HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.3 Pleasanton/Dublin Transit Study (Oleo -�
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA -STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 26 , 1983
SUBJECT Status Report on Pleasanton/Dublin- Transit Study
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Task 4 Report ; Letter dated September 14, 1983 from
DKS Associates
RECOMMENDATION Receive report from Cm. Jeffery and discuss
alternatives under consideration by Consultant and
Policy Committee
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Undetermined at this time
DESCRIPTION DKS and DeLeuw, Cather, the Consultants who are
presently conducting the Pleasanton/Dublin Transit Study, have completed the
Task 4 report which identifies the operational and management alternatives in
providing local transit to the Cities of Pleasanton and Dublin.
The report , which is attached , identifies 7 different route alternatives for
the Pleasanton/Dublin area . At its meeting of September 7 , 1983 , the Policy
Committee reviewed the Consultant ' s report and the 7 alternatives identified.
As indicated in the Consultant ' s letter of September 14 , 19 83 , the Policy
Committee recommended that the Consultant proceed with a more detailed
analysis of alternatives 1 , 2 and 4 . The Committee also suggested some
revisions to specific local bus routings in terms of their incorporation in
that evaluation. Since the narrowing of these alternatives have , in effect ,
excluded servicing the City of San Ramon as a consideration, Cm. Jeffery and
Staff believe it appropriate for the City Council to review and consider the
alternatives presented by the Transit Consultant and provide direction to the
City Manager , as a representative of the Advisory Committee , and to Cm.
Jeffery as a member of the Policy Committee , with respect to the City ' s
position on these alternatives .
The report also identifies various management organizational alternatives for
operating a transit system. The Policy Committee directed the Consultant to
look at the joint powers agreement as the vehicle to i.mplemeot such a transit
program. It is also appropriate for the Council to consider the alternatives
that were presented by the Transit Consultant with respect to operating the
transit system, and direct Cm. Jeffery and the City Manager appropriately.
Cm. Jeffery will make a rt-port to the City Council with respect to the Policy
Committee ' s action at its last meeting at the Council meeting .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO :
ITEM NO.
aSSOCiat @S Traffic • Transportation • Engineering
Principals:
Charles E.De Leuw,Jr.,PE.
William H.Dietrich,P.E. _
Larry R. Grove,P.E.
Michael A.Kennedy,P.E. -
MEMORANDUM Hans wKorve,PE.
Richard T.Sauve,P.E.
Daniel T.Smith,Jr.,P.E.
DATE: September 14, 1983
TO: Distribution R E C E J .Y -E D,'
FROM: Mike Kennedy. /WV' SEP 2 2 1983
DKS Associates CITY OF DUBE114
SUBJECT: Transit Alternatives to be Evaluated in Detail
Pleasanton/Dublin Transit Study P8300/ 1-2
Based on inputs from advisory committee members at our September 2nd meeting and on
Policy Committee decisions made at a public meeting on September 7, we are evaluating
the following alternatives that were described in the Task 4 report:
Service Alternatives
Null Alternative - No change to existing services
Alternative I - Maximum Peak Period Frequency
Alternative 2 - Increased Peak Period Frequency
Arternative 4 - Direct Connections
In Alternatives I, 2 and 4, BART Express Bus service will be assumed to provide the
regional connections generally along the lines of . what is shown the Task 4 report
(Figure 1).
Several revisions to specific local bus routings were suggested by Advisory and Policy
Committee members. These will be incorporated into the evaluation.
Management Alternatives
Null Alternative - No Change from existing conditions
Joint Powers Agreement - Pleasanton, Dublin only
Joint Powers Agreement - Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore, County
Joint Powers Agreement - Expansion of CCCTA to Pleasanton, Dublin
Depending on environment assessment requirements, we hope to complete the Task 5
reports (Evaluation of Alternatives and impact assessment) in early October. The next
round of meetings will be scheduled accordingly.
Distribution
Policy Committee Members
Advisory Committee
P. Gelb, DeLeuw, Cather -
1419 Broadway, Suite 700. Oakland, California 94612-2069 • 4151763-2061
associates Traffic Transportation • Engineering
Principals:
Charles E.De Leuw.Jr.,PE.
William H.Dietrich.PE.
Larry R. Grove,PE.
MchaelA. Kennedy,P.E.
Hans W Korve,P.E.
Richard T. Sauve,P.E.
Daniel T.Smith,Jr.,P.E.
August 19, 1983 P83061-1
Memo
To: Distribution
From: Mike Kennedy"L*4.1L
Subject: Phase I Report Addendum — School Bus Services
Pleasanton/Dublin Transit,Study
Attached is a revised description of school district bus services for the Pleasanton/Dublin
area. This more complete information, which includes the Murray School District,
replaces pages 18 and 22 of the Phase I Report.
Distribution:
Advisory Committee Members
Policy Committee Members
Pat Gelb, DeLeuw Cather
1419 Broadway. Suite 700. Oaklan,c. California 94612-2069 415,763-2061
1
Revised 8/18/83 -~
Elderly and Handicapped Transit Services
Transportation services to elderly and handicapped persons in the area are provided by
each of the individual cities and the County. Tables 6A and 6B summarize operating and .
service characterstics of these systems. Service is generally door-to-door with advanced
scheduling required. Fares are set low, but eligibility requirements must be met and not
all types of trips are served.
Other Transit Services in the Area
Alameda County Fair: AC Transit, under contract to BART, provides supplemental
service on the U Line from Hayward BART Station to the Alameda County Fair during its
operation. Service is at 30 minute intervals Monday-Saturday from 9:30 AM - 8:30 PMT
and at 20 minute intervals on Sunday and July 4th.
School Bus Services: Table 7 presents essential characteristics of the Pleasanton and
Dublin School District bus services operated by the Districts. Fees for elementary school
services in Pleasanton are currently paid wholly by parents; the high school service will
qualify (in the coming year) for partial state reimbursement. The basic service area
covers Pleasanton and Dublin; some high school students are picked up as for away as
Sunol. The District had been losing riders to volunteer carpools over recent years, but
anticipates a 10 percent to 20 percent growth in the coming year as many of these riders
revert to the District. No major growth impacts are forecast for fleet or facilities, as
the District anticipates little increase in the school age population in the foreseeable
future.
The Murray School District in Dublin provides free. (State-funded) bus transportation for
7th and 8th grade students from the Donlon and Lydiksen.areas of Pleasanton to the
junior high schools in Dublin. There. are no bus services for the elementary school
students; high school bus service is provided by the Pleasanton/Amador District as
described above. The Murray School District has been experiencing declining enrollment .
over the past four or five years and plans to phase out.one of its two junior high schools.
over a two-year period, beginning next year. Thus the District anticipates no expansion
of fleet or facilities in the foreseeable future.
Table 7
PLEASANTON AND DUBLIN SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION SrRVICES: OPERATING, SERVICE, AND RIDERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS
Operating Characteristics
No. of No. of
Type Operator •Service Area Vehicles Drivers Fare Conditions
Pleasanton Joint School District School Bus Service
School Bus Pleasanton Joint Basic Service Area: 82/83 Sc-hap-1-Yr. Bus service Service Hours:
School District grades 1-12, 15 buses with 5 paid by parents 6:30-9:45AM,
Pleasanton/Dublin; back-ups, also 2 Fee schedule 11AM - 4 :15PH
Some pick-ups for buses for school- for coming year Daily
high. school in Sunol age mothers $110/year,
$75/semester
258 discount
for siblings
• Low-income
qualify for
half-fare
subsidy
Murray School District School Bus Service (Dubl-in)
School Bus Murray School 7th and 8th grade 3-4 buses No charge Service Hours:
District only (+ "special ed") (funded by State) 7:30-9AM
from Donlon-Lydiksen 2-4PM Daily
areas in Pleasanton
to Dublin schools
High School bus .
...service is through
Pleasanton/Amador
District .. .
Service and Ridership Characteristics `
Number of Avg. One-Way Trips Primary Trip
Te Eligibility Registrants Trips Per Month Registrants/Week Purposes Served
Pleasanton Joint School District, School' Bus Service
School Bus . Pleasanton Joint - 82/83 School Year. To/from school
School District 900-1000 Elem./High School;
90-100 Regional Occ. Prog. ;
15-20 School-age mothers
Murray School. District School. BUS. Service ' (Dublin)
School Bus Murray School 400-450 Jr. High Students To/from schoolt
District 70 785 Special Education special assistance
Students(all-grades) for "special ed"
students as needed
1
i
-- PLEASANTON/DUBLIN TRANSIT STUDY .
DRAFT
Task 4 Report
Screening of Operational and Management
Alternatives
DKS Associates.
in association with '.
DeLeuw Cather & Company
August 19, 1983
Introduction _~
This is the second interim report to be produced for the Pleasanton/Dublin Transit
Study. The first covered an investigation of.transit needs in. the area and established
zd preliminary goals and objectives for transit service. The conclusions of that report were:
e Approximately 13 percent of the population reported problems traveling
either within the area, or from the study area to places of work in the East
Bay, San Francisco, or central Contra Costa County.
® Dublin and Pleasanton are similar to many suburban communities both in their
reliance on the automobile and in their small but significant transit dependent
population.
a While there is currently a significant amount of commuting out of the area
I for work trips, the high level of employment growth should reduce the amount
- of out-commuting and lead.to considerable travel into the area.
e Existing transit services are limited in scope and do not adequately provide
for local transit needs.
® . The existing street system will not be able to accommodate all traffic
generated by projected growth; transit service will be needed to absorb some
of these trips.
The conclusions outlined above lead to'the conclusion that additional transit services are
l` needed in the area: ' This report is intended to be the next step in determining the best
P P 9
form of transit. The first sections present a preliminary screening and evaluation of
several alternatives for providing transit service in the area. The following pages
describe a series of criteria upon which the various alternatives can be compared. Also
I� included are complete descriptions of some 7 local service alternatives, and finally, a
ranking of the choices against the several criteria.
1_ - 2 -
The results of this preliminary evaluation will be used by the policy committee, with
input from the transit advisory committee and the consultant, to select 3-5 alternatives
for more detailed evaluation.
i Parallel to the selection of the best service alternative, the communities must also
choose a method of management and operation of the service. The second section of this
report presents a number of management and operational alternatives and suggests two
options for more detailed evaluation in the next phase of the study.
Service Evaluation Criteria
From the preliminary goals and objectives included in the first reports a set of nine
fcriteria have been selected upon which to evaluate the alternatives.
l_
Mobility: A service which improves the mobility of the population should be highly
rated. The best measure of mobility for transit is coverage - the percentage of the area
within walking distance of a bus stop. Bringing the bus close to the maximum number of
people improves their potential mobility. Percent coverage is thus used as a measure of
mobility.
Accessibility: A transit service must provide access to the major attractors of travel.
As defined in the previous report, the major attractors include middle and high schools,
shopping centers,* employment- centers, medical facilities, .se. nior: ,ci t izeri-hoUsi ng and_'-,. _
_
activity 'centers, parts, community centers, and government. offices Each..transit ^
alternative is ranked on the degree to which it provides accessibility.to :the'se* -.activity
lcenters.
Connectivity: This is a measure of the ease with which travel can be made between the
residential areas and the activity centers. A service providing more direct service
between these points is. to be valued more highly than a service requiring transfers. The
evaluation also accounts for the degree. to which the connections provided match the
desired connections as stated by potential users in the survey of transit needs. (The
- 3 -
survey indicated almost equal interest or need for connections to the East Bay and =
beyond as for local service).
Frequency: A measure of how often the bus runs. The more frequent the service the
more convenient it is, and the more likely it is to satisfy the stated needs. However, for
a fixed budget, there is an inevitable trade-off between frequency and coverage.
Directness: A measure of how quickly a trip can be made between major residential
areas. and desired destinations. There is again a trade-off between directness and .
coverage when limited financing is available.
Productivity: A measure of service usage. Productivity compares the ridership to the
cost of providing the service. Measures such as riders per hour, riders per mile or cost
per hour or mile are computed for evaluation of this criterion.
Transfers: . A measure of the degree to which the service requires transfers for specific
trips.
Service Duplication: Ideally, the best route layout to provide overall coverage in a cost
effective manner would have one local route on any given streets; if more than one route
- . operates on a street, it. should be scheduled so as to reduce the headway on that street.
Buses on two routes running behind each other on the some street are_an inefficient use
'of resources. This criteria thus measures the degree to which service duplication occurs.
Cost. Cost is a'criteria in two senses
® , As a comparison factor between alternatives.
s In an absolute sense, in that the cost must be within the available. funding
L limits for the area.
l-: These criteria are used in a following section of this report to compare seven local
service alternatives.
I_ - 4 -
Regional Service
Figure I illustrates the BART express bus plan cs outlined in the BART Express Bus Plan,
1981/2-1985/6 published by BART in 1981. This plan is one possible technique for
fproviding connections between communities in the Valley as well as connections to BART
Hayward and BART Walnut Creek. As shown, the U-Line would connect Livermore,
Pleasanton and Dublin, with service on to Hayward. The D-line would connect
i1
the Hacienda Business Park area of Pleasanton with Dublin and the San Ramon Valley
area to the north. Additional peak hour service would connect BART in the East Bay
with Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore.
( BART staff has indicated a willingness to operate these lines in both directions in the
peak hours to serve both the out-commute and in-commute functions. The BART Express
Plan leaves certain route specifics unclear, but it presents the opportunity, with input
from this study, to assure that specific in-commute concerns, particularly to Hacienda
Business Park, can be designed into this system. However, BART will have to be
convinced of the benefits of providing such service.
While BART has indicated that the primary function of the BART Express Bus service is
_ to provide connections to their rail lines, the goals of the Valley would appear to include
the desire for effective inter-community service between Cities in the Valley. The
eventual BART Express plan should attempt to serve both of these objectives (i.e., within
the Amador Valley and to/from the Valley). Effective mobilization of public-opinion may- -
be needed to insure that BART responds to these needs
[7�
There are other variations on the BART Express bus plan that can be explored. However,
these must be evaluated in a different way than the local service `..:The BART Express
service is entirely under the jurisdiction of BART, and thus there is no direct method of
the local decision-makers to control how the BART Express service is operated. Instead,
the evolution of BART service will rely on discussion and negotiation between local
agencies and BART. That process will begin turning this study and continue beyond.it.
The results of those discussions will be incorporated into this study as the background
regional service upon which local service must be structured.
L.
- 5 -
•�. ., Br 1� .r
Figure 1
BART EXPRESS BUS PLAN
a�'�+, � �, •'� ` �`3-' �'��� x
✓firDU IN
dF
0 o dd' i oo.
t T 1 ✓
/b/ "�, �.9 h%,,. �r• ♦k'G-�•��ft it j's o�<. '<1 �-a�P � —"-';�laC"i �•,4 �r
i ✓• \�:a.: �,0� S -i•"`r'1 '� '`'�,�,t,�i l i��l a _u'F�`G?\° .I =_
tiiriioeaiiae ROUTE .UL `' ' Yr-= '
L (Peak Hours) - M1 —'
oo6o0 o„ ROUTE UD.
(Peak Hours):. •. f ,.. � \ir ;�a�� ''`
l ROUTE UP
(Peak Hours)
.°..°..' ROUTE D —♦ �- ' ---. - o `�.-. ���_ •a''•
ROUTE U
associates E -!
l. -
Local Service
Seven alternatives for local service have been prepared for the preliminary evaluation
phase of the study. They are described in detail below. To aid in the discussion, the
following names for the alternatives have been given:
I. .. Local Service - Maximum Coverage
2. Local Service - High Frequency - Dublin Loop
- Frequency; J
3. Local Service High Dublin Linear
4. Local Service - Direct Connections
5. Local Service - BART Feeder
6. Regional Service - BART Expres Extension to Chabot
7. Regional Service - Freeway Extension to Chabot
One limitation on the design of the routes is the funding available. It is estimated that
$754,000 is available to Pleasanton, Dublin and adjacent unincorporated areas in State
TDA funds for 1983-84. If San Ramon were to become part of the service district,
another $287,000 could become. available, for an estemmated total of $1,040,000. This
would permit approximately six buses to be operated all day, six days per week in a
Dublin/Pleasanton service; eight buses all day could operate in a three. city service
district. These figures are provided simply to provide an indication of funding limitations
on service; as discussed below, there are other techniques for allocating the funds.
Alternative I - Local Service, High Coverage
This alternative -.is. intended to provide maximum coverage to the Dublin=Pleasanton _
service area. As shown in Figure 2, it would consist of three routes. Two of the routes
would travel in opposite directions in a large loop in Dublin, and then continue on
diverging routes in Pleasanton. Service could be provided at 60 minute intervals on each
route for approximately 13 hours (i.e., 6:00 AM - 7:00 PM) Monday through Friday and 9
hours (9:00 AM - 6:00 PM) on Saturdays. The routes average 13-15 miles in length,
_ requiring approximately one hour from end to end. A typical trip would take 15-30
minutes on the bus, depending on the origin and destination.
Alternative 2 - Local Service, High Frequency, Dublin Loop
Figure 3 shows a two route local system which would use four buses throughout the day,
- providing a basic hourly service over the some hours of operation as the "High Coverage"
alternative. In the peak hours, (7:00 AM - 9:00 PM, 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM) four additional
buses would be added to reduce the frequency to thirty minutes.
Another variation on service, within this alternative, would be to provide less peak hour
service, and use the available funds for an extension of the BART U-line to Chabot
College. Currently, transit service from Pleasanton/Dublin requires using the U-line to
Livermore and then transferring to Livermore's Route 3 to connect to Chabot. With the
required transfer, this trip can take more than one hour. The lowest cost direct
- connection from Pleasanton would be to extend the U-line from central Livermore via
N Street, 1-580 and on to Chabot. This would eliminate the transfer and provide a more
direct route. Implementing this concept will require negotiations with BART, whose
staff initially has not reacted positively to this idea.
While providing less coverage than Alternative I, this alternative responds better to
commute demands by providing more service when the demand is higher.
Alternative 3 -Local Service, High Frequency, Dublin Linear.
The differences'between:Alternatives 2 and 3 are .,largely in .their service.concepts for
Dublin. An investigation into the location of residences;and .the principal destinations in .
Dublin has reinforced.the conclusion that 2-way..loop service..in Dublin ,(Alternative 2)
does a better job of providing connectivity 'in Dublin than the .linear .concept in
Alternative 3 (Figure 4). With the loop concept, a trip can be made within Dublin
without the need to transfer. With the linear concept, either a transfer is required for
the West Dublin route in order to access the main shopping area in Dublin, or.the routes
must be restructured with added buses in order to adequately serve Pleasanton. This has
an important implication if service is extended north to San Ramon, as discussed in
Alternatives 6 and 7. Service extension to San Ramon implies linear rather than loop
- 8 -
Figure 2a
ALTERNATE 1 '
Local Service
Maximum Coverage
% tysa• Q\•
S� s
. •fib • � �:` � �"yn,t'
E ^ w
a • �• •
\ � 5� ` b `? ^� d Rip , • ::.�:� .'.
p u..w � c ��a..•, � � 'f 9+�•c', • ::'FORCES:�:::.
5
-- Slab. • TRAININ - .. '.
e>.tin d �` r a c,, r. • .•�.�.:'�.?:''';'.?;
U
B
IN
e
_ .�s c>r �ter{, •• •' 9 O •o� rnp t�.• S7 :..:•.:�......,> ::..
r
Uwr
PLEA
Y O.'Lat o�' ° °•
• O• O 4 � �
,.�•4w wt u.,.tw 2 �.
�o on
SA
o. eeee rrrr r re.r rrr �•r�
., - \ t• o rrr 0 Qr quo ° _ osop•o,w . .
', -' v .,b'VM1J My►dC ��1�'r�.Km` I •IUEM�<t M JAR Q±�� n� .' _ ..IBM
BART Express --I.. e =�-6! � 4 �.A»r;~v,<, �lL.,(!� '. •p y�
noew® Route U + °.�` ,�a�, � , — �--`I
Local Service /,�w'•��o �i i ��°�,� .�;'�' ` A. i—V-
nrerQeQrrr Route 1 /\� L,�L : • - a�""
o••o•o• Route 2 ✓" < ,
.� Route 3
i 11.
`� a
associates ! °a= - \\
y. Figure 2b•
>'; s i ALTERNATE 1
`M Local Service -
- Maximum Coverage
BART Express M...n µ
Route U •
Local Service "
nsrmuim Route. l e Or r
....... 'Route 2
�• .�.® Route
tA
. � '�.�K�•s\�y= ���. 4�`� p g � ..n•wrr.a.� , �-Yt4 C c�,p1
,o � ,. rt•�.�... � � � tip.. � ,> •+?`o^:;. ���,t-�"` ����a �
' �:`.Y� � tit� i Q_4 L � � tt A �.y,.,•,c•+ i - .
�_... • 'dam Y � - "�•-
eti! • ;9_�— .. - w� L�� ti PJC�'n'�+.os°� 5 / �Y `y } �� t
�}�J � �,,,,�..v'' c � � cr,r�r j.. TJ r r ,.m / y � ��' „�4, `sr � pa `-•w r'� �
�} 6s^ \ S. 5 �..� b� ,.J�' �GS,� / � '� 6 ,. am..r. w� '6 � �•_� •tr. .,a`' p
,'+i '` 6\'✓�1`':�9 ��� ar � `> sr'a"! rr .... � • � S I: -d r�aTn - n
'�y,f,a Job`• F\' E;, U r{ cn.sW. A. •' (� !v'' _ 3 y +` "�
. �h.''of ,�� %�� ' w�c.'L .,.RG\�ft#s��DS�� w ••..�A �^ t��ir '�r.7 _ '°'"�„ � : /�c•si` cr
w;
i
Ili
it I
associates
ALTERNATE 2
Service
High Frequency
Dublin Loop
IA
ik
DUB
so-
as
Om
7 BART Express
Loca 1' Service
sivimmaii Route
associates
-' 4p Figure 3b
ALTERNATE 2
CM
ON Local Service
High Frequency
4 sue- Dublin Loop
BART Express ' ���" „' a�•
m m m Route U ;, °� z
Local Service
:•
r
nnrnnn Route 1 a 1 n
Route 2
� '► .w
r
... ,��•,'f,4'A bi � i �,ad ...t• c.. ti ...+ '9 _ i ? �s, cf �, ��'
• -t 3"� ,” c5+'�f1°` fi a.'r'"� cr• � 1 6 ��,�y� ��
S'� '4� ...v"� 'v 4G� 4,� � �``�'•� b.�� V �{ wvp-� /� asr ;. - 1�e;
Iy 'is.�' �D�^ ��1`'�\G;'A'T��h P ,. ;�' vy".ai D'�S ".►CZ't L .A "4' �°.
. �1 •G'�o-^l` �9 Tye i .�:..^w;q '�'u, sr • + •- E � y'`, d ��� 9 '
>.. �{. t 1 / Fmk Y'° �A': •�r: �� � �_ m's+..'i'- �` •.. �Fr... rc � s.
� F Y- ;ALAr 1 r •i...c sr_(: w �;.` a �a ° 'L_ 4• � =
r 'Q�a f ,j• �e`S` � �,uC u`1 y� en.sav s^� /. _E - 3 it . fib. s° _
I +{f ���r`. ��s•'�r� � �.,� <��.CRnU pi,te - c� •:� ♦ �h' `- ',j_'- $ c'p.`.'
+'w
� l sY� 1 w•.3 �<TT" } � ■ Y 4 �Ty C � +�° � '? •,+•ac` \ _
y•yl a. �~ \�4 p51� l ty �R � � ��]1 /�..1 �
t. \ -1 atµK %sow" '• �' .'4/S 1 _•
! IS
4 �
Dk
\ /�.;=:::::":.;`:`' .,� 9c ��,:I""r-_vim , •
SW
associates
L_ '
~~.-~ -_���---�----'---�'------~------�'-�-------���--'--�----�--------' ---------'---------------� '
�
..
_
�
�
Figure 4b
Cirl
Ofd Local Service -
High Frequency
Dublin Linear
BART Express
Route U
Local Service
ism Route
Route 2
Lj
CO
CM
IS
Ke
associates
Figure 4a
ALTERNATE 3
Local Service -
\ High Frequency
Dublin Linear
INS
1 `
7
s
r a ._» [[ s '�• o ;�' r roR_CFs
_� \` arr f NcU nr.op � 'a � r J*-•. ^+ ..•ry b �'� '
\ •a
o a
- `� ° I�.o• ;; F .. _ T � �.'•TA,VNNrG AREA.::.....
x
fin. 4� • �� �__ 9 _ '''.J`:;::::`r::
DUB IN
Uw
Toy EA
OP, A .
I
• 15 eR uw.[an 3 3
4 0 ♦' E a `
1 - S�f • mr��i Yom• _° + 3 ' �p*I
LLL:::��� C �M c' \!���� ' :. '.:�e"""a ;.cam r�n.i u + 1 . �♦pY
• a`jl � -. �yI3��� �M.wc.a � ��` dl
T"
wsr' -A- -4.
BART Express -� `T•9 '�� !' .;. ';:' ' : ,. n 1 -
®®® Route U �, .� '30 ■;°""
Local Se ry ice
eeeeelaim Route 1 �� of F'•j' :
e.e.ee. Route 2
(_ � ;,'•lam�� ��_�� �,i ,,� I
_ } w
was aces
s
service in Dublin, and this is thus a consideration for Dublin in determining how the
service district should be set up.
I,l
Because the loop concept (alternative 2) places more mileage in Dublin, it provides less -
c coverage in Pleasanton. The "Dublin linear" service permits service, with 4 buses, to be
extended to the area south of downtown Pleasanton and the neighborhood north of Las
Positas and east of Santa Rita Road.
Alternative 4 - Local Service - Direct Connections
I_ This alternative was suggested by a member of the advisory committee in response to the
first round of conceptual alternatives prepared by the consultant. It would use four buses .
on three routes as illustrated in Figure S. The buses would be scheduled at 60 minute
frequencies, but in a manner so as to provide 30 minute frequency over the central
1 portion of the routes. As such, the concept provides more frequent service to the area
served, but it provides less coverage than Alternatives 2 and 3, which use a similar
number of buses in the off-peak. This alternative thus presents the trade-off of coverage
versus service frequency. By shortening the routes, in both Pleasanton and Dublin, this
concept provides a faster more direct service to the area served than the above
alternatives.
Alternative 5 Local Service, BART Feeder In Figure 6, a concept,,is developed in
which the BART Express U-line would be revised into a "freeway flyer".making limited .,
stops in Dublin and Pleasanton, and continuing on to Hayward or Livermore. The local .
. -lines ..would connect with the BART,U-line in Dublin and Pleasanton.
This concept has some negative effects on patronage in that an additional transfer is
l imposed on people who would need to use the local bus to access the BART U-line.
However, by speeding up the U-line, it could attract more park-and-riders. There is thus .
I` a trade-off in service quality for these two groups of regional travelers.
-
12 -
Figure 5a
�LU&::.. ALTERNATE 4
let
Local Service
Direct Connections
Eli
U,t
PCES
iw � qb
� 7
•4 ,up. 'M' N `a`c i :TRAINING•AREA•••.'.
DUB 1N p �•.,,•"qr a,y � '' -. ...
.3
oA
w"
wrr
__ �+� • �� ; � s •O• fir`, � �
•I;. n SL%. ! � p l�lR � \ MQ `tom � -::[:::�.i:.:.?:
sO
.A Q OR
ll o b
c f•• 4 D0. " Sicy,.(,boe
l nnr�r +
nor r rr i _
�V y - ., .. C }Cr�� � 't --�✓.`y[I µ,hp _ � .. ,�
f � �rP••� I t•1�,� �
BART Express
�-t ®l:r® Route U a�t
Local Service „ •c' v 'c+�` 3�. ° 'N! ��V,•
relnrllnr Route kk••••••• Route 2 � � ,�s'`�� " "?- p �•
- Route
• � 5�y•���„�. .c ,tip'-n•� � ' /;/ .
,
Q •r _
a� ,•as=�a'�= �f
associates c" 17 ; .
c �
: -� Figure 5 b
u,: Y ALTERNATE 4
�...ON Cl" _ Local Service -
•� ,.� Direct Connections '
4 �
BART Express
o®em Route U *°•" - ,"` -'1
M � G
_ Local Service
monnnuo Route 1
z?'
u •...... Route 2
SI
N1
G = yam" '`. �ac�"��J_°".�• , f
1 =� .�.`•
`.
`dr _ ain �� - gc•,,.cy cr.`"/ .t'r,s'N ■ � s+ �o�/
0 A 3 •" 3 a_ • a• + pp � 4 9
Iq' h. • 'S 4'i/ Z N'P's h
I. 3�"`ya� �,y��, . '� w 1,�� bow • r/ R,io./ �•' ^G GS :,J co"<„ :� �1
� �A�--� r vw,.r..' ` C et < .� �! oroi�'y J � = •�. "T e.'.
,�� •y'�e�s s�cy,b a7 �r :� bti n ° � _� -i`'. '6 n +[�, � -t
. _ � ^.aa, i �' i'�.•5��`? � c�.,suy, • 'J !� -. Y-` � � it ,..�•r\,W.�+ ...n.
r #. -rd,�.✓ .`t •r`��j - � _1�`��� �a--ira-a� z ea - - • J �';� r_ %,;,�_._�`$ �`` + ° -
+ �1 .us•? tom. �' .. •"i -y ^ n,`1. �,, .g ! " z m �°" uc ^\:.
-- \ 0 Y .% ^,.�r x 'r r Ck- a 5��..c"C A s' " �'n n•n 7 � \vz� - _�
M t s `�sl�.a .�i ►v eE"rt ,h f 4� ,; - - �e`(�' _ ,
��.CO -
�F4
dR
W
BMA
associates
�_.
..:•.���...:. �\. [tai:.•::::�:,:..
Figure 6a
ALTERNATE 5
Ty� ( � `� ;...:yes ..+• ; _i r)
':Yl• ` Local Service
BART Feeder
j W r
•y
ro r N
- •'+� + of wl' '�,` .:•7—W(;AREA*::C r:
v. 3 V/ y. •o � 4tero6m. r
DUB 1 �.
N
w d
DUHIJM� � Of`
OR
\ ` •
o. .• . . ill
\` a ierioiil
�\'f'C 4 � � � -:.�:'1,�yy+C` •.1 yA�D Nr. Cr 000.0
. - ` t t•(`}"t C.C. a�. '`�A� �5[ MF•f- �p � - G,. � 4. �yqM ° �r.
BART Express =; Wa�P� ?'.=.�
em®t= Route
U.
a
Local Se rV I Ce n °e4
nirfiiiiiu Route 1 C `0-
0990090 Route 2
..�.. Route 3 1' 1° •�y "'t�
/
.c
, associates C��-�' . ��_J1,
- 1 Figure 6b
ubw ALTERNATE 5
Local Service -
s
•«;"�= BART Feeder
-
BART Express �µT"
Route V w - _ »•�� z
n '
Local Service
S 1 n
-w na1nuus Route 1 '
....... Route 2
�. Route
_ + .....`.+�-fin. P �.� a ..•' � fT •L� •�
'( ti ti�•a PST , C � _,pO +`1 • j of � Cb >1
:,ik � �'�', ~.*.C.�'-,r��.�s. �♦ S �o " a �����Yty +C c .cam _
°° n �''` ��:ist � ,} ;.fit �a ..�• ��,. a s �c; '.+ xlx" � .
I J G`tY a` + j � = °1 1� Q -� ���YY��}. 0 +'+t. 1 ,1// ��•\,.
.. "'oeT 'dY j ,[\o ..�� � • .. „w;°..o '[. c,'w': rrrt.,r � � �[;.,°�s+� t
,I
aY. •e<, ° � 8 -'X�s __ 3 � � e +sue 1'-°" t1 +"i—�s i .y,.w+,
����+ ��rt.�` ,off" <� 4[t f. � + ��, s "�%. +•'� it'�.
✓{{ }F✓ 4 .�•'.�;: 'V ��/dT 4.r �` t�r-� < Y BEY r''`A• '^' t[r \`OA ��, �rYr•
_ ,�} b -'s rte– ��` ��?'\`"`.��—L.a [T°.•. 8 •�r •„a..u;�.d.�I E•� a a` .°'_� -F'e'; "� ,
�.l y`�! / i'v.♦'`�` D�44 �r `ST.y�T K Si..E• �f •�' §Tll y f - �p"Vr M _
�y%: { ,�e� .4ia\..,\ D`T � Onrshy '� �•, < � - cl .✓�i .'fir ^•'wr
vi. C `f .�•' „�' G- E cQf'C C.r '� .lb _ = �'� - - J +5 .
OD\DS- _• �' +�may• '',
MirQ yCY� �t \'![f•r[n ',, tea• �'`[ � J ��' n ,J �1 1
associates
I -
Figure 6 shows a three route local bus service which would feed the BART U--line as well
ras provide local service. The three routes would operate at 60 minutes all day, and thus
l- have a local area service level equivalent to Alternative 1.
Alternative 6 - Regional Service - BART Express Connectin to Chabot College -
Alternatives 6 and 7 are two concepts which tie San Ramon and the Chabot College
connection into the Pleasanton/Dublin service area. Alternative 6, in Figure 7, would use
the concept of extending the BART U-line from central Livermore to Chabot College as
described under Alternative 2. San Ramon would be served by two lines, one starting
south and west of the Crow Canyon/1-680 interchange, the other starting in Bishop
�. Ranch. The two lines would travel north-south through San Ramon and then follow the
linear routes in Dublin similar to Alternative 3. The concept would require seven buses
Joperating from 7:00 AM - 6:00 PM Monday - Friday, and 9:00 PM - 6:00 PM Saturday;
added funding would be needed for the U-line extension. The service frequency would be
60 minutes.
J Freeway Alternative 7 - Re g Y
Regional Service - F Connection to.Chabot College - This concept
includes a direct connection from San Ramon, Dublin and Pleasanton to Chabot College.
fAs shown in Figure 8, Route I would be established as a regional route between all three
cities and Chabot College. It is, in a sense, an alternative connection to Chabot if an
1 agreement with BART on the extension of;the U-line does not .work out. Route I has
been designed to m_ inimize indirect service to, its regional nature. A.second
line .would start."in San Ramon and connect to Dublin and Pleasanton, using a .more .
divergent route to provide adequate coverage in Pleasanton. A third route would loop in,
.. eastern Dublin, and continue to Stoneridge Center and other Pleasanton destinations.
This concept, requiring nine buses to provide 60 minute service, is somewhat outside the
I_ limits of available funding, though population growth could make it feasible in the
future. It also has a considerable amount of service duplication since it is in part
performing the regional connectivity that the U-line serves. The alternative was created
1... -
- IS -
�.P._ Figure 7a
ALTERNATE 6
a / Regional Service -
BART Express
Connection to
Chabot College _
r.r. lu�� S C rr.^�n O .• cin
w,�P 3 9 Pp S wONnr4 CAN
1 ■pgn6 V� I,o v K S 8 eJ� WCUTIVE ►t'MI.
NN
-•� �� i r a� r.rQn r D• Z rP
Mato C M.�, v� c „ '\ .•Y' DM t ^ p °
C1
QTY / ��'.! 11r• ~ DO
NN
.OLIM/y
4 4sa
wnan
pl a
ID
r.m _
.• ; y^ pfF`•,m � fi 9� roman
a 5
BART Express
®® Route U
rt 'O'•O? ti
r Local Service .
J - '
oreoaesoma Route 1 � ,� ,�°?` �
ai ��. N
Route 2
R
.. ... .. a.coq. snomr o•.a.t ; - q _' RiiyN 3.. i •
No
4
2
-
associates
I_
Figure 7b
"°a: ALTERNATE 6
Regional Service -
` BART Express
c••
•�� '? �''�" a`. i Connection to
Chabot College _
w
IL
1
- i♦ ..t!„0•��`; a `�V,� � -
•- Q� � � � • 3 i, 'r r' fir.,,
1 •.n
i
AR
DUB IN '' F, ,� 4
' WBClN•y - � _ �� � iCE
d- prh.S W }lye r1 q 0�
i °.
0
... .. ... �etl - t 4.`�yi•u, C C` �� `„y sc a!'I'�cr u ! ;�_ a� ;�°. wetFwono °�
snaur I
BART Express
Route U
Local Service ' ' ^"
r
119111eeros Route 1
-•- .®®® Route 2
V
ya
y� 1� 71 ' ♦n v�aN �
1
associates 1 J f
Figure 7 c
::. . Y• ALTERNATE 6
Cl" Regional Service -
...
BART Express
Connection to =
Chabot College -
BART Express •. °d�`o,�'' �<
aa� Route U
Local Service 1
_a
nnruamn Route 1
o � 1
- ® Route 2
:� .�t<• ..d' ,�a�+ era � �
-r• 11
. ti�..0 y: YA b+ � T e 5 wt• o. ..n L 1 �)r V iv
'�:�-+'f•`r�{!c 3 t :� * � Sic '� •�,,.:•� � 1 ��
3 .a�• t=`y' 1�' •�,.s�,j �F+rt c`'.• o�•s cr•• «`' i �'J '� �
�!),�� _^w �'1 f� ��L Q � �n ...goo• , ./�� y /y ��st. e`�
�"'�` •v,,�` a A�' �apt '°.= i � e iw l;oP. t�°/ � t ytr..^ / �
,y ` w.'3'4.. ddy� 4,r •'•'7 '.,, / a`� —iC 4'
sy
A .t} � a '•5 � �� •1�- O�I .... PP' n w/'Y �..a.«!�^`°'� a � •..Sj. �a P '`'''.
cT 's f _•
Yir?: L> �eY .�,�y,•axP TYq cn�swy rt /: 'r,a-. 3 3F.r ..,ti r a. ..
•off' o• .% .�� � •, C D � „}y+, � �-1 �� - � —_ lr �<`r, �
E �c ��'�� . � ,t 1 SIR ��4 t f{ �o• � �;J.^i'�'- .- r �
i
associates
l_.
{ Figure 8 a
r rs. n Y• a ��' �rss
ALTERNATE 7
s ci Regional Service -
4, b
'O'°" '' Freeway Connection
to Chabot College
s• L y --
�,
m"of
rrpd� susv, �' AO L W"RIS
C St..o Oro •� L j L
�r 4
a*•
LN
V� •� 1 i
0
.OLU.Gf
• .. AC_� S�br sa.o
BART Express
®® �` Sa �3' �k stl g S� •f�4,.QB c...°a°. wo
® Route U ml .
Local Service �. _, .,.GOUT °_�y�= `..�•q
mmmaxem Route
....... Route Z
Route
lea
° --�.`':�:.'. '•gip., n'
L
associates
Figure 8.b
ALTERNATE 7
Regional Service
Freeway Connection
•��\? 'r �, �` ''3 to Chabot College
_�M �
FOACES
DUB IN
� '•ca ..<wP •'%�� � .ti �v, , J'•` car`'.. Y'ory y-,"S
R
i
w .
4
1 -
1
Jt,
}
r�
o� a
J j}{Ij
n 7 1�+ � ��•_' ` , F4� •'fir b� a ��\::.:'.:::..:•:::.:•'.,::..'
�y h
�•,1 �,V a�� per•:
• • • Lr� �*
•rww t �V •• f
�'• , y
�r UWT
g
dl8l/Nr •-1 �' �1
\ ♦
OR
•
"'t .. F 1 ��.AS`"� v. C a '�� -.•+'1 sr •,Of'(- ,� 5 -� �,c,. ,€Q R .I - .
' 3 °• �3 M -' % R J0. -
w mnanA I
BART Express m°"I
c ®rte may Route U
Local Service
l-.". mnrmmmmmmm Route 1 ✓ �- t 3 i
....... Route 2 �i1r
�® Route 3
�associates 1 'IT
.o
. . b .• Figure 8 c
urrt + ALTERNATE 7
ON Regional Service -
�. •I Freeway Connection
to Chabot College -
BART Express -
�s. Route. 0 °" w IA
w
Local Serviced •
.� nuto1eni Route 1
.......•. Route 2 1 .�
® Route 3 �� S
ell
? '� ° „r•°�,' .w sous+ n°I� ��
t
ms's ,y`. '� • - �c•r.nws - t7 ::.a _ r - 7dr1� i / ii
w
• .M;^':t=: h• g 4,, �,.��'7 .ro a �•/ .�vo. 1/ L' �' ' J ��,�,• `�
} .�^�,�a�� "�� o'''/—_ n'� ... `'�a`''�•by``-'Gf' n,ow, � �4.�/1 .::,• �� G b off' `<�°�_.-�S`.°yr
' C a:•' �°y ,'��-is�'cs'•`_y si.. on,s�,M � �`Ao'$��:' _4 3 = `�•b. -
� � I�. s . �"" ,r �.. C: � S mss,••� r'e��•� rr ° sr � v�P � �`.
.. ��; .�' ' �/ tit�� sir '��`•ln .� !'.8 bn n �!'� i
m 9 d i
DK
w SE
�_.. ��v� �- ��`°,�°'a:us� - '• 3 .rte '1
- \� �� -' -�•�� L °'�� � it
associates
principally to underscore the benefits that will accrue to the local area if maximum use
and flexibility in usage of the BART Express Bus service is made.
r Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives
-
The evaluation process in this study is being conducted in two .stages. An initial
P:jj evaluation, presented in thin section, is made in largely a qualitative manner, to screen
the alternatives down to 3-5 for further consideration. The second stage evaluation will
` focus on those alternatives in more detailed and more qualitative terms.
In order to eliminate as much bias as possible on the part of the evaluator, the technique
used in this study is to rank each alternative with respect to the criteria, rather than to
rate the sites. For example, an evaluation was made about how much coverage of the
study area each alternative provides. The alternatives can then be ranked from I to 7 in
order of coverage. A similar ranking procedure can be used for all of the remaining
criteria. The logic behind this approach is that clear rationale can be given to preferring
one alternative to another for any criteria - admitting that viewpoints and values will be
Idifferent among individuals and can be a focus of discussion. This technique is believed
to be less biased than assigning an arbitrary rating to each criterion for each choice since
the rating would be highly reflective of the individual doing the rating.
l : .
Table I is a tabulation of the rankings given each alternative for the various criteria.
The following paragraphs amplify the data in the table.
Coverage
Alternatives I and 5 (maximum coverage and BART feeder) have essentially the some
local route structure and provide the maximum coverage. By comparison, Alternative 2
(high frequency) does not serve the area south of downtown Pleasanton or the
neighborhood east of Santa Rita Road and north of Las Positas. A larger part of the
neighborhood bounded by Las Positas, Santa Rita, Valley and Hopyard is unserved.
Alternative 4 (direct connection) misses the public housing area on Dougherty Road in
- 18 -
• i
I•
Table
PRELIMINARY RANKING OF ALTERNATIVES
Accessi-
bility
Mobility (Activity) Directness Service Composite Composite
Alternative (Coverage) Centers Connectivity Frequency Pleasanton Dublin Transfers Duplication Cost Ranking Order
I.Local Service- 1.5 5.5 5 5.5 5 2.5 2 2.5 4 3.72 4
Maximum Coverage
2.Local Service-High 6 4 3.5 2.5 2 2.5 2 2.5 2 3.09 1
Frequency-Dublin Loop .
3.Local Service-High 3 2 6 2.5 5 6 5 2.5 4 3.12 2
Frequency-Dublin Linear .
4.Local Service- 7., 7 3.5 1 1 2.5 2 6 1 3.66 3
Direct Connections
S. Local Service- I.S.` _5.5 ," 7 5.5 5 2.5 7 S 4 4.90 6
BART Feeder !, '
6.Regional Service 5 : 2 1.5 5.5 5 6 S 2.5 6 4.62 S
BART Express Ext. to
Chabot
7.Regional Service- 4 :: 2 ":;, 1.5 5.5 5 6 S 7 7 4.94 7
Freeway Ext. to Chabot
f
NOTE: Where ranking is equal,median value of tied ranks is shown. i
I I
Dublin and part of the area west of 1-680 in Pleasanton. The two regional alternatives
provide similar coverage to the three best local services and cover most of San Ramon.
Accessibility
All of the alternatives provide coverage to virtually all of the major activity centers in
Pleasanton and Dublin. The regional services provide service to Bishop Ranch and to
Chabot College. Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7 can also serve Chabot. Alternative 2 misses
employment centers south of Downtown; Alternative 4 misses Foothill High School and
- has one route which does not penetrate downtown.
Connectivity
f
By definition, the two regional alternatives provide the best connectivity since they
cover a wider area and thus join more of the desired origins and destinations. The high
frequency and direct connection alternatives (2 and 4) rate high in connectivity due to
their directness of service, providing the best connection between major residential areas
and activity centers. The poorest connectivity is provided by Alternative 5 (BART
feeder) which requires additional transferring to travel out of the area; this is a direct
contradiction with stated desires for high quality service to the East Bay and other
areas. Aside from this alternative, the differences in connectivity between the
alternatives is not great.
Frequency
Alternative 4 (direct connections) can be designed to provide half hour headway on a
trunk segment of the service area all day long, and thus provides the best frequency to
Lpeople along that corridor. Alternatives 2 and 3 provide half hour frequency in the peak
hours. The other choices provide 60 minute service all day.
l_
I .
- 20 -
Directness
This ranking has been made separately for the Dublin and Pleasanton service areas. In
Dublin, the choice between loop and linear service appears significant. More no-transfer
connections can be made in Dublin with loop service. While the trips may be longer in
distance on the loop, they should take less time since there is no transfer time involved.
This choice has implications on extending service to San Ramon. As shown in
Alternatives 6 and 7 (regional service), San Ramon extensions appear to imply linear
service in Dublin.
In Pleasanton, Alternative 4 has the best direct service, accomplished partly by reducing
the service area. As the area grows, the directness in this service may need to be
reduced to serve new areas. Alternative 2 is also somewhat more direct than the others,
which emphasize coverage over directness.
Transf ers
Because it requires transfers of more passengers to the BART V line, Alternate 5 (BART
feeder) is the lowest ranked on this criterion. The services with linear routes in Dublin
also require added transfers, and are thus ranked lower than the others, which are
essentially equal. . .
:Service Duplication'=
Alternative 7, the regional alternative with 1-580 freeway connection to BART, has the
most service duplication as much of it duplicates the BART express U-line; there is also
duplication in Santa Rita Road. Alternotive.4 (direct connection) has a potential for
duplication unless, as proposed, the schedules are designed to avoid overlapping or close
following of buses. The remaining services are essentially equal.
- 21 -
Cost
Alternative 7, requiring nine buses all day, is the most costly, and (depending on ridership
and fare levels) probably extends beyond the current funding limits of the area.
Alternative 6, requiring seven buses, is the next most costly, but within the funding
limits. Alternative 4 requires four buses in operation, is the least costly, with the others
fitting in between.
Productivity
Productivity is the criterion which measures ridership against the cost of providing
service. Detailed ridership forecasts are part of the next phase of the study. Thus
P
roductivity ranking has not been included in the preliminary evaluation.
I
Summary of Evaluation
I. .
The purpose of this preliminary evaluation is to reduce the number of alternatives to be
analyzed in greater detail. From the comments above, it would appear logical to exclude
Alternative 7 (Regional Service Freeway Connection to BART) on the basis of cost,
recognizing that. it could be a viable choice in the future. Also, given the apparent
advantages of loop service in Dublin, it would be logical to exclude Alternative 3.unless
service to Sari Ramon is considered desirable by all parties,-in which case Alternative 6
would be.a logical starting point. .Finally, Alternative 5, .BART .feeder, should be.
excluded since it reduces the quality of service to BART Express riders. The alternatives
suggested by the consultant for further evaluation are thus: .
Alternative I - Maximum Coverage
`.` Alternative 2 - High Peak Period Frequency
Alternative 4 - Direct Connection
Alternative 6 - Regional Service - BART Express Connection to Chabot
- 22 -
Management/Organizational Alternatives
The following discussion is offered to assist Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore in
narrowing management and operational alternatives. There are two primary areas that
need to be discussed. First is the question of public versus private owned and/or
operated service. This decision does not necessarily relate to the kind of service that
may be provided; however, it does concern elements such as system management, service
3 adjustment flexibility and policy control. While the type of service, say BART feeder,
might best be provided by a public entity, the service can be operated under a number of
management alternatives. Secondly, there appear to be three principal management
alternatives available: a valley-wide Transit District; a combined Pleasanton/Dublin
and/or other City system; and, the individual City system option. The selection of one of
these alternatives is primarily a choice of policy control and joint service operations
benefits rather than the mannor by which the service is provided (contract, separate
district, etc.).
Prior to the selection of an appropriate management and organizational structure for the
Pleasanton/Dublin area an understanding of four basic issues is required. These are:
e Regional versus local service areas
e Service coordination
o Cost benefits and disbenefits; and ,
• Public versus private ownership and operation
Regional Versus Local Service Areas
Today BART under contract with AC Transit operates bus feeder services to the Bay Fair
and Hayward stations. While this service is intended by BART as regional, many local
trips occur on these routes. BART defines "local" as intra-valley travel and any pas-
senger trips without destinations to BART. It is important to understand that the BART
feeder routes currently serve both regional and local travel.
f - 23 -
I--
Currently, all decisions regarding the BART feeder routes are made by BART. As
BART's primary goal is to provide.regional service, local service needs are not considered
directly. The accommodations of local travel by these routes is purely by chance.
Additionally, there is no guarantee the BART feeders can be adjusted or expanded to
meet local needs. Recent discussions with BART staff confirm these facts. BART views
j; the accommodation of local service needs to be a local problem and responsibility;
therefore, BART is reluctant to compromise the regional passenger needs to benefit local
needs.
This condition, while consistent with BART objectives, is neither cost-effective,
practical or responsive to needs in Pleasanton or Dublin. To facilitate both regional and
local service needs under separate management structures could require a duplication of
service. Within the Pleasanton area, for example, service to Chabot College can most
cost-effectively be provided (today) by the easterly extension of the BART feeder
services.. However, BART due to its regional passenger perspective, does not view such a
service extension as either their responsibility or in their best interest. To
accommodate local service to the College may therefore require the development of a
new (local) route that would undoubtedly parallel portions of the existing feeder service.
Generally, riders view transit service as if it were a single system. They are not con-
cerned about the complexities regarding regional versus local priorities or BART versus
AC transit. Therefore, if a regional trunkline or feeder route goes between downtown.
Pleasanton and Dublin, they see no reason why a local trip cannot nor should not be made
on the bus. At issue then is the need to preserve flexibility"within the available transit
services .'to insure they are utilized as much as possible. Another aspect of -the
regional/local service issue is the need to provide services.that match passenger travel
patterns. In the Pleasanton-Dublin area people travel relative to their needs, not in
response.. to City boundaries or service jurisdictional limits. To restrict travel patterns .
within an area due to these kinds of artifical constraints produces more dis-benef its than
benefits.
This issue of regional versus local is most evident in Morin County. There the Golden
Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District operates all public transit service with
- 24 -
the exception of elderly and handicapped service. The County of Morin contracts for
local service rather than operate its own system. Given the topography of Morin, a
single system operationally makes sense. Regional and local transit services occur within
the same general corridors thereby producing extensive service duplication if two
separate systems were provided. Unfortunately, the service goal of the GGBHTD district
is to provide regional service between Morin and San Francisco. Consequently, the,
regional route structures are primarily designed for regional travellers. The district does
provide local service under contract with the County; however, these routes are
integrated into the entire system (for public convenience and information purposes) such
_ that the public sees only one operation. In actuality, the local service component is
funded by the County while the regional service is funded by the GGBTHD. From the
rider's perspective, the above scenario presents an ideal condition.
In recent years.as Federal and State funds have diminished to support both regional and
local services, the County of Morin and GGBHTD have raised fares and reduced service.
Notwithstanding the public perception of a single transit district, complaints regarding
local service, even on jointly financed routes, have been dealt with by the County not the
District. Further, the District has not been willing to modify its regional route structure
to facilitate local needs. This condition, where two policy boards have been:established
to implement independent objectives with a single operation, has resulted in extensive
public confusion and mistrust.
The evaluation of regional and local needs has led the consultant to suggest that future ."
-7 transit plans should not assume BART will continue to accommodate existing or future
J levels of intea-valley local service. The Cities could confront the BART board on this
issue; however, the planning of local areawide tronsit'service should be viewed as a local
I� responsibility. . Two possible implementation options are: an areawide transit district
with a sphere of influence designed to-accommodate sub-regional inter-city needs; or the
establishment of a Joint Powers Agency (JPA) which independently or in concert with
Alameda County provides for inter-city service.
I_ -
- 25 -
I _
Service Coordination
The success or failure of any transit system is dependent upon the extent to which all
services are coordinated. This involves on-time performance of schedules, the provision
of logical transfer points, the development of coordinated public information and the
uniformity and compatibility of fares and transfers.
Within the Pleasanton/Dublin/Livermore area, as the number of transit operations in-
I`j creases, the ability to coordinate separately operated systems becomes difficult. On-
_ time performance relative to single and/or multiple transfers as well as inter-system
transfer arrangements produce complex operational and policy problems. The provision
of homogeneous services mitigates these problems. One effective way to insure
adequate service coordination involves the need to require comprehensive review of all
inter-related services whenever service adjustments are being planned. While this
arrangement is possible between independent operations, it is most successful over time
when the service assessment is conducted by a single entity.
In Pleasanton or Dublin, the coordination of limited local services to BART feeder routes
or other service is generally straight forward. Unfortunately, transit service needs do .
not necessarily follow these kinds of service linkeges. A wide variety of transit needs
exist within the valley. To accommodate these needs at once through a set of
I- coordinated services is difficult enough without trying to accomplish it using a number of
u independent operations. The types of service and scheduling needs which must be
coordinated include: BART feeder transfers, school hours, arrival and departure times at
Iemployment centers and transfers between inter-city and local services.
The problems regarding regional and local priorities noted concerning BART feeder -
services could also occur between intea-valley operations. Service coordination and
s L_ compatibility, therefore, is a key element in selecting the appropriate management and
l operational method for providing service. The levels of required coordination, of course,
are dependent upon the service needs which must be served.
I_ - 26 -
rrCost Benefits and Disbenefits
I �
The provision of cost-effective service is the objective of any well run transit system.
I There are numerous benefits which occur when a variety of service needs are accom-
modated within a well-integrated transit system. The development of a transit program
[ operated as a single system for a'variety of jurisdictions creates cost-benefits due to the
following:
6 Minimal duplication of service
ri Joint maintenance and fuel allocation
l e Limited or consolidated administration functions
` ® Consolidation of monitoring and reporting functions
e Simplification of State and/or Federal reporting functions through the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
:I
The duplication of service due to multiple system operation is not cost-effective. The
'I expansion of BART feeder services within an existing service corridor is more cost-
. effective than instituting on_additional local route to serve local destinations. Further,
dead heading (time and distance between the yard and designated route start point) costs
can be minimized if all services are integrated within a single operation. Finally, the use
of peak-hour vehicles for mid-day off-peak service minimizes the cost-effects of using
drivers for only AM and PM peak-hour times.
rq
Joint maintenance is a significant benefit when several operations are involved. The
centralization of maintenance distributes .costs throughout a,wider base. With small .
r localized services, joint maintenance with the cities public works or school district might
:.I be most appropriate. However, once a significant expansion of transit service is
achieved, the demand for more responsive maintenance is needed. A separate transit
L maintenance facility is often warranted.
The economies associated with the consolidation of administrative staff, monitoring,
system reporting and fund application functions can be significant. As most transit
operations are subject to the some reporting, service, planning, and administrative re-
27 -
quirements, the consolidation of these functions into one or two agencies reduces the
need for duplication and extensive inter-agency coordination and review. If consolidated,
marketing and public information functions can be more easily coordinated if
consolidated. A significant savings is generated when the scheduling functions of one or
more operations are consolidated. Extensive levels of coordination and staff time are
needed to insure inter-system coordination for transfers and on-time performance if the
scheduling function is a multi-agency shared responsibility. .
i1 In short, by consolidating activities which otherwise would require inter-agency coordina-
tion and/or the duplication of staff, maintenance or reporting functions, more of the
communities' resources can be made available to provide actual transit service.
' Public Versus Private Ownership and Operation
The provision of transit service in Pleasanton and Dublin must also consider the implica-
tions of public or private management options with responsibility for ownership and
operation of the transit system. Within this context, the organizational structure may
vary from a fully public operation to a totally private operation. The most common
arrangements fall into the following categories:
e Publically owned and operated
• Publicall owned and privately y p i ately operated `. .
® Privately owned and operated
In some cases, a publically owned and operated system may also use a private company to .
` manage 'day-to-day operations. Also, many privately owned and operated systems are
publically subsidized. Both the public and private ownership options have unique advan-
tages and disadvantages which must be weighed.
L_
I._ - 28 -
-- Public Ownership and Operation
- Public ownership means that a designated public entity has major responsibility for the
provision of public transit services. This includes owning vehicles, equipment and facili-
ties as well as the day-to-day operational activites such as maintenance, scheduling,
administration.:
The major benefits to the public ownership options are:
Im Greater orientation to service for the entire public
0 Better position for performing short-range and long-range planning functions
0 Greater potential for coordination/consolidation of transportation services
(. ® Availability of operating and capital grants and certain tax exemptions
• Eliminate involvement of state PUC in route/fare structures, thereby reduc-
ing time required for service changes.
• Maintains greater public control over service
By contrast, the disbenef its to public ownership and operations encompass:
!'^ o Political interference may be great (can be mitigated under private manage-
ment/operation scheme)
Ie Requires capital outlay for equipment/facilities (possible .bond insurance)
which could be politcally unpopular.
( j e Public body may not have adequate experience
o Public/political pressure for unwarranted service
Public Ownership and Private Operation
l�
Private operation stipulates that a entity in business for profit would operates the ser-
vice. The service could be provided under a contract for services with either a city
L_ transportation agency, other public entity. The contract may include all service func-
tions, i.e., scheduling, operations, planning; maintenance, etc.; or could be limited to
I_
- 29 -
selected functions. Generally, under the limited function option, the public entity would
provide the administrative functions while the private entity would operate the system.
The benefits of the private options are:
_J
e New service can be implemented quickly (subject to PUC regulations)
® Less potential for political interference in daily operations
® Transit employees not public employees and therefore not subject to civil
service requirement
® Minimizes public negotiation with labor groups
The disbenefits to the private sector alternative are generally:
0 Need public official/staff to administer "public financial assistance" and
monitor operations
® Service is subject to renegotiation therefore continuous service not guaran-
teed
e May not have full advantage of tax exemptions on operating/capital subsidies.
a Incentive for cost-effective service lost if contract guarantees operating
deficits
a Public may resist subsidy for private operator
I..
o Less public control over service
The City of Livermore has chosen public ownership. and. management of the transit _
system with the operation and maintenance responsibilities contracted by APA (formerly '
Patchett's Bus and Transportation Company). The City of.Livermore administers the
j
service through a Transit Aide directly .responsible to the City Manager.'.
�i
Private Ownership and Operation
L
Under this alternative, the public sector would not bare responsibility'.for transit
services. Further, it is questionable whether State or Federal funds could be used to fund
service deficits. Years ago many transportation systems were privately owned and
operated. For example, the San Francisco Municipal Railway began as a private
- 30 -
company. With the advent of the private auto, the profits associated with providing local
are line haul passengers service declined. Today most privately owned and operated
transit systems provide lire haul or charter. bus services rather than public transit
services.
i
Discussion of Management Alternatives
Three management alternatives for the study area have been suggested. These are:
m City Ownership -- Pleasanton and Dublin could each provide transit service
within their respective jurisdictions independently of each other and relying
on existing city staff and/or organization to administer and fund the service.
- The advantages of such a structure are directly related to size of the city and
system.
The advantages of this option lie in the flexibility for service changes, no new
public entities need to be created, being part of the city government makes
the transit service less susceptible to uneven cash flow, and existing city
staff and facilities can be used.
The disadvantages of the city-provided service option are that transit must
compete with other services for portions of its funds and the coordination
between jurisdictions is less, a second option under city ownership would be .
for one of the cities (presumably Pleasanton since it is larger) to assume
responsibility for the service with Dublin contracting for : service with
{{{� Pleasanton. It is likely that Dublin is too small on its own to sustain its own
service and both cities would benefit from combined service. Although this
alternative may simplify the organizational structure, it would result in less
control for Dublin over service provision.
l. _
- 31 -
Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) -- This option grants cities and counties the
authority to exercise in common specific powers which are granted
separately. It requires adoption by city councils and approval by MTC, no
referendum is required. A policy board with representatives from each
jurisdiction is selected by parties to the agreement.
A new entity would need to be established to take responsibility for managing
a Pleasanton/Dublin transit system. Policy decisions would be made jointly
by the JPA jurisdictions, and service priorities and cost-sharing principles
would have to be established. As appropriate, the JPA could include the
individual cities, the County of Alameda and any other entity with a
-- responsibility in the JPA activities.
tV. The advantages here are that the JPA Board may hire its own management
staff or rely on existing city staffs and it may be authorized to directly
receive TDA funds. . As the JPA would not have taxing authority, a major
function for the agency would be to establish the priorities for all services
and funding (local, sub-regional, paratransit, etc.) within the JPA sphere of
inf luence.
e Transit District — The last public ownership option involves formation of a
local or regional transit authority, which in this case may be limited to
Pleasanton and Dublin or may be Valley-wide incorporating Son-Ramon and/or .
Livermore. This option requires the state legislature to pass an enabling act
specifying the purposes, boundaries, etc. of . the district. In effect, if
5=�
'Livermore were included, the new district would absorb, or be an expansion
I}Yl of; Livermore's "RIDEO" system. -
'i_i
A transit district has the advantages of improved coordination' of services between
jurisdictions, taxing authority, and it eliminates the need for the City policy boards to
administer transit policy and fund transit service. The primary disadvantage of a transit
district is that the creation of a new entity with taxing power is likely to be unpopular
with voters. It also requires the formation of a new policy board removed from local
- 32 -
l._
I�
_. control. If the Livermore service is combined with Pleasanton/Dublin service, either a
Joint Powers Agreement or a Transit District would be required to effectively coordinate
all the jurisdictions.
[-47
Contract Operation
Under the City only and JPA management systems, transit operations and/or planning
could be contracted to either a public transit operator (e.g., AC Transit contract for
BART Express Bus Service) or a private operator (e.g., RIDEO contract with ARA). This
potentially avoids the need for hiring of some personnel and provision of maintenance and
other facilities, but may not be as responsive to local needs and priorities. Transit
services may also be provided on a partial contract basis, under which the public body
Jmanages the system hiring out certain functions, typically operations and maintenance.
l_
The final option would involve full contracting out of service to private operation. Under
the alternative administration and operation would be contracted out to a specialized
management company which provides transit service. Although this alternative has the
Iadvantage of eliminating capital investment costs, it also substantially reduces the public
accountability.
I _
Alternatives To Be Considered For Further Study .
This section suggests the management and operational alternatives which the consultant
considers worthy of further study and evaluation. A number of factors led to these.-
[ recommendations. These issues are highlighted below.
long-term
Within the Pleasanton/Dublin/Livermore Area there is extensive short- and
lea _
demand for inter-city public transit services. This demand is in part being served by the
BART feeder bus system. BART staff has indicated that as local transit services are
L introduced into the area, BART will modify its feeder bus system to provide a more
regionalized express type service to the BART system. It is anticipated that any local
I-_ ridership would be accommodated by local transit operations. A significant component
of the local transit demand is for travel between Pleasanton, Dublin and to some extent
- 33 -
I_
Lviermore. This need will not be addressed in BART's future feeder bus plans. Further,
BART staff has indicated that BART will not be willing to expand the current bus feeder
system to meet some of these local needs. This regional versus local issue would not be
adequately addressed if each individual city expanded its service to accommodate only
local needs. To facilitate these service needs an additional (county-level) agency would
need to be created to accommodate the above noted sub-regional needs. The financing
of any sub-regional inter-city service would be provided for through TDA funds.
Moreover, the potential for local input into the service parameters for these sub-regional
services would be questionable.
It is our opinion that to achieve a comprehensive system of services the selection of the
individual city-operated system is not practical. A more appropriate configuration is a
combined city type system which may or may not include Livermore or a Valley-wide
Jtransit district.
Regarding operational alternatives, it is our opinion that the totally privately owned and
operated alternative does not provide adequate local control nor flexibility. As growth
1 occurs in the area and demands are made upon any local transit system, it is imperative
that the local transit system have enough flexibility to respond to changing local needs.
This option is not adequately provided for with a fully privately owned and operated
system. However, the introducing of a partially private operation within the short-term,
does provide flexibility and does not overly burden the local transit administration.
It is the consultants recommendation therefore that the following management and
operational alternatives be evaluated in more detail.
Alternative I: . A new Valley-wide transit district totally publicly owned and. operated .
1 consisting of Pleasanton/Dublin and possibly San Ramon. A sub-alternative to this option
would consider a district including the City of Livermore. Besides having area-wide
L influence, the Valley-wide transit district provides for a tax capability not available to
the normal Joint Power Agreement (JPA) agency. The BART and AC Transit systems are
I_ examples of publically owned and operated transit districts.
L-
- 34 -
.I_
Alternative 2: This option would call for the creation of a Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement between the appropriate agencies within the study area. This option could
include Livermore, San Ramon and even the County of Alameda. Further, this
Ialternative would evaluate both a fully publicly owned and operated, as well as a
l
partially privately operated situation. The Central Contra Costa Transit Authority is a
l publicly owned and operated JPA.
A thorough investigation of these two basic alternatives should detail, analyze and evalu-
ate the advantages and disadvantages of the practical managment alternative available
within the study area.
i
IJ
I
- 35 -
I_