential, uses. Nonetheless, the difference between the " new noise level and the initial ambient would be sufficient. to. generate ' sporadic complaints. The alternatives do not differ in the amount of noise impact they potentially generate, since the higher frequencies of service under certain alternatives occur during peak periods when ambient noise levels are higher. More frequent service may also be less annoying than only one or two bus passbys per hour. Another basis for comparison was therefore developed. Figure 4 highlights those route sections which traverse exclusively residential: areas in each alternative. To estimate the comparative size of the populations exposed to the greatest noise impact, Table 3 presents data on route mileage of residential streets. and. an estimate. of the numbers of dwelling units and residents fronting on these route sections (i.e., within 50 feet) in 1985. Alternative 2., which provides the [ least coverage in exchange for the highest frequency of service, would . potentially affect some 18 percent fewer residents. It should be emphasized, however, that the affected residents would also derive the greatest benefit in terms of proximity to the new bus service. ' Mitigation Measures Many of the primary mitigation measures for noise impacts in residential neighborhoods also serve to limit residents' direct access to a bus Lstop. They include the following: L- I I- 13 i II �Laosn avo. f—■Alternative 1 —r_. Alternative 2 �o smov— Alternative 4 J ry 4 4t sy i J AAAIqR VALLEY SLVO. • 3 3 L.SIJ. 3 J i s ., W.LAS IOs1AS S[VO. - C '_ VJ P4 4 ,r<Y i t 1.CD 1051 51 Jf • � 4f[r CAS, +YO tvoQO � - 6 Figure 4 RESIDENTIAL STREETS USED IN LOCAL TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES associates TABLE 3 ESTIMATE OF RESIDENCES AND POPULATION IN DIRECT PROXIMITY TO BUS ROUTES, 1985 ALTERNATIVES 1 2 4 Route Miles in Residential Areas Pleasanton 6.2 5.1 6.6 Dublin - 2.1 2.1 2.1 Total :. 8.3 7.2 8.7 Number of Dwelling Units Fronting on Bus Routes* ' _ Pleasanton 780 640 780 Dublin -185 185 185 _ Total 965 825 965 Number of Residents in Dwelling Units Fronting on Routes** Pleasanton 2470 2015 2470 Dublin 630 630 630 Total 3100 2645 3100 . - *Based upon existing development with adjustments for projects planned by 1985. **Based upon 1980 Census tract data on persons per household. 15 exclusion of late evening, nighttime and early morning service o routing buses to avoid residential neighborhood streets �- o selection and utilization of quiet vehicles C67nn,.�, ('� t;p SC=---��.- e �.%-CLA-S t � The expected noise impacts of bus operations in commercial areas would not be sufficient to generate concern for mitigation measures. 4.5 Water Quality No maintenance or storage facilities have been specified, so potential .. _impacts on water quality and need for additional storm sewers have not i been assessed for this report. - .4.6 Wetlands There are no wetlands along the proposed bus routes. Bus operations would likely not affect such areas in any case. Potential effects on wetlands may have to be evaluated in selecting site(s) for maintenance or storage facilities, however. • t 4.7 Flooding - Portions of the proposed bus routes traverse areas included in the 100- - year flood hazard area. No facilities are proposed to be located within - �, this area in conjunction with the bus alternatives, however. 4.8 Navigable Waterways and Coastal Zones The proposed routes do not traverse any coastal zone as defined by the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and are not located on or near a navigable waterway. 16 i� 4.9 Ecologically Sensitive Areas The marsh and riparian habitants native to the valley floor and streambanks have been substantially displaced by suburbanization and agricultural uses. No significant impact to an ecologically sensitive area can be expected to result from implementation of any of the proposed bus operations. ' 4.10 Endangered Species The presence of rare and endangered species within the existing and Mvproposed urbanized Pleasanton/Dublin planning area is doubtful. In any event, no significant impact to such wildlife should be anticipated from the proposed bus operations. L4.11 Traffic and Paring Assessment of the potential impact of bus operations on the level of service of local collector and arterial streets was based upon interviews with the Traffic Engineers of Pleasanton and Dublin and on review of I .. recent studies of the Tri-Valley transportation systems. Adequate carrying capacity generally exists to absorb the additional 2 to 4 buses [ per. hour required by the alternatives without degradation of level of , service on the affected streets. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the service alternatives. Bus routes were. selected and modified on the basis of field runs, discussions with the local traffic engineers and other experts, and documented level of service data, in order to avoid congested streets and difficult turning movements. L _structural weaknesses and the surface condition of Peppertree Road in---, Dublin and Denker Drive in Pleasanton make these streets presently unsuitable for heavy vehicles, but repairs are scheduled for prior to 1985. - -....._ ...._:..._ .. 17 4. 12 Energy Requirements and Potential for Conservation Provision and use of local transit services serve the long-term objectives of energy conservation by reducing total vehicle miles of travel in private automobiles. Estimation of the fuel consumption requirements of the three alternatives (see Appendix) suggests that Alternative 4 is most fuel-efficient in terms of gallons per rider, based upon estimated 1985 patronage. Attention must be paid to marketing the service to . attract and increase local ridership. A primary mitigation measure=_ ' would be to identify and utilize the most fuel-efficient vehicles. • -- 4.13 Historic Properties and Parklands* None of the historic properties in the Dublin/Pleasanton area are on or currently eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Noteworthy properties registered by the State of California or Alameda County include, in Pleasanton, the Kottinger Adobe on Ray Street between Main and First, the Bernal Adobe on Foothill Road south of Bernal and, in Dublin, old Saint Raymond's Church on Donlin Way. The Alviso Adobe on Foothill Road north of Bernal should also be noted. A number of homes located in the downtown area of Pleasanton on 2nd, 3rd, St. Mary, St. John, and Angela Streets were plaqued by the Pleasanton Bicentennial Committee. These narrow streets of old Victorians represent r' a fragile environment inappropriate for bus routes and have therefore I been excluded from routes proposed in any of the alternatives. Bus LLL999 operations in general are not expected to impact upon local historic sites. These resources are inventoried here in anticipation of any future facilities development or expansion. Indian remains have been uncovered throughout the area. No disturbance L to any significant archaeological sites is anticipated from the proposed bus operations, however. 1. *This information obtained in conversation with Anne Doss,-Curator of I the Valley Historical Society. 18 4. 14 Construction No construction activities have been anticipated or evaluated at this time. 4.15 Aesthetics s Some residents — particularly non-bus .users '-- may object to the visual impact,ivibr and odor roduced by bus operations on neighborhood streets. . Resultant noise and air pollution impacts, although they may :.be objectionable to residents in close proximity to the ,bus routes, . are - not contrary to applicable standards for human health and welfare (see . Sections 3.3 and 3.4) . Use of residential streets has been minimized consonant with the objective of improving the mobility of area residents. Exclusion of very early morning (prior to 6 am) and nighttime (after 7 pm) service has also been applied as_a mitigation measure. Marketing and planning should consider�hicle design, decoration, and other treatments to enhance the image and mitigate the perceived intrusiveness I ' of the service in residential areas. Implementation planning should - include attention to location and design of bus stops and shelters in - keeping with neighborhood scale and attractiveness. I V 4. 16 Community Disruption I No residential or other land use displacements will result from the bus operations contemplated for any of the alternatives. Potential aesthetic impacts are discussed in Section 4.15. �a 4.17 Safety and Security IL'� Bus driver training and safe driving practices at appropriate speeds should adequately provide for safe and secure operation of the bus alternatives. The transit alternatives may offer added safety over private vehicle use by local youth. 19 4. 18 Secondary Development The proposed bus alternatives are not expected to generate any secondary development. 4. 19 Consistency with Local Plans Provision of local transit to supplement BART Express Bus services is consistent with the Environmental Policy, Economic Development,' and Transportation Goals and Policy Statements formulated in. the Pleasanton _- General Plan.* :- Reduction of local dependence on private auto use .helps to reduce total vehicle miles of travel, traffic congestion and resultant energy consumption and air pollution. Supplying local transit service also serves to support the developing local employment base. Goal 9, encouraging active citizen participation in all community proposals, has been observed throughout the planning process. Dublin is currently preparing its General Plan and has no formally adopted goals and policies. Working Papers 1 and 2 under review pursuant to General Plan formulation discuss transportation issues and policy -- options to address them. The proposed transit service alternatives are in keeping with the need for coordinated local transit, encouragement of transit use and requirement for mitigation measures to avoid misuse of the Dublin street system set forth in these working papers.** Developing local transit service that is consistent with local and regional plans as well as with NEPA and CEQA provisions for environmental . preservation is also in keeping with the Metropolitan Transportation I 4 *1976, as amended, Supplement and ap ssim; also discussions with City' s Assistant Planner. **Based upon conversation with Dublin .Planning Director, Laurence Tong. t • 20 Commission' s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)* and therefore with the Association of Bay Area Governments' Regional Plan.** The RTP gives priority to projects that reduce dependence on auto travel and conserve energy, including those that enhance transit travel. Provision of local transit to support employment opportunities in the Pleasanton/Dublin area also ultimately reduces regional travel demand. I } *Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Regional Transportation Plan for the Nine-County San Francisco Bay Area, 1982 Edition. Sections I and II, ap ssim. **Association of Bay Area Governments, Regional Plan: San Francisco �- Bay Area, 1978, Sections III, IV, and VI, passim. I 21 LIST OF PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED 1 . Richard Glenn, Assistant Planner, City of Pleasanton Planning Department 2. Laurence Tong, Planning Director, City of Dublin 3. Wes Jost, Traffic Engineer, City of Pleasanton 4. Anne Doss, Curator, Valley Historical Society 5. Theresa Lee, Information Officer, Bay Area Air Quality Management District r 6. .-: ''Sally .Freedman, Planner, Bay Area Air Quality Management District.. :. 7. Chris Kinzel, TJKM, Inc. , Traffic Engineer, City of Dublin 8. . Andrew Ungar, Environmental Officer, Metropolitan Transportation .. .. Commission 9. Barbara Shaw, Transit Aide, City of Livermore 10. Michael Kim, Transportation Engineer, Bay Area Air Quality Management District 11 . Ed Yotter, Emissions Inventory Branch, California Air Resources Board 12. Pat Randall, Air Resources Engineer, California Air Resources Board 13. Lee Thompson, City Engineer, Dublin 14. Stu Erman, Urban Mass Transportation Administration 15. Mike Howard, Gillig Bus Corporation 16. California Office of noise Control, Berkeley 22 g APPENDIX A-1 AIR QUALITY Existing Air Quality Topographical and climatological features of the Amador-Livermore Valley contribute to the valley's high air pollution potential. The surrounding hills, warm days, and light winds increase the propensity toward temperature inversions, inhibiting vertical dispersion of pollutants. , n suggest Monitoring data from the Livermore station nonetheless that the - =.Pleasanton/Dublin area has been in attainment of federal and state standards for carbon monoxide (Co.) , nitrogen. dioxide (NO 2 and sulp'ner dioxide (So ) for the past six years. As shown in Table A-1 , however, the standards for oxidant and total suspended particulates (TSP) have been exceeded. Motor vehicles are the principal source of CO emissions (about 80% of the CO put into the. air is from gasoline and diesel engines) and it is by far the most plentiful air pollutant nationwide, although it is not of major concern in the Pleasanton/Dublin area. Motor vehicles also contribute about 44 percent of Not emissions, and are also a significant, -' though lesser, source of hydrocarbons (HC) , which react with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight to form photochemical oxidants (primarily ozone. -commonly known as smog) . The entire Bay Area is generally a non attainment area for oxidants. Vehicular emissions control standards are expected to achieve a substantial reduction in HC and NO x emissions by _ 1990. Agricultural and construction activity and gravel production are the primary local sources of TSP. Emissions Assessment of Transit Alternatives L+ Since CO is not a prime pollutant of concern in the study area, since buses are significantly less CO polluting than private automobiles, since Ltransit use is expected to reduce private vehicle miles of travel over the long-term, and given the prior concurrence of the Bay Area Air LQuality Management District, we have not followed the familiar development I A-1 l.- • ! lE. [.'t)rl::i� h(. I I' 1 I I 1 •Ic•i.. I i■tYnftaiy ..�,yl YiR. I I 1 TABLE A-1 AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA FOR LIVERMORE STATION: 1980-1982 Highest Average Level ._; No. of Days Standard Exceeded Averaging Pollutant Standard a Time 1980 1981 1982 1980 1981 1982 Oxidantb (Ozone) 0. 12 ppm one hour 18 14 14 . 2 2 1 (federal) Carbon Monoxide 9.0 ppm eight hour 6.8 3.8 4.8 0 0 0 (federal) Nitrogen Dioxideb 0.25 ppm one hour 15 14 10 0 . 0 0 (state) Sulfur Dioxidec 0.04 ppm 24 hours 0.008 0.002 1 0 : 0 0 (state) Particulates 60 mg/m3 Annual 61 45 42 9d 0 0 N (state) Geometric Mean a Standard shown is most stringent, state or federal bExpressed in parts per hundred million cExpressed in parts per billion dState standard; federal standard never exceeded assessment approach of predicting CO concentrations at key locations. Rather, we have attempted to 'assess the air quality impacts of the bus alternatives areawide by comparing the ratio of bus service miles to private vehicle miles of travel diverted to the bus, with the ratios of bus pollutant emissions to private vehicle emissions. The bus alternatives will generate an additional 71 to 78 daily one-way bus trips, for an additional 916 to 1 ,026 daily vehicle miles of travel (VMT) . .' These trips are expected to be more than offset by a -reduction of from 1,070 to 1,370 daily private VMT. This reduction in private VMT will substantially offset the pollutant emissions produced by the bus service. Table A-2 presents bus service volumes with projected passenger loadings along with an estimate of the proportion of bus passengers diverted from - private vehicles and of the number of previous private vehicle trips these patrons represent. The estimation of private vehicle trips diverted to bus was based upon data from similar small bus systems and professional judgment. Key factors included the proportions of previous drive-alone and shared-ride trips, the proportion of the latter which would continue to be made despite the bus service (e.g. , parents dropping off children on their way to work) , and the proportion diverted from other bus services L (i.e. , BART Express) . r Based upon daily patronage forecasts of 900 to 1 ,150 riders, the buses Lare expected to carry an average of 11 to 15 passengers per one-way run. . A little over half of these passengers would be diverted from private vehicle trips, many of which carried two or more persons. Thus, each bus trip replaces an estimated four to five private vehicle trips. Hin Table A-3 presents emission factors for the five primary pollutants for diesel and gasoline buses as well as the average highway vehicle (including -' some light and heavy duty trucks) . Comparing bus emissions to average highway vehicle emissions reveals .that diesel buses are typically only A-3 TABLE A-2 BUS SERVICE VOLUMES WITH PROPORTION OF LOAD DIVERTED FROM PRIVATE VEHICLES Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Bus Miles of Service 939 1 ,026 916 (per Weekday) — Number of One-Way 78 76 71 Bus Runs (Trips) Average Number of 11 .5 15.1 15.5 Passengers Carried " per Bus Run Estimated Passengers 6.8 8.9 9.1 s, Per Run Diverted from Private Vehicles Estimated Private 3.7 4.8 4.9 C Vehicle Trips Diverted per Bus Run CRatio of Bus Trips 1 : 3.7 1 : 4.8 1 : 4.9 to Private Vehicle Trips Diverted ' C . L 0 i + A-4 J :1 ZIA U&L'"A r_L". I I TABLE A-3 EMISSION FACTORS FOR BUSES AND AVERAGE HIGHWAY VEHICLE MIX Nitrogen Sulpher Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Oxides Oxides Particulates (CO) gr/mi (HC) gr/mi (NO ) gr/mi (SO ) gr/mi gr/mi x x Diesel Bus* 28.7 4 .6 20.9 .'!2.8 1 .3 ( 29-49 passenger) Gasoline Bus* 28.2 15.3 10.7 0 .9 0 .4 (29-passenger) Average Highway Vehicle** 53.0 6.0 3.0 N/A*** N/A Ratio of Diesel Bus 1 : 1 .85 1 : 1 .30 6.97: 1 .0 N/A N/A to ARV Emissions *Based on average travelling speed of 18 mph; 1977-78 data .valiaated by California Air Resources Board. **Vehicle mix assumed to be 80.4 light duty autos; 11 .8% light duty trucks, 4.6% heavy duty gasoline and 3.2% heavy duty diesel trucks; proportion of cold starts 20%; average travelling speed 20 mph; ambient temperature 60°F; 1980 data estimated according to FHWA "Method for Estimating Fuel Consumption and Vehicle Emissions on Urban Arterials and Networks," "Report No. FHWA-TS-8 1210, April 1981 . ***1980 emission factors not available. slightly more than half as polluting as the average highway vehicle (AHV) for CO, and about two-thirds as polluting for NC, while the average highway vehicle is seven times less polluting for NO x. The ratio of one to four or five bus to private vehicle trips replaced, derived in Table A-2, nearly offsets the additional diesel coach-generated NOx. Gasoline- powered bus NO emissions (slightly over three times as'great as those x of the AHV) would be more than off-set by the expected reduction in '. .. ' .private vehicle trips. L_ L. I , A-6 A-2 . NOISE IMPACT ANALYSES An analysis of the potential noise impact represented by local bus operations was conducted using the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model developed under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (Report "- Number 174, Transportation Research Board, 1976) . Studies by the consultant' and in the literature have documented the close similarity of noise M levels predicted by the model with values calculated from field measure- .._.., .. . . ,........., ..._. . . . . ments. Average daily .traffic counts and vehicle mix were obtained from the Traffic Engineers of Pleasanton and Dublin and used' to estimate " "null" alternative ambient traffic noise levels. Current counts were used to represent '1985 volumes on the local streets which were the primary focus of the noise assessment. No analyses were performed for the 1990 horizon year, since increased bus service proposals have not been formulated and increased ambient traffic noise would tend chiefly to mask the lower proportion of buses. A "worst case" approach was adopted for selected streets to represent conditions at two extremes of pre-project environment: 1. Characteristically quiet streets with low traffic volumes where bus operations would potentially represent the most dramatic increase over ambient noise levels; and 2. Relatively heavily-travelled local streets where the additional --= bus service could potentially effect a shift from acceptable to unacceptable levels. Worst case conditions in the first instance were established by the �y following: 'L ' See, for example, De Leuw, Cather & Company, Conversion of 10th and 11th Street, San Jose DEIR, March 1981 . A-7 o Hour of the midday (during bus service) with the lowest ambient traffic noise* o Hour when bus passbys would constitute the greatest proportion of local traffic in both directions o Presence of stop signs _ . o Gradient of 3 percent or more** o Narrow roadway and shallow set-backs The lowest midday hourly traffic volumes were expected to occur between : 10 am and 1 pm; these were estimated at 5 percent of average daily - traffic.*** Because the noise prediction model assumes free flow over ._ level roadway, adjustment factors were applied as appropriate for stop and go conditions or slope greater than 3 percent.t Given the 30-foot buses projected for service and the limited sensitivity of the model to small numbers of heavy trucks, the buses were treated as medium trucks. Worst case conditions in the second instance required relatively high midday traffic counts; all other conditions applied as stated. *Note that no nighttime bus service is contemplated at this time. Indeed, exclusion of nighttime service is a primary mitigation measure against negative impacts in residential neighborhoods.. **Minimum which will affect heavy vehicle noise emissions. Avoidance of significant grades was incorporated into route design as a primary mitigation measure, so few examples exist. ***Based upon hourly distribution of total travel on suburban collector streets for smaller urbanized areas, in Quick-Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and Transferable Parameters, NCHRP 187, Transportation Research Board, 1978, Table 21 . tAccording to NCHRP Report #117, 1971 . A-8 The_ noise metric selected was the L 10, or noise 1( .. :_. . . (( be exceeded 10 percent of time, as predicted by tt I. . weighted day-night ... .. 9 average which penalizes nightti (10 pm to 7 am) was not considered appropriate, gi service. . •, - _ - , -\ ..� ! y�-• Selected street se gm ents meeting many or all • of th model-estimated baseline X10 .level (null alternate tr! J �,_e'•-Yt }r•"iL,j�TJY�cM�'r y i •y.[.+.N'4.+.�-a''�'iF"r'��"Y'iR3xc�p'°E L 10 with bus operations are shown in Table A 4. T: � b� L10 values are all within-DOT .standards for residei parkland and ,�� ,;,,,��-.: � zyc^��•,��,^,,,�,�� -�,�.� P uses (70 -dBA for category B) ; most men standard for sate or g y A land uses as shown in Tablt �`�`•=� M" l � °'° �°" .`""' generally detected no perceptible difference betwee these street sections. - ' - Since only two to four bus passbys (in both direc I_ t .y • _ approach was to estimate the effect of the bus pass noise emissions, utilizing a formula developed by t Protection - _ _• Agency: LA Leq = Lb + 10 log [( 1-x} + (1010)l where L = resultant a eq verage energy equivalent . level �., R=!n. S K-an ter,-..T c^ �'^� .�i-' - _ z n �X ; Lb - ambient noise level 1 t t u� x x duration of emissions (passb y) in fri JrTY `�,� K �.r ,. t of an hour - �YJ'� LA difference between maximum emissions the ambient *US EPA, Information on Levels of Environmental Nois' I Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate March 1974, p-A-7. A-9 � TABLE A-4 PREDICTED NOISE IMPACT OF BUS OPERATION ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS L Without Predicted Bus Operation Increase Due Street Segment ADT, 1985 (Null Alternative) to Bus Operation Remarks DUBLIN: Amarillo Road 1,500 55 dBA ✓ 58-60 dBA Narrow (36'-401 ) roadway, Nielson (near Hansen Dr) School,' John .Knox Presbyterian Church and Day Care Center; perceptible increase Peppertree Road 1 ,500 54 dBA Z- 56-57 dBA 2-3% gradient . (near Shannon Ave) Predicted increase <3 dBA would be imperceptible Davona Drive 4,300 60 dBA 2 62-64 dBA Stop and go conditions; (near Alcosta Blvd) perceptible increase village Parkway 13,000 65-66 dBA no change (near Davona Dr) PLEASANTON: Springdale Ave 1 ,700 56-58 dBA 58-60 dBA 4% gradient; (south of perceptible increase Stoneridge Dr) Muirwood Drive 900 53 dBA 59-61 dBA Stop and. go conditionsi (east of noticeable increase Springdale Ave) Kottinger Drive 2,600 58 dBA 59 dBA Narrow roadway (30' ) ; change (at 2nd St) <3 dBA would be imperceptible Touriga Drive 2, 100 55 dBA 59 dBA 5% average gradient; (south of Tawny) increase perceptible TABLE A-5 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION NOISE STANDARDS* DESIGN NOISE LEVEL/LAND-USE RELATIONSHIP DESIGN NOISE LAND-USE LEVEL, CATEGORY L10 DESCRIPTION OF LAND-USE CATEGORY A - : 60 dBA Tracts of land in which serenity and quiet (exterior) are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need,- and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Such areas could include amphitheaters, particular parks or portions . of parks, or open spaces that are dedicated or recognized by appropriate local officials for activities requiring special qualities of serenity and quiet. B 70 dBA Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting (exterior) rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, and parks. C 75 dBA Developed lands, properties or activities (exterior) not included in categories A and B. D - For requirements on undeveloped lands see FHPM 7-7-3(3) - E ! 55 dBA Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting - (interior) rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. *FHPM, Vol. 7, Ch. 7, Sec. 3(3) . Source: NCHRP Report 174, 1976. L A-11 Table A-6 shows noise emissions for different types of buses at 50 feet. Assuming the ambient traffic noise level to be 54-55 dBA as predicted by the model for the quietest streets, we can calculate the effect on L under the following "worst case" assumptions: eq ` L = 81 dBA (29-passenger diesel bus, accelerating) max X = 15 seconds per' passby; 2 passbys .per hour, L A 81-54 27 _ For two bus passbys per hour 27 -' Leq( 1 ) = 54 + 10 Log ( ( 1- 3a ) + 30 ( 10 10)1 3600 3600 = 54 + 7. 1 61 dBA* Gasoline-fueled 29-passenger buses would produce an Leq(1) 54 + 5.6, or 60 dBA. These levels fall well within DOT and HUD standards for residential land uses, but the difference between the intermittent L -and the ambient is sufficient to generate. sporadic max y complaints. *Alternately, 1 =eq max L +' 10 Log x = 60 dBA. 1 A-12 TABLE A-6 - NOISE LEVELS OF BUS OPERATIONS AT 50 FEET MAXIMUM 25 MPH PASSBY CRUISE (Acceleration) Diesel Bus .49-passenger . 80-82 dBA 83-86 dBA . .:,.. . 29-passenger = 78-81 dBA 80-82 dBA Gasoline/Propane Bus 29-passenger 74-76 dBA .77-80 dBA Electric Bus 68-72 dBA 70-72 dBA Van (8-12 passengers) 68-72 dBA 75-78 dBA L_ L. A-13 A-3 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND POTENTIAL FOR CONSERVATION In order to estimate the comparative impact of the bus service on energy consumption, the fuel requirements for each bus alternative systemwide were compared with those required to supply the estimated private vehicle trips diverted to bus use. Patronage estimates for the initial service ' ( 1985) were based upon data from similar systems. The analysis was not replicated for -1990, since- no increased bus service proposals were • formulated nor longer-term patronage forecasts developed. The previous ridership profile and average vehicle occupancy of the new bus patrons was based upon data from other systems as well as professional judgment. Key factors included the percentages of previous drive-alone and escorted trips, the proportion of the latter which would still be made (for example, parents dropping off children on the way to work), Cand the proportion diverted from other bus services (i.e., BART Express) . Fuel economy factors based upon average travelling speed and vehicle type were obtained from the FHWA "Method for Estimating Fuel Consumption and Vehicle Emissions on Urban Arterials and Networks," published by the I_ Office of Research and Development.* The average trip length was estimated at 3.75 miles. Average travelling speeds (including stops) were. assumed to be 15 mph for the buses (with between 6 and 7 scheduled and unscheduled stops per mile) and 20 mph for the private vehicles. A mix of 2 percent light duty trucks was used for the private trips. Tables A-7 and A-8 present the statistics obtained. .� As shown in Table A-7, Alternatives 2 and 4 appear to be the most fuel- efficient in terms of gallons required per rider per day. Moreover, the l bus alternatives can be projected to save from 21 ,300 to 27,000 gallons of gasoline annually in weekday travel diverted from private vehicles L_ (see Table A-8) . "�- *Report ort No. FHWA-TS-81-210, USDOT, April 1981 . R I . ' A-14 Based upon the initial patronage forecasts, however, none of the bus alternatives can be expected to require less energy during its first year than private vehicles would have used for the diverted trips. This is chiefly because of the superior fuel economy of the smaller vehicles. Transit vehicle fuel economy may be expected to improve, however, now that new vehicles will have to meet State emissions control standards.* Concerted effort in marketing the new system will be needed to attract and increase local ridership, in order to increase the service's fuel efficiency and real energy savings.** _ .: ' TABLE A-7 FUEL CONSUMPTION AND EFFICIENCY OF TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Bus Miles of Service 939 1,026 916• (per Weekday) Diesel Fuel Requirement 385 421 376 (Gallons per Weekday) Daily Patronage Forecasts 900 1 ,150 1 ,100 _• ( 1985) Fuel. Efficiency 0.43 0.37 0.34 (Gallons .per Rider per day) aAt 0.41 gallons per mile, given 6-7 stops per mile, based upon FHWA - "Method for Estimating Fuel Consumption and Vehicle Emissions on Urban Arterials and Networks," April 1981 . *As of Assembly Bill 33, passed week of September 19, 1983. L **Data from similar small systems suggest that new system usage continues to grow for several years after service initiation. Documented growth ranges from 15 percent (Chapel Hill) to 76 percent (Greenville, N.C. ) . See FHWA, Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, July 1981 , p. 182. I . A-15 TABLE A-8 FUEL CONSUMPTION REQUIREMENTS OF TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES COMPARED WITH ESTIMATED PRIVATE VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL DIVERTED TO BUS Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Diesel Fuel Requirements 385 421 376 (Gallons per Weekday) Daily Patronage Forecasts 900 1 ,150 1,100 Passengers Diverted from 527 673 644 Private Vehicles Private Vehicle Trips 286 365 348 Diverted Estimated Private 1 ,073 1 ,369 1,305 VMT Diverted _x Gasoline Requirements of 82 104 99 Diverted Private VMT* (Gallons per Weekday) Annual Diesel Fuel 100, 100 109,460 97,760 : Requirements of Bus Service (Weekdays only) Annual Gasoline Requirements 21 ,320 27,040 25,740 of Diverted VMT (Weekdays only) _ *At 0.074 gallons per mile, autos, and 0. 185 gallons per mile, light duty trucks, based on FHWA method previously cited. A-16 JHt t r*ri t. r.:s uc»-:�<';' ;,_..-rr.-,_y f:: "' a' r n' • - ;zs-" :sr•. [ ,{ fi t t r { e s + + - cs a , t r t ! f_ {, )t L S•: f1{- ) s Irt -JS!!1 Y S a 1• + i P I u rlr r -i L.. 7 "v,;;. ='ii:' r3 tr t 1 #-._- 3-'.5?3. ,; 'a =.� n -Ji = i - ! 0 r.. 1 J ! !_ yr" [ - !y.}.,.. Y. '. .,�,.:.-_t s 1 T r ! U r-.j s r S <r'-Y f'RY rVfY 4I1raw F '.' .+ .J .r,- w!r 1¢ rJl. 3 5r d ��L fr �i F f Y` 1 L ) . 1 Yf �'a [ t? r } �' fA jf t 1-! 1; t" f tL r 7r z ry �, Y Ft7 jt .f 5 r t E f 1, XaL Ie f•t 1. :f:...-_ 't 4t'-' .,a,' �. } is -L 2 <'� r , J' - 1 ^t J l ♦ 'at 7 A'•+ ti,y>v'7;- ,.Y.¢ '1 M... .!<i,�,:LI t 'i,l s•. rt i r {^a 'e T r~ 7 . _.. Y [r-,of 66r �•. Y. "'1 7=•i' r?: :i�.fYy-� f 'D n ten.F.q [sr rt t5 •al y \<[_. r��.r a Jy c�= 5� .�'. 1 :S is . 5[0.tt f 'F ,1) 1�. 4 s.,v--h�p'' .•t i { n L._j. $J ) S s + ^< ` i ✓ t ms's. A a4'rory �i'f n't't ,r r �.. ) ,t �, i>•3 fr3 [tx� `4. t {3"5Tr'x�t1 1J '� - •i .l �•' ' .•..tJ �. {'.It - '♦'v 1 r Y °r '°'J'.`Ls�" k}. i- r•. vi }1 Lry r +r rrp ._ l : 1 u.d'.':..t....�.`yi )a ti F. k L IC'tY'" 14i .�_,. [,;,_,re!rar3 e� f-'3'3 i S +.' y .17��[ 5'• J' ! "? T 1 :F ... -ft F ^J t'S[M1 4c/a• A '1C ."'tz ;.r Fll• +-,♦.,6. tr v f' ! f yrr x r T t\ ., ise a flf r L>.1liT "+�. ' 's z L a • i.. . ! ti, 7 f i a< rP 1r'� k �..',I V ih r- a Kk.! u� a n @ i +„ + `[ ha r -� T 5 ,� >, J iw ll f � ,.., Jt a-K �R C L .= l'Ft . ,.r ah-: - t 'Z (. �- + $ .f� r" > t: 'T" - .•[. t:.:.<.s.:•:'r�ri.Lyc -ir?(�:� .\t,$,I, .. i 1 T:..,. i 7'.. 3 r r -'J 'r:., T,S'T..l:• -e``. �-. ^.tlt tL•S7L. F•S:.`]t=`Sr aY?:;vX r,_1:t S3 .., .i5+!5:: 'z'P d ;A-r-! .:.r;:'i'iy'.': `..�.�1yi�� - V l . �F' M: f �.AZ' p7v; 4M�J1:3 •6, 9` cf+['1141h/r -V.'1$-[ +l fJ' l ]r.j\r' .�4 }7V-., x 1 •'w ,, '^ .i:_ ,.E.. ,+.`i ",x •r' qn,#, .SJ,T:7v' I Ji •i tr •na,7k( --Li 1 I t,f ...�,2. L;.t•y i a.-t3 i-r rtZ 4;t` 7 w r !a� I, 1-r '.7: H - 4t £ ry1 t j'�•f.- Hl.{4 }.. A r '-S ir,,,pS �- r:f#r r r7f f F Ls I xxt u t df'^r' _ 'li k ?a 1 +. tr 1 a- Xti !g ! \ J 7.n. ) I , y if J N . 1 y t i J. n 5 off falls .:fYt 5 t d 1 i f t; Y4 i ;', .\fi�JC p C ' a \f+ t[ Y + 77 r+i .[ :, e i i t r'.r 7).'y� t[t ti)i`v 4t�� T• 4'.Jf l�T't < J•Yl�;i?,� j C tl"-- .,I'< 1_ �.<�.f.T s �,t ; Y. �.- .,'E rr - 7: !a,>v . �[� J. } T- �rti. 1 C t ,.,' ,;,.:,�rt..+ 1 i ti - .•.' i h[ f��''i <:} ' r r T t.aa .n., 1F ,r a L•F> '.r_t 1 7 r[ r c - 1 [..i �� _ 7. ,3.YrS #. -3 - Z• S))L J }` Fe t ! t= - < 1 ♦ �.._ k t;ai ivr� JL 1 -�.! t• ti - a}[S - 7. '� f a1 a, - t 5:`.; =T }�� t rn Q t F;'w�i _+.{ s ���,,, u t s} r i s r r r 2 5 +. y 5.,F a:: ):r lz.�ii i"s . ,Er rvrlXl r`ra'4 .Jt 4�(rlri.s_,ti)f[..»S?t t.. ^ i-.,; ?-.•I Tt •f!+ai=_ '" .E-4-- i+{.EJx in•!a t df y�Y�^a'.:rj �'_•1n.3�Y�,<•r �y 3±.l*,.tt e S�k. ..A. ;:l�.,j-i:«,i.,•>s.i.,. ..5,4•. K..F •YC Y; 4 Yl't'_T1;,y -�� `rf.1 ..rt141. 'V'-P_ ' *11;r a.k•;:�r1'7 •3'�•'Y?v:X�r fj*, , sy y G 2.I :r ?•:?.ir!•I¢r.ti?:i?'F',,\y-.i= FF� .y -,r •y:.'..i{:271 "'i t.7f+•�7t W"'E '. y`«'�.3v-,.a-�..Ci�"�",Y' M.-_ rst'rr--,In"t,i�Y S" ,v3.Lf' t;. u f�J i },jdE'[��'.'y w.tn -i Ss t{` z 75; -!'� Y.,'a-.t:.rt.,S'S;;f.�. -1�•�'ry.�[1•,'r.,.T.t2 4,.oi✓.IF +`-'� -5�k -, !, x 4.it4 L 1 ..rJ.•J.�'.Y..ta' a;c L�.':;'c ,- Y.r'T 7'��ar` _ �F,�x. Y�,�rc�[ P •l.. f J•r a ',-7 L r 1,r ?t' :,•c Y.z....:i h,W 'Y='/.t:x)' ':;+t �3,, v. .7.t Y r' :'r ''37 i`S..il. z s,d xz� r - 7S�`. "1n:.... u z d ;.s �,i i• ,rr••• yY '4. i ys }.Y,.e'•+�1,,'-lf r f„S,`i a crY!_ tr';t IFr, ,, o e"` 'L i h a:. k- t -.,r3:to r�!� r frti:33.`7z,"`i. ,t•d- t�'fy iJ`it -, !`-:. j i"T`F• J`5.t`Ia _,ia:.:2 tti:�r aya} j-; 4#ti'?-,i' 3eT�zL:ta'�y itb j�f_ r`l�fA ' _ .b*�' Nr..?- "';=:c ''I^.r,�..;• ,'y�.i.+,. }•?..-�r��.' ';1:tx ',;a4 .tt.�w n `_ F'':.:r::�.ri v „":�::�',' ,�[.;':':a.f,•:t.° ,! :�-} 3"'r 4'' :.tvr <irh �r! s. �-3 '`�' r'F d +` °� -1':f�^r,V ?� 'r" ` •rt.-' -w ,µ -s'1 t.�.= M .[ !,.^" It,°.:.�..(:'« �t� r>�{�a��'?_YY;,_ _• va Py y ,F f .Si- ;'� bS \a.,.tom- '�sj,,F„ t '" '_L:, rvY�J'r N: r d ".tY \ ," s�6�1F y t t JK.k c . t' a_ c ai�rIX;".,tx `Sx rr r:t+'r rlrgFz .s� 1�3 fJ+ w `� `��,r) �� , t w� lrt�y s ,� „d�'�r.•:,?a'y j'.<) ? h ar'✓•..z�;.°Y.:_' �,:-Il'' - •„ t?�F+# _ - .-�`:. r_t :�' ,! fJ"tti'v'��<`t±(a�: .t a {ats�`;t'w -at:'J% -s...t,.;. .e A \ `` - <i t!, "r 3.yr`c ,,,�'y»r e. +2'V` ?+!- '-' .hsd•tiJ, "s•-''°F. q Y" t::l t»rtt a$ t {.f. r t <-c:,^r 7 �+,,� :4,� +�.,7 t n n r„ A,\'+1�•'-_ht; ijr:t ."Y'�]i.A'+:�:{y ,=d, i' FF1� zTf} a�i�.'G Y'1Ai. 'q'tk{ e��5`e. w .^l' :' -.rr•�wty :v..,Y t irJ(r:�'v4Y�.t• <. i ;. ,S ,5�<:'Vs~ t .•..K[�rl i'--.. '.%-c:�ti�'-.aS°..,.aR�ti--.j'-v�Ci.�!='did:�`S01 .:1°£. li`,:1L� �W', -:-,-` ' -",,,i-.�X'iy�[,1'v ^tX }.d,Yi.:l'Z` T.:..{•C 12� l Y" Y. <T,I „fit -whf<4Zi �' .. 11.x'::'.'-Y,'f.-qs`'x 1.4..v r _ ... tt:d a+';. wS ,T i6, •aL_ -i:yl. !.. ,•..z-R_"F �c�r a -' ,'• ,a -�s-„{-•. ,,,,.r'csr- , "fir..-..-r����x.,. :r'' a... r ti •. E' f -VM, ;? N ':t F s zisht ;�a.. ' ar,F"to-N s� rT, -�. L L' �' .'s3� ' i.fi� `d z t^ E. '<�'{� ':`{_ H.Y ;•}a r a [6r �: e p,°..r'J� ^-=37'. ,i.� `' +>r.`t i 'f r rt`- a •.rG C. -.f,4.,.t.:,_-'_- :•. G,C7,3 y_}.;?[[l?c.,-_ ' ••ay,+. �•v7% vF gtr".'•ii!• -Z iiy,* Mi S(t •"-'•�7y:.•d=tom ;v�'. .k.t""�"3v '° x;�S:�f. �.t�,".-'„3 ..i-YS`J •":C �.�Cr'3•�-'�.,Y,. �f_ a:.,i I„_`,f; h .w_ X+ ( tZ a=a .,t+ „e •}4._tr .a:• :.+:. _ t z - 2Y�'-ta-�•`-ti ,C 7 -iii: •,. 1=et s '- '+"i. ♦,_.e.,. ,ti: `t, "t �,+ : :.r V•[i t♦ t „rJ�-,.. tt.;Y r� .h-s _.� �.. ,.St..".'Tye ;.- i♦^ c4 ^•[• •,1' �a. 'y.[ ;it y St 3. ♦ t.2�•. {i ,...,. 1ae,c _..f ...rrLa - •lp-]- *S!'4 'L * si t'iF,fi•rq J...i l Y, 1 vs,'f 4: Y1ty S Q. s..r� rr. ^; o .[C'Y..t' :!?i F.iy::4 i3',3\ tufiY`i ;`S T.4s -^.->;r $ 7,n .v .[!' ;�_. f. r-'il "�r''f°..'df`E= d i �[ Zt, -"..-y t. .r 1; 1'.. ai'Va:. .; •� rT e[?f: >.'K y`e, [i r ,�- "� .7J a `t kk tts-Zt�e: 5.•# .:s= `�7t �n `i ' !''�'L_ M r. , < h*,, i.fd 'J,t s., ti r FG�,i k t '.,�+, x rr as°_X 7 ^9, `Tr ,:r1 t�:, €;�< i, z t. t5' .°s` •r"�s =):.t rt• Try ;Si._.r)r,t.f;lr? t .�,. t L's r fir, 4Yv L r + .' _at.z.r t• jS,vi,.,.jSt y t.:,.F iFM \s ,.:cy' S \ 'C ' # ,t rt .'d-y �.•3:F. lea =. •_:;.y y?, a_• 'a'[+:,..�••1`t 3� h`Y a +.5, .!`ch'S'.<. :Sa ! o X 1 '.-�. t c 3t Y( li,-.t+;-'-A1'-a.:.f' .[ .-'l +�6� •c t _ .,.(.rat : I-,c!' -"r, 7t r , 3 P-•��.3'4 rr n-r •Y.a-...sa,�iti r-i�i..a34scr,Y�!rc#.. T c:.' r ,,.i�a'$ 1s F3 r "ss...,tx / +, .ra[� +:'S.,",k.iH �1,"'E•t L't 4T.ett vk., :;F,'},Fa. •+' aSa• �is5)xa+,,:•ok.�'aS - a..,a't .+t=+' rc� :'•`{4 .+.'rec. zL. 9 ir...,o..•.vr..a:-it,, ,,1,.E.r.x=�Yr... 1 =rY-8.. &I,� ,aa r- wasp'�i'.?Yt � N �.r�,z�:Xy k•7�3=5'1�.:�.ti3ti,. ,1..' �`''�S,t�};,:F •yobsr�'tw r. .'- c Sty .�+,'.j �a�-i-..r.,� T. . 'w•.i3 T:: ,r.YS--Jv ;w,�.�:,:�.. ..=?i.` v9i t� �' 'd"t- d.,.yt.. _ 'r<. t 'YS -_. .perY. ;,y, �, �.�.a N !::tt t .C.�v n r;tiv`i i.',. •7'-w r. ,th?It- x:r• r•,.-?Ls I ,:F _'W.�+�'a��.{}.d.$?.JV,4, , a+'•-t -'\4 t' 6. 2 7r -a > m 1' '}.Ni♦y.Y _! ate`�r'R r y,,r�ss,,LLpp�ji.M "�sr f(ts• r v:.�i•!r-�yv'... 'rsyyyc*eti -r•� - .s:F=il=L_.. .,. ., ;.:.1:•;4.6Itf" �3 a. -'x sxw i 2n, }. �{s--" b rt<- L{� >' `wq+' z+'.' .. _yi��'. a: :S _.'i: u L s-Z :itr'•X r i..4< .a -a i;x.3 i°"n£., c r-•Lr R "� t i vt 2'",. t •r.�•l.^-•!; r7[. y [ i-r n L.3 i >. -$ r .T:'�. J r4 yC [.. -.-••! };r '.; _" y y^ :.a�.�,.:..1 i;3 !�[ re rr i L Yi•;.si?.-, <',; '�'•� k' y 1 a "'r� y�k.a r--r•o'. •r.. -,ea is ( y 7I t �.:'vx -a ��:�r : -,g.- :9>.-'-j,.,Sr'3?'91 v:t�_,f�_-'..-:':r F�e-4±t i-F,.-1.w:., <5:n>r t .;i sus -�jt:.3';f". :.Y�\ 2• 1.yT1..Lr -).h t __-, s' S \,f ) y ''-•3j r-�-1. M`t -.3\t� T.-,F' M;,,`�T F+` .7 r J...�; rte. ;..Asa t + >�- j)S L-,+1' r v6X :x ci'. b -r-.. a- Y L °:rt: j5, \S♦ "x `T' f� f 3`s'i Ti � �, yrT s:e r� .,3� � ,i �fl -, \ %jy' Jnt {zI'''i •{F�� � aT h5is �i t 4. t 1?F � r F ...«�+�< L r r r l 6C' i r=i ,LI{T` f •:s:.<.,,,:' ,,i h1 c .t-.;na.rv,F4,r-, .1.:TM�� . ,Y,_3"{?i `;.1 �_� `'R r i w I cw .` 3» fn v 47rt+ F w tr A °p`°t '�"`"�" nr PLEASANTON/DI�LIN TRANSIT STUDY' ' : { •i yr r+."� •T=-a(� 't- Z" "TS^•v.".s_ve.-, z, a� v {y + [a 1 h ",.,f°' t tD)a�•f `t•.iJrjart r[� -- ri ,.2"Sr ��M -,t.-+. Ys. 3.€�} n Vic` ,r 7"fti"=iY_., I '.x� S `"4hrFat.1', '7^ s f c .. -� *'lam. a' .A a i•••,^.lr<T,�•F ;i)�+•^`;yb .. >:.7'•--� : `"i' !!'r -.--,r 7 .,'� �.- Z t,+.�9 J sx k`3, icy`• T+•as�t•[1-14 {._S; r.;7 t-e r k.. .,� '` `F 3 t .-+l-, J....., a`--3T 'r'ts ,{`•F u., 3 T�as'*tr'4Y,^2`.d••y"cp".. 3. R-S. fit-\ !e^f)},-t"s`•,.. -`•r..' i !` .. N M 1f'•-.k f`t='rxJ" �lltij•`•r.'_:Y^f' "G,. l,•n Y-}.+-aNi T ?4 Jjti '115kt r n •c ,..,i - ''?,-ra?. va.-hi { ti^Z dS� s'-,.r.• ':ri .:D,- •� �•�T't,•,: ,� .,mot !. i fi"i f -n. -4 S- -,.rr c crcl J7 a r' -'-r-,';1 r.r E�ttJ.t kfl rib's"ti).-a. •+'/c DRAA 1.•'.t• tau; 'i3 e_T"st`'rt'i?,csR.•�t. r v,t s�'itr'y. .F ",, `i!' �ti:-t ?*r s' tI V1 [ zC �irit x k r r w=z_ _A rt-,} y sc '•?• '`' ) , - y < > '•`'C} -_ ,t .w i �[ t r t e"t ui r r : e t; }M .-fit• �k.'.gj:..,.l.kr sit -e•r.:. '.'Y*'u".. eJ .+v r 'F.s-Y4 .X�3••r a r�9.r 7 a.'" \ -:k S 7 •Rt 4- t$. �^ _ 'I `a'C� !„nr 5 ? ` t.. {...uyla{y};may�. °K .\... m'Cv.�L +!; ltw'"�.: 3: ` s- -R'-�,Y :�''f r.t' ''j c} "F; Tt3 t'' a E ` i)t r i.. tft �...�.,: .".b'.vo-lr"t•`,rs .E: ...>l rs'1•-,: 7 r :�-- 'l.+f't.p -�,-r T.a-s• -;yl C r a .a.+s 'e• s,. r ,< ^�, }3', ,[ '�; r �°,fr ;_kAS'Ta�lc 5 4 Report or�`Alte�iiatives Analysis k s �`, r z z, ♦) 1 t y3l.tj Yom) ,",-, t. y 3 1 t�-j ) > f 7 \T [ A ; T f Ya. .-,4>ja '6.0 �! i ti fi .>•. '1- -ri 1 {'<.u!-., - fq o `,... - 1. h < r C S it _�, .r �-n t j C.. 5 ` ' 'k, i a - .t' J -yrr. SS S Ja a CD t'. Y\-'Y" .�-s =_.?r"" 'a t , --cl-. a-' rr �, uv.y ze., r j�. F• �� } s- -Y r t F 1� t�.•u-..r`"'t'T�r- wt.iat s\ r .^'rs:.- 4-. '•S x's`? F^. it t w y rx r- tt Y .a F3l l.t J s, >r > ._J_..,; : .,..t .0 i P y ,,. 3,� 5 ",I"i.,-- 7 I ., } r'w1 Y-1 { �t3 C•a�(v t*. +7 t '1 'S'.. ,- .. t. �t t_s,t` 4 la [t• '.r �s J: ' -, t� [`� r +.. J J., \(J. ! > \^r t i,. ', a t- -s # S r,t; y- ., l -.4 <, '1.-, , t �..' r + t L r 2 Y k - 4 IS' y g -•,t'Js�`Z it y?G t j 2 rr \, is 'i r r ay 1.t ,, .1? (sL. rk'3 '�f,r:,. - ' r 1 t it•: r' -'a r s, - - x r' r rd .; +L J, !ty ti�iz� I c t. -[- -ct -,y r i iRd t J't"aS-'Y,`<a•�, c' a .e .,; 5�-.[ - a r r '-, r+;-. f - .- .:.:,._....>_,.. i -i. '�'J '^�.;-4n,- 1 s t > u.j'. 3 c:-,s[J f S s- t•s .,r•.,•a L'r �� ; �zi Y re dfed b - •„ { { - -t S w. C t 1 ..c s' t ,r r„^_� y--��L��ikyr� I f `�-r�, i" Z �-` -Y P. �/ 'T' J '1 SK3�. }i.:,'}t4 7f•r' v ' Z x •v --t f �� + °l �`�s \t 4A -'air g.s ;- G1't.T' ;-� s •,.:' _ ' y,+.,�-5.•s 1 r fF. 7 t 1 ,y }- I s 7,r y.J,,T�: a v Yj t r u T-'�,yc.Kn y .. !s '3"r_ 'j +' S, 'T' +S- ) e '�S"-f-�Yy j^ X k `` j i ,i -.) f A !. N 1�,^,('� >$ya3 f 4 ... v 7.�:< + 1 r - - :t F ,2 „'C -i i, _ :„-�, \ _ .s. •r[ i. x 3t�� Tt.j r -Sr s�. s3r �,� -`yy'�..Y,s-.4;� �•. �..xY ,..r 7 Yc Yx3 t t s<� 7•-.w i t:. r'�.-' L.r._i,:,;:1-,° v4'!`T a -i Kau,:t- ''i t ia, ♦ F �- s a -'•c5. u ..! c•t[mss.. ,C Ft..,- iti :t a°.r 1 t�•i- - r �._ T a \ r,rt i.t.f'fir,ti.c-;F , p "..'�r J i ;:,'i +_ .\."V r'.*.R,. •S• '3r' ! ._--"-1.�>`�� �l4 �. ,,'L �,a• 5<i ..�a � s T ra'i-, - �-3 j.�,�. f'L is '7. ti?Y t•4 4i+ a.7• s t - ru- 5 x ,.,U, t- .:.�. 4f z ",_ !tr [.Y:f t'i` �., at ; l r; ..-r-1' . _Y, �1. '{yr s 2 t-t ) e \ ti`�,. t[ ! !r 1 >�t 1Ly-4 , - ) - r LP 0 `x..^3 '' -.i7�ti....1-'r [ -+ t.A V+ \M.4[ t 1 L t -mvtG.-xa ]-❑ T` "� ` \t ^-l`� r-Ji e-,, '�' fr. n _-h - T 7- , )�iY`.. i+ F , z:' - .•. r. �Y ,- -r _ ,__,:-, ! y S s 1- i t s , ��. t: 1 f '1• s rim_:a; i. Tsr , ea '7•,>r .S. .S. i ? -� „�' � -T- s a1 \' i q t aq .i ( S- t •l\ -[ K\ 'Y 7?�-.� "-i } a ," c S'. -'-, 4 )3 4 t � t "-t .3 �' Y`*-t. Y ! r-..i r n. --t fi r`r Y I„7 ft �?t_ s•, J ,'<`. !! M z' '-, ��`� .`': tf-.A�v "t ; '!` ) 3'.; �r t i-L �.. t-+� a .- c r __ 5 ..! Y _ f y♦ 3l -•'4 d [_, .si!)�1�.. ♦LF= '{• 3.[ h ..,: t �,' �' � J r " ' t �) '`' b '1:. 7 T tr.. !\ 5� t' F , ``4r , DKS ASSOCIATES TY L F- i'4 r k)t�'f t i k 1.t' P Y .•: 7 y t M i- t t v S 1 ti r 3 .3 x W i w.'Sa , ;+•e }7 [ .}.. y i ,t.,t ' '1 [ - [ 1 1. `S T r •i ;t r i n c n w{ h r a W4 L 4 ..,... ,:a a[.. s [ fit. '. >: t s r ''` J�'.sL'ss7ii y o-, O O+.I O t )t` - ' Ss, -. p i"m g� - td T" r- '� =;?f SS atl x _ r tbE LEUW, CATHER & COMPANY w t\�'r j 7 r 1 T r J .:, a i T }. - .Ji 1Zi t t ' i h - _ , :, 4 October I3, I983 1 :. . . f .. .. . ... . -. .. - ::.; . i . . .. .. .. .. . -3. -'.. : . . :�. _ :: . , .. ._..- . i . INTRODUCTION This is the third interim report to be produced for the Pleasanton/Dublin Transit Study. The first report documented the need for additional local services. The second report identified seven operational and several management alternatives for consideration by the policy committee. The committee settled on four operational and four management alternatives for further evaluation and consideration. The four operational alternatives are: • Null alternative: Retain existing BART express as is; • Alternative 1: Local service - Maximum coverage; 0 Alternative 2: Local service - High frequency; and s Alternative 4: Local service - Direct connections. The management alternatives are: • Null Alternative - Retain existing condition; s• Alternative I: Pleasanton/Dublin Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA); • Alternative 2: Tri-Valley JEPA; - I - .O Alternative 3: Expansion of Contra Costa County Transit Authority (CCCTA) This report, along with a companion Environmental Assessment (initial Study) report, provides the additional detailed evaluation that will enable the policy committee to chose a preferred operational and management alternative. The study will then conclude with a projection of operational needs to the year 1990 and a detailing of implementation actions required to put the service and management plans into operation. ANALYSIS OF OPERATIONAL ALTERNATIVES Three operational alternatives for local service were selected for further evaluation by the Policy Committee. They have been slightly modified from the previous report in response to comments from the Policy and Advisory Committees and from the general public, and in response to further field review which identified some localized problems with the earlier designs. The three alternatives have been scaled to keep operational - costs approximately within anticipated levels of funding. The following paragraphs describe the three local alternatives, plus the null alternative. Description of Alternatives y Null ,alternative: This alternative is the basis for comparing to the remaining three choices. It would continue the operation of the BART Express Bus Service which would operate in a combined local/express mode as at present. The BART Express Service would consist of the "U" line connecting Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin and the East Bay, - 2 - the "UL", and "UP" lines which provide added peak hour service to Pleasanton and Livermore, and the "D" line which connects Stoneridge Center in Pleasanton and Dublin with the San Ramon Valley to Walnut Creek. In the future, BART plans a "US" line which would add peak hour service to Dublin and San Ramon. The BART Ex press Service currently stops at approximately 1/4 miles intervals and as P Y such provides local service as well as express service to the East Bay. While the route would remain essentially the some for the remaining three alternatives, BART has stated its intention, in its "BART Express Bus S Year Plan," to convert the routes to more express-type operation when local service is implemented. BART staff has suggested _ that this would mean limiting stops to one in Central Livermore, two or three in Pleasanton, and one in Dublin. Alternative I: Local Service -- Maximum Coverage. As shown in Figure I, this service is intended to provided maximum coverage to the service area. It would consist of three routes. Two routes would travel in opposite directions in a large loop in Dublin and then continue on to Pleasanton. The third route would operate exclusively in Pleasanton. - Service would be provided at 60 minute intervals for approximately 13 hours (ie., 6:00 AM - 7:00 PM) on weekdays and 9 hours (9:00 AM - 6:00 PM) on Saturdays. Changes to this alternatives from the previous (Task 4) report are as follows: • The BART "U" Line has been placed on Valley Avenue and Santa Rita Road as is the present case. This change was made in response to concerns over noise on Division Street and St. Mary's. - 3 - cuosrA eivo. Route 1 �.� T loss osso Route 2 so..... Route 3 � ... \r\\ate \ + . BART U Line Coverage Area a x "'�� r^\x "k� �� e• A Elementary/Middle School High School T Major Medical Building A < Senior Citizen Center/ ,x. �,� - �a,. t �.n�,+. '•� W\ sx; y -.f Community Services Convalescent Home + .� � sY x v 4r" �+� �- ❑ Senior Citizen Housing \tia, - �S@t a * Mobile Home Parks >= Commercial Strip nln i,\h1U u V \`(£ dam.? re' Sfif Shopping Center ® Regional Shopping Center/CBD * Major Employment Center(Existing) a ` �� Public Housing 4 y� J' s sk a O Library ' ® Park ' Community/Recreation Center City Offices � �•� �„:Y. � O Post Office s 0 (� L a x s a y f' rk .tom i£ s * u SAS roS I T,As �������/_ =�_ifi,�%.ice .•r�. I 24".�79�-tom 4 s y O toX${ . r s-E"y,s� h y � � g Op r •V�{� t ��-Y.0 s{��r,M�;r✓ Figure 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 associates LOCAL- SERVICE MAXIMUM COVERAGE • Routes I and 2 have been rerouted via Shannon Avenue and San Ramon Road instead of via a parallel portion of Peppertree Road in Dublin to avoid the noise impacts of a significant grade. o Routes I and 2 have been routed onto Hopyard Road instead of Willow Road in Hacienda Business Park' to speed service. This route'is compatible with . HBP's tentative plans for a local shuttle within HBP. connecting to main line transit routes on the periphery. • The southern terminus of Route I has been moved to the Mission Park area in response to community input. • Route I has been routed via Santa Rita Road and Main Street rather than via Golden Road and Greenwood Road to keep the buses off neighborhood streets that do not appear appropriate for transit and to provide a better connection of Route 1 with Amador Valley High School. • Route 3 has been modified in the Pleasanton Meadows Neighborhood. It was determined that the loop consisting of Fairlands, Gulfstream and Las Positas may not be completed when the transit service begins operation. A smaller loop is shown in the Pleasanton Meadows subdivision to operate until the complete street system is in place. - 5 - Some key statistics for Alternative I: One-Way Frequency (minutes) Route Route Length No. Buses Peak/Off-Peak Daily Patronage 1.7 Miles 2 60160 . 300 2 13.7 Miles 2 60160 340 3 10.7 Miles 2 60160 260 TOTAL 35.1 Miles 6 900 Total Mileage Mileage on Mileage on City Breakdown Arterial Streets Residential Streets Dublin 23% 74% 26% Pleasanton 77% 77% 23% Alternative 2: Local Service — High frequency. As shown in Figure 2, this alternative would use two routes to provide local service. The routes would run at one hour frequency during the off-peak hours and at 30 minute frequency during the peak hours. It would provide slightly less coverage than Alternative 1, but would place more buses on the street in the peak hours to respond to heavier peak hour demand. The hours of operation would be the some as for Alternative I. Four buses would be used throughout the day, with another 4 added during the peak hours. - 6 - Lr rl IS ALCOSTA RYO. Route I y. Moll e 2 P77 pc nti( �- • BART U Line ll AN - w 11r LT coverage Area ��y ♦ Elementary/Middle School x �Y�rek4 0 High School J J� + Major Medical Building rer,,a 1 � 0 Senior Citizen Center/ I Community Services I c OC Convalescent Home „l;J 1 ❑ Senior Citizen Housing Mobile Home Parks �s Commercial Strip r i. s ?” �, -=K •® Shopping Center s ® Regional Shopping Center/CBD r .Ael Major Employment.Center(Existing) { 0 Public Housing Library Park 2 i Community/Recreation Center M,g —_< City Offices EN- 1 O Post Office 1 �. — �AI Ajµpt DA' r. z IN IAN WaS 3 S - a 4 m J• rs' 1� fi ttr r. 1� Figure 2 � ALTERNATIVE 2 ��associates LOCAL SERVICE HIGH FREQUENCY i The following changes have been made to this alternative from the previous report: The BART "U" Line has been routed via Valley Avenue and Santa Rita Road as in Alternative I. • Routes I and 2 have been routed via Shannon and San Ramon Boulevard as in Alternative I. s Routes I and 2 have been routed via Hopyard Road rather than Willow Road in Hacienda Business Park as in Alternative I. Some key statistics for Alternative 2: One-Way No. Buses Frequency (minutes) - Route Route Lenath Peak/Off-Peak Peak/Off-Peak Daily Patronage 1 1278 Miles 4/2 30/60 540 2 14.2 Miles 4/2 30/60 610 - TOTAL 27.0 Miles 8/4 30/60 1,150 Total Mileage Mileage on Mileage on City Breakdown Arterial Streets Residential Streets Dublin 30% 74% 26% Pleasanton 70% 73`Xo 27°X' - 8 - Alternative 4: Local Service -- Direct Connections: This alternative is intended to provide coverage similar to Alternative I, but create•more direct routings and thus reduce travel times for bus riders. As shown in Figure 3, this concept has been somewhat reworked from the previous report to expand its service area in Dublin and to reduce one route to a more manageable length; a fourth route has been added during school hours to cover areas in Pleasanton otherwise not served. As shown in the figure, two routes would operate in a loop in Dublin which is identical to _ Alternatives I and 2. They would then continue into Pleasanton. Route 3 has been modified to start in Stoneridge Center and end in downtown Pleasanton; its coverage of the Pleasanton Meadows subdivision has also been deleted. A fourth route has been added which would operate only during school hours. It would start in downtown Pleasanton, travel north on Santa Rita Road, circle the Pleasanton Meadows subdivision, and then continue via Las Positas to Foothill High School. As in the other alternatives, service hours would be 6:00 AM - 7:00 PM weekdays and 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM Saturdays. Route 4 would operate from 7:00 - 9:00 AM and 2:00 - 6:00 PM, schools days only. Service would be hourly on all routes throughout the day. This alternative has been designed so that a corridor from Hopyard and Valley in Pleasanton to central Dublin are served by Routes I and 2. In this way, essentially half hour service would be provided in this corridor all day. It may also be possible to schedule Routes 3 and 4 so that half hour service can be provided on Santa Rita Road and L Las Positas during school hours. L - 9 - k� • {{��.. ■.� Route 1 Route 2 �!w y —�'— Jaw u.un Route J W 7 �' �..� Route 4 (School Hours Only) .... BART U Line Coverage Area ,111 �y le+'11 A Elementary/Middle School High School - � f �? - "�" + Major Medical Building Senior Citizen Center/ Community Services Convalescent Home �� ��i ,�,{4y s {s � _ ❑ Senior Citizen Housing Mobile Home Parks IL Commercial Strip Shopping Center ARM " ® Regional Shopping Center/CBO Major Employment Center(Existing) Public Housing Library Park ... ft . li 3 ... ... Co unity/Recreation Center - - l _ e City Offices Post Office iS �t 1 m ® - P t y YNT � } 2: :__ c - J p o z > " , 3 '� s n Figure 3 own ALTERNATIVE 4 associates LOCAL SERVICE DIRECT CONNECTIONS Some key statistics for Alternative 4: One-Way Frequency (minutes) Route Route Length No. Buses Peak/Off-Peak Daily Patronage 60 400 I 12.8 Miles 2 60/60 2 11.7 Miles _. 2 60160 . 370 3 7.1 Miles 1 60160 220 4 7.9 Miles I(School Hrs) 601— 110 - TOTAL 39.5 Miles 6 1100 Total Mileage Mileage on Mileage on City Breakdown Arterial Streets Residential Streets Dublin 21% 74`''.0 26% Pleasanton 79% 79% 21% Evaluation of Operational Alternatives The second interim report established a number of criteria upon which to base the evaluation of the several operational alternatives. The criteria are used in more detail in this report to compare the null alternative and the three alternatives for local service. Coverage Figures 1-3 show, in shaded tones, the area that is within 1/4 mile of a bus line. One- , quarter mile is the usual standard for coverage and is known to be the maximum distance that :most people will walk to a bus stop. Table I displays the coverage of each alternative for the general public and for the elderly population. The tables shows that the local service alternatives are fairly close in coverage of existing population, and all. provide significant coverage improvements over the null alternative. Differences are limited to the Pleasanton Area. The coverage ratios for the three local service alterntatives are fairly comparable to those found in other similar sized systems. Table I PERCENT OF EXISTING POPULATION WITHIN 1/4 MILE OF BUS LINE Dublin Pleasanton Alternative General Public Elderly General Public Elderly 0-Null Alternative 46 40 32 57 _ I-Maximum Coverage 89 88 81. 85 2-High Frequency 89 88 77 83 4-Direct Connections . 89 88 81 85 Table 2 shows the coverage of future known residential developments. It indicates that the proposed systems will all have to be expanded in order to provide service to these new areas. _ 12 - Table 2 PERCENT OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 1/4 MILE OF A BUS LINE Alternative Single Family Multiple Family 0-Null Alternative 5 37 I-Maximum Coverage 23 81 -2-High Frequency 22 -' . 81 4-Direct Connections 23 81 Accessibility Accessibility has been defined as the ability to reach major activity centers in the area. These centers were identified in the first interim report, and their locations are reproduced in Figures 1-3. Table 3 summarizes the activity centers served by each of - the alternatives. As in the case of residential coverage, the local service alternatives provide better accessibility than does the null alternative. Alternatives l and 4 provide access to one more major employment center (the Kaiser offices on Sunol Boulevard) than does Alternative 2; otherwise, the accessibility is essentially equal for all of the ti alternatives. Table 4 shows accessibility to future known employment areas. As with residential coverage, it indicates that the proposed systems will all have to be expanded in order to provide service to these new areas. - 13 - Table 3 PERCENT OF FUTURE JOBS WITHIN 1/4 MILES OF A BUS LINE Alternative Percent Jobs 0-Null Alternative 34 I-Maximum Coverage - h Frequency 64 2-Hi 9 4-Direct Connections :.....:: .. . l.. 1 . - 14 - Table 4 ACTIVITY CENTER COVERAGE Null Alternative Alternative I Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Dublin Pleasanton Dublin Pleasanton Dublin Pleasanton Dublin Pleasanton — Not —Not --Not ]Tot —F�ot —Rot Not Not Activity Center Served Served Served Served Served Served Served Served Served Served Served Served Served Served Served Served Elementary/Middle School 1 4 3 5 5 0 8 0 5 0 7 I 5 0 B 0 High School 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 Medical Building - - 0 1 - - I .0 Sr. Citizen's Center/ Community Services 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 I 0 2 0 I 0 2 0 Convelescent Home - - ( 0 - - 1 0 0 Sr.Citizen's Housing - - 2 0 - - - -2 0 2 0 2 Mobile Home Communities - - 2 2 - 4 0 - - 4 Commercial Strip 2 1 2 0 3 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 Shopping Center 1 1 3 4 2 0 7 0 2 0 7 0 2 0 7 0 ReglonalShopping Center/ CBD 1 0 2 0 I 0 2 0 I 0 2 0 I 0 2 0 Motor Employment Center 2 3 2 4 5 0 4 2 5 0 3 3 5 0 4 2 I - Public Housing 0 I - - 0 - - 0 - 1 0 - Library 11 I 0 1 1 1 0 1 I I 0 I I I 0 Park 2 4 4 9 6 0 13 0 6 0 12 1 6 0 13 0 Community Recreation Center 1 0 ( 2 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 I 1 0 2 City Offices 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Post Of(ice 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 TOTAL 16 15 27 29 30 1 53 3 30 1 50 6 30 1 53 3 i Cost Estimates of annual operating and capital costs have been made for each alternative. The operating cost estimates are based on a unit cost of $31 per hour of on-line operations plus deadheading to a remote garage which, depending on the chosen management alternative' `could be either in Livermore or in southern Contra Costa County... (A third alternative would have the garage in Pleasanton or Dublin; thus the costs used here'-are somewhat conservative). The unit costs are comparable to those of Rideo in Livermore and CCCTA in Contra Costa County. Table 5 presents the estimated annual operating costs in 1983 dollars. Costs for the null alternative are not included in Table 5 since they will continue to be incurred if local service is initiated. These costs will be incurred by BART for its streamlined express service. Table 5 ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS Alternative Annual Operating Costs 0-Null Alternative N/A I-Maximum Coverage $732,700 2-High Frequency 694,600 -- 4-Direct Connections 641,000 - 16 - Capital costs for the system will depend on the method chosen for owning or leasing the equipment. While it is desirable for the system to own its own vehicles, it may not be possible to fund the system's capital costs with available state funding and there will be a a qualification period needed for the system to become eligible for UMTA funding of new bus purchases. A number of alternatives for either leasing vehicles or spreading the start-up costs among several years will be investigated in the next phase of the study. .: . For now, for comparison among the alternatives, the capital costs can be compared by an estimate of the total cost of the fleet required for each alternative. Based on patronage estimates developed below, it is estimated that a 30 foot, 30-35 passenger, bus will be adequate to accommodate the expected patronage; this vehicle, with an estimated cost of $130,000, is used as the basis of the capital cost estimate. An allowance has been amde for spares. Table 6 ESTIMATE OF CAPITAL COSTS Alternative Fleet Size Capital Costs 1 0-Null Alternative — $ 0 I-Maximum Coverage 8 $1,040,000 2-High Frequency 10 1,300,000 4-Direct Connections 8 1,040,000 a Total Costs For 1983-84, it is estimated that Dublin, Pleasanton and Alameda County have approximately $834,000 available in TDA funds for the Dublin/Pleasanton service area. - 17 - It is important to document the fact that any of the three alternatives can be funded by available TDA funding. To substantiate this, the following two scenarios for capital funding of the buses is put forth. These are not necessarily recommended strategies, but are presented principally to document the fact that system costs can be covered. One low cost short range strategy would be to lease used buses for the service. The current market could provide buses at an annual lease cost of roughly,$13,000 per bus. Table 7 shows the resulting total yearly costs for each alternative.- - ve. Note that with Alternative 3, there are sufficient available funds to consider implementing additional service. This could optionally include Sunday service,a direct limited hours Pleasanton connection to Chabot College, or other possibilities. A second approach would be to make use of UMTA funding, for which matching funds at a rate of 20 percent of total capital costs must be provided from local sources, in this case TDA. UMTA would cover the remaining 80 percent of the cost. There are a number of administrative requirements which the system management must go through to -- become eligible for UMTA funding, but these are seen as largely time constraints rather than issue constraints for this system. This means that UMTA capital funding might not be available for the first year of operation - in which case leasing would make sense but could be made available within a year or two. Table 8 shows a conceptual budget in '7 which the 20 percent matching funds are included in one year's budget: - 18 - Table 7 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS ASSUMING LEASE OF USED VEHICLES Alt. I Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Operating Cost $732,700 $694,600 $641,000 Capital Cost 104,000 130,000 - 104,000 _ ..Total Cost $ 836,700 $824,600 $745,000 Revenue from Fares -64,500 -98,300 -90,500 Subsidy Required $772,200 $726,300 654,500 . TDA Funds Available 834,000 834,000 834,000 Reserve $61,800 $107,700 $179,500 Table 8 - TOTAL ANNUAL COST FOR YEAR IN WHICH 20% CAPITAL MATCHING FUNDS ARE USED Alt. I Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Operating Cost $732,700 $694,600 $641,000 Capital Cost 208,000 260,000 208,000 Total Cost $940,700 $954,600 $8491000 Revenue from Fares -64,500 -98,300 -90,500 Subsidy Required $876,200 $856,300 $758,500 TDA Funds Available 834,000 834,000 834,000 Reserve (shortfall) ($42,200) ($22,300) $75,500 Table 8 shows that some of the capital costs would need to be carried over from another -. year in order to meet the budget for the year shown. However, the overall costs spread over the lifetime of the buses clearly favors the purchase option. - 19 - In summary, these two capital options indicate that all alternatives are feasible from a funding perspective. Lease and purchase strategies will be further considered in the next phase of the study. Ridership Ridership has been estimated by evaluating ridership on other similar -systems and projecting it to the several Dublin/Pleasanton alternatives. The local alternatives for Pleasanton average between I I and 15 passengers per hour systemwide. For comparison, Livermore averaged approximately 12.75 passengers per bus-hour in 1982; CCCTA averages 15.6 per hour, and AC Transit in its Newark/Fremont Service District averages approximately 18 passengers per hour. The route-by-route estimates are described above. Table 9 summarizes the ridership estimates by alternative. Ridership estimates for the null alternative are not available - because BART does not keep records of boardings and alightings, and thus the number of purely local trips is not known. Table 9 ESTIMATED DAILY RIDERSHIP Alternative Daily Riders Annual Riders 0-Null Alternative N/A N/A I-Maximum Coverage 900 208,000 2-High Frequency 1,150 317,000 4-Direct Connections 1,100 292,000 - 20 - Productivity Productivity is a measure of how well each service is used. Measures such as passengers per bus hour, cost per passenger, revenue per hour and revenue/operating cost help to measure the efficiency and relative usage of the services. Revenue estimates have been based on a $0.50 fare for the general public and $0.25 for students, elderly and handicapped. (This is similar to Rideo in Livermore.) Table 10 compares the three local — alternatives on these several criteria. — Table 10 PRODUCTIVITY OF OPERATIONAL ALTERNATIVES Riders Operating Costs Revenue Revenue/ Alternative Per Hour per passenger Per Hour Operating Cost I-Maximum Coverage 11.5 $2.95 $3.56 0.10 2-High Frequency 15.1 $2.19 $4.68 0.14 4-Direct Connections 15.5 $2.20 $4.80 0.14 Frequency Frequency is a measure of the convenience of the service. The null alternative BART Express currently provides 30 minute frequency through the day; BART is expected to continue to do so, with limited stop service, if local service is begun in the Dublin/Pleasanton area. Alternative I provides 60 minute service throughout the day. Alternative 2 provides 30 minute service in the peak hours (7:00 AM - 9:00 AM and 2:00 PM - 6:00 PM) and 60 minute service in the off-peak hours. Alternative 4 provides 60 minute service throughout the day on Routes I, 2, and 3 and during school hours on - 21 - Route 4; however, the routes overlap to the point that 30 minute service can be provided over much of the system in Pleasanton in the peak hours. Other Criteria Four other evaluation criteria were included in the previous report. Three of these, connectivity, service duplication and transfers, have little difference among _the three . local alternatives. All local services provide better connectivity than the null alternative due to their higher coverage of the area. The similar design of the routes implies that transfer level differences between the routes should not be significant; this criterion previously showed differences only among alternatives which included different BART express bus services or which included San Ramon. With regard to service duplication, all of the alterntives duplicate portions of the BART U-line, which will operate in a more expresslike mode than at present. The local alternatives can be scheduled so that any duplication in local routes can be turned into improved frequency along the corridors served. 's Alternative 4 has some qualitative improvements in directness over the other two alternatives. It provides more direct service on Las Positas and Santa Rita by not having Route 3 divert into Pleasanton Meadows or to Foothill High School. In other areas the directness, and thus the travel time for the riders, is similar among the alternatives. - 22 - Summary of Evaluation Table I I provides a comparison of all the criteria detailed above for the alternatives.. The-.,table shows that the effectiveness of.the three local alternatives is considerably higher than the null alternative. It also shows that in comparison, .there is not considerable difference among the three local operational alternatives.-::'Alternative 3 tends to be slightly more cost effective, if ridership estimates are accurate, and slightly less costly while providing coverage equal to Alternative I. Differences between Alternative 2 and 4, which have relatively equal frequency, is that Alternative 2 provides slightly less coverage and 30 minute frequency over the entire system, whereas Alternative 4 provides more direct service, but 30 minute peak hour frequencies over only part of the system. -_ Table I I COMPARISON EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL ALTERNATIVES Alt. 0 Alt. I Alt. 2 Alt. 4 Maximum High Direct Criterion Null Coverage Frequency. Connections Coverage - Pleasanton/Dublin 46/32 89/81 89/77 89/81 (Percent Populotion"serled) Accessibility (Activity { Centers Covered) 16/27 30/53 30/50 30/53 J Operating Cost N/A $732,700 $694,600 $641,000 Fleet Size (including spares) N/A 8 10 8 Ridership/Day N/A 900 1,150 1,100 Productivity - Riders/Hour N/A 11.5 15.1 15.5 Frequency (Peak/Off-Peak) 30/30 60/60 30/60 30/60 - 23 - ANALYSIS OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES _ The management alternatives selected by the policy committee for further evaluation are discussed below. With the exception of the null alternative, the remaining options involve the formation of an agency under.a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA). The principal difference between these alternatives is the jurisdictional membership of i inci p the agency. Description of Alternatives Null Alternative: This option represents the existing condition. The BART express bus services are operated by BART under contract with AC transit. Within the study area, unallocated State Transportation Development Act (TDA), Section 4, funds are allocated to BART. Pleasanton maintains a small amount of local elderly and handicapped service which is financed out of the City's general fund. Livermore operates the Rideo service under contract with ARA, a subsidiary of the Patchetts Transportation Company. The City of Livermore applies receives State TDA Section 4 funds through MTC for this service. Local service within Livermore-is .� controlled by the Livermore City Council. J Alternative I : Pleasanton/Dublin JEPA - For all of the alternatives to the null condition, a JEPA would be formed. The difference between alternatives is the composition of the membership. Under Alternative I, Dublin and Pleasanton and perhaps Alameda County would be members. This option provides for the operation of transit services within and - 24 - between these two communities. The Pleasanton/Dublin authority would apply to MTC for both capital and operating funds. The actual service could be provided either under .contract (similar to Rideo) or as a public transit operator (similar to CCCTA). Due to j the small initial size of the system, a contract type service would probably prevail. The authority would be responsible for the design, monitoring and provision of , service. Generally, the service area would encompass both communities and would include inter- city and intra-city components, as described previously for the service alternatives. All state and federal funds allocated to Dublin and Pleasanton would be consolidated to pay for the transit services administered by the Agency. Alternative 2: Tri-Valley JEPA - This alternative would form an agency composed of Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore and Alameda County. Under this option, all local transit services within the Tri-Valley area would be under one agency. All funding would accrue to the JEPA. The agency would be responsible for all existing and future local transit services. The existing Rideo system would be absorbed into the new JEPA. Alternative 3: Expansion of CCCTA to Dublin and Pleasanton - This alternative requires the communities of Dublin and Pleasanton to join the existing Central Contra Costa County Transit Authority. This is an existing JEPA comprising 8 jurisdictions in Central Contra Costa County. San Ramon's City Council voted to join CCCTA very recently, and will represent a 9th member jurisdiction. Under this option, local transit services in Pleasanton and Dublin would be operated by CCCTA. Livermore would remain independent. The role Alameda County would have in the expanded CCCTA scenario is not clear. Probably the existing situation, where the - 25 - County acts independently relative to the three cities, would be maintained. For this analysis, the County is not included in this alternative. Evaluation of Alternatives The selection of an appropriate management alternative is as much political as technical. There are a variety of factors, however, which should be considered for.each alternative. These include: • Local Policy Control • Funding Opportunities • Type of Operations 0 Capital Facilities e Service Provision e Implementation Issues The following sections describe, for each of these factors, the benefits and disbenefits associated with each alternative. n Null Alternative Local Control - Under the Null Alternative, BART, rather than the local communities, determines where, when and how often the service operates. Local control of express bus routes does not exist and there is no reason to assume that the condition will change. BART cannot be relied on to maintain existing level of local bus service. The - 26 - BART service is designed as a feeder service to the BART Fremont Line; therefore, it is not necessarily responsive to local needs. As local transit demand increases, BART will resist expanding its feeder linkages to service these local needs. I State TDA Section 4) funds are ' Fundinq Opportunities - Under the Null Alternative, all allocated to BART. _:.The Express Bus services are funded by BART.,'out of its general revenues. There is no direct correlation between the funds received and the amount of local service provided. The Express Bus services compete with all other capital and non- - capital programs. As locally generated TDA funding increases, therefore, local service portions of the Express Bus services are not likely to increase proportionately. Just the reverse could occur as Expres Bus services are streamlined by BART consistent with established policies. Type of Operations - Under the Null Alternative, BART would continue to contract out - its Express Bus services. All services (including both Alameda and Contra Costa County routes) are contracted to a single operator, and BART administratively prefers this. The City of Livermore Rideo system would continue to be cont.racted out to a private operator (currently ARA). Capital Facilities - Under the Null Alternative, no new capital facilities or personnel are needed for administration, maintenance, fueling, vehicle storage and the like. Service Provision - Under the Null Alternative, local transit services in Pleasanton and Dublin would consist of BART express bus routes. These would also function as intra- - 27 - valley (subregional) services, with connections to Rideo and to CCCTA. The Null Alternative would not be responsive to valley growth which would require service to new areas, including presently unincorporated parts of the County. Implementation Issues = For the Null Alternative, no implementation of new services is . involved.. Alternative I: Pleasanton/Dublin JEPA Local Control ' - A Pleasanton/Dublin JEPA would allow Dublin and Pleasanton to accommodate their local transit needs without outside interference. As inter-valley needs increase, however, the limited JEPA could become awkward and non-responsive. Service to destinations in the unincorporated areas between Livermore and Pleasanton would probably be established as extensions of one of the existing local operations, and only if adequate funding is available. The expansion of the agency to include the County _ of Alameda may be needed. Transit services to the unincorporated portions of the ' County is normally the County's responsibility. The inclusion of the County in a limited JEPA, however, produces problems. The County would be forced to deal with both the Dublin/Pleasanton Agency and the City of Livermore. It would be difficult for the County to coordinate service needs and to control overall budgeting. Also, as a member of the JEPA, the Alameda County vote would by significant relative to its population. To balance the vote on a more equitable base, the Dublin/Pleasanton JEPA might adopt a membership based upon population rather than one city, one vote. - 28 - The Pleasanton/Dublin JEPA would be difficult to expand to include Livermore, because the services operated by different agencies would be awkward to coordinate and/or. - restructure. For example, CCCTA initially maintained a Base Line Service (BLS) which in essence was the service which existed when CCCTA was formed. Since then, CCCTA has modified the BLS to insure greater continuity and more areawide coverage. For the existing operations,'the effect of the new JEPA has been to alter service and reduce local control. Funding Opportunities - One of the disbenefits of the Pleasanton/Dubline JEPA concerns funding. To qualify for federal funding, an operator must comply with a number of federal guidelines and regulations (Sections 13C, 15, etc.). The requirements normally require more staff time and thus increase administrative costs. With a small transit property such as a Pleasanton/Dublin JEPA, MTC would be reluctant to fund such applications because a significant portion of the funds would go to administration of the system's eligibility. Types of Operations - The Pleasanton/Dublin JEPA could operate transit services under a variety of options. This would include contract service with either a public operator, �- such as AC Transit or CCCTA; a private operator like CTS (Community Transportation Services) or ARA (similar to Rideo in Livermore); or a new non-profit corporation established for the purpose of operating the system. Also, the agency could contract for Ell management skills and hire its own operating staff, similar to CCCTA's present arrangement. The type of operation does not need to be decided prior to the formation of a JEPA; selection of an appropriate arrangement could be made based on bid received. L - 29 - l_ Capital Facilities - For a Pleasanton/Dublin JEPA, the small size of the system may discourage MTC from funding such facilities. More practically, the agency would probably use existing City of Pleasanton facilities (at least in the short term) similar to what the City of Livermore is currently doing. Alternatively, a joint use arrangement could potentially be developed with the City of Livermore for new facilities. Service Provision - A Pleasanton/Dublin JEPA may be somewhat non-responsive to future service needs. This is particularly the case for service to unincorporated parts of the County and for connections to Rideo in Livermore and to CCCTA in San Ramon. _. Implementation Issues - For a Pleasanton/Dublin JEPA, one of the two agency members would need to take an aggressive role in the implementation. Initially, the basic JEPA could be set up; however, like CCCTA, the board may elect to hire an outside consultant to help in the implementation. Besides the JEPA, the development of a bid contract, the leasing or purchasing of buses and other initial implementation steps may lengthen the implementation time frame. As no existing operation or service contract exists, the Pleasanton/Dublin JEPA would need to start from scratch in the formation of the agency agreements, service policies and procurement. One to two years would be a reasonable estimated time frame before actual service might occur. - 30 - Alternative 2: Tri-Valley JEPA Local Policy Control - A disadvantage to a Tri-Valley JEPA is the potential loss of some local control. By joining the agency, Livermore would lose local control; however, until a demonstrated need for more 'inter-city service is established, the Rideo service would probably be maintained intact. Funding Opportunities - With a Tri-Valley JEPA, all revenue sources would be consolidated into one agency. The size of the resulting system created by the integration of all service needs into a single system makes the agency larger and more able to apply for and obtain federal funding. Types of Operations - The operations opportunities available to the tri-valley JEPA are identical to a Pleasanton/Dublin JEPA. Capiotol Facilities - The development of capital facilities and personnel becomes more viable with the Tri-Valley JEPA. A new maintenance facility could be developed y between Pleasanton and Livermore. Also, administrative costs for operations, planning and funding can be consolidated into a small staff. Finally, marketing and other general adminstrative costs can be spread over a larger base. Service Provision - As intea-valley service needs increase, the need for efficient, coordinated transit services is paramount. The best way to assure this kind of continuity is to start planning early. The Tri-Valley JEPA would establish this situation from the outset. As service needs throughout and between Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore - 3l - occur, the JEPA could react to changing needs and available funding resources. The Tri- - Valley JEPA would also have a stronger, more unified voice in lobbying for modifications to BART express bus services in resonse to changing needs. + A Tri-Valley JEPA would logically include Alameda County. This .way all of the . unincorporated service needs are dealt with together along with local (intro-city) service - elements. .. Implementation Issues - The implementation of a Tri-Valley JEPA may be easier than Alternative I due to the presence of the existing operation in Livermore. The City has experienced staff to help insure a smooth transition for implementation. More importantly, the City of Livermore provides for the Tri-Valley an existing system at the time the JEPA is formed. The issue, of course, is whether the Cities of Pleasanton and Dublin wish to have Livermore take the lead role in the new Tri-Valley authority and the added complexity in developing agreements combining two Cities without existing service with a third that already has established service policies. Alternative 3: Expansion of CCCTA to Dublin and Pleasanton ii I Local Control - This alternative requires Dublin and Pleasanton to join an existing eight member (nine members with San Ramon) agency. As such, the loss of local control might be significant. Also, Dublin and Pleasanton would have to comply with the existing - CCCTA by-laws and procedures. - 32 - Funding Eligibility - For expansion of CCCTA, there is really no question of funding eligibility. CCCTA today is an eligible claimant and has in place appropriate staff to develop any additional claims needed to accommodate the southern expansion. As with the other joint powers options, all Dublin and Pleasanton revenue sources would be consolidated into CCCTA. 7q ... Types of Operations - Joining CCCTA .would limit Dublin and Pleasanton to the operational arrangement selected by CCCTA. This is a publicly owned and operated system. While cost-effective relative to other existing operations in the Tri-Val ley area, the ability to contract for service with a private or non-profit operation would not exist. Capital Facilities - For CCCTA, development of transit facilities is a benefit over the Pleasanton/Dublin JEPA. CCCTA will probably develop a satellite light -- maintenance/storage facility to accommodate the planned San Ramon service; therefore, a practical opportunity to size this future facility to accommodate Dublin and/or Pleasanton exists. Administration of Pleasanton/Dublin services would take place in CCCTA's Walnut Creek offices. Coupled with the sharing of facilities is the resultant operational cost efficiencies. Without some type of satellite storage/light maintenance facility, the cost of service to Dublin and Pleasanton by CCCTA would be high due to deadheading requirements. Mutually, all three cities (Dublin, Pleasanton and San Ramon) would benefit from the satellite facility. L: L - 33 - t_ Service Provision - One operations advantage of expanding CCCTA southward to Pleasanton is that future service needs along the rapidly developing Route 680 corridor could be better coordinated. Service between San Ramon and Dublin would more easily be provided. Under the other alternatives, transit travel between Dublin/ Pleasanton and San Ramon would probably involve a transfer between two systems. - -. Implementation Issues - .Implementation of CCCTA service is not clear-cut. CCCTA estimates that the San Ramon service should be started by mid-1984. The coordination, if possible, of this service start with service in either Dublin and/or Pleasanton may establish service sooner than either the Pleasanton/Dublin or Tri-Valley JEPA's. However, it is unclear whether AC transit might take exception to expansion of CCCTA into Alameda County. Moreover, whether Alameda County could be included on the CCCTA Board is not clear. These kinds of concerns may need to be evaluated by legal counsel to determine if major constraints exist. Summary Comparison To assist the Policy Committee in selecting a preferred management alternative to carry into the next study phase the benefits and disbenefits for each alternative are summarized below in Table 12. - 34 - Table 12 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES Alternative Benefits Disbenefits Null Alternative • Maintain existing local a No local control over control of Rideo in services. BART's policies Livermore. not responsive to local needs. No new facilities e Competition for funds with needed. all other BART services. • No implementation pro- • °Operations linked to other blems. BART express services. • MTC may not be responsive to Livermore requests for _ federal grants due to small size of operation. e No reasonable kind of joint maintenance or service possible for Livermore. Alt. 1-Pleasanton/ • In the short term, • Inadequate size to maximize Dublin JEPA limits control to Dublin federal funding potential. and Pleasanton. • Hard to coordinate and fund e Maintains existing local services between Pleasanton control in Livermore. & Livermore. • Eligible for TDA funds. • Not responsive to long-term inter-valley needs. • Variety of operational types possible. • Duplication of management costs. '' • Effective service coordination within and a Less voice in dealing with a between Pleasanton & BART. Dublin. • Role and integration of Alameda County not clear. • May not be able to justify new capital facilities. - 35 - Table 12 (Continued) ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION SUMMARY Alter"native Benefit Disbenefit .i . f Alt. 2: Tri-Valley • .Capable of accomm- • Some loss of local policy JEPA odating most local and- control, particularly for - inter-valley needs Livermore operation. in future. • Service coordination with • Economies of scale in San Ramon (CCCTA) may be capital facilities difficult. and management. • Larger voice in working with BART. • Alameda County easily integrated into JEPA. • More potential for Federal Federal funding due to larger size. Alt. 3: Expand • Experienced low cost • Potential legal questions CCCTA to Dublin/ operation possible. concerning crossing county Pleasanton boundary. • Potential use of • Greater loss of local policy satellite maintenance control than with other facility in 1-680 alternatives. - corridor. o Logical extension of • Difficult to accommodate Route 680 transit intra-valley needs 2 services into Dublin between Pleasanton and and Pleasanton. Livermore. • Livermore system could • State and federal transit remain intact. funding would be pooled into overall CCCTA account. • Maximum overall potential • Role of Alameda County. for Federal, other funds. in CCCTA unclear. • Limited to CCCTA public operator type of service. - 36 -