Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 LAVTA Draft Short Range Transport Plan CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 26, 1987 SUBJECT Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority Draft Short Range Transportation Plan EXHIBITS ATTACHED 1. LAVTA General Manager Letter dated April 22, 1987 2. Excerpts from Short Range Transportation n Plan Draft Report t RECOMMENDATION 0 LAVTA General Manager's recommendation for Alternative 3 and the LAVTA Five Year Operating/Capital Plan of the LAVTA Short Range Transportation Plan FY 1987-88 to FY 1991-92 Draft Report. FINANCIAL STATEMENT None DESCRIPTION JHK and Associates, a Consultant for the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) has prepared a Short Range Transportation Plan Draft Report (SRTP) for FY 1987-88 to FY 1991-92. The Plan addresses the consolidation of RIDEO (serving the Livermore area and operated by the City of Livermore) and WHEELS (serving Dublin and Pleasanton and operated by LAVTA) . The consolidation of the two services will become effective July 1, 1987. Additionally, the SRTP Draft Report describes the current transit services operating in the area, describes recommended goals and objective and service standards for the WHEELS system, evaluates the efficiency and effectiveness of the WHEELS and RIDEO systems, provides a review and analysis of the paratransit services within the LAVTA service area, includes three alternative service plans and a five year financial plan and implementation program for the service area. Recommendations presented in the Draft SRTP for the three service plan alternatives are based on an assessment of the WHEELS and RIDEO systems, and were developed to address the findings obtained through surveys of current riders and the general public, an inventory of boardings and alightings for each bus route, schedule adherence, and the results of two series of public meetings in Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. Alternative 1 recommends general improvements to the system operations and does not increase service hours. The recommended improvements include realignments of routes and modifications to schedules in Livermore and Pleasanton, extension of WHEELS Route 2 to provide direct non-peak period service from Dublin to Stoneridge Mall and to review the system operations in the Fall of 1987 to determine if a a demand response service during non-peak periods in low density residential areas in Dublin and Pleasanton would be appropriate. This review will also determine bus shelter locations, which the operating Capital Improvement Plan allocates funding for installation during fiscal year 1988-89 and fiscal year 1990-91. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ COPIES TO: Planning Department ITEM NO. �• Vic Sood, LAVTA General Manager The Draft SRTP indicates that during the public meetings several Dublin residents expressed concern over the large buses on fixed schedules even during non-peak periods when ridership was low. The demand response service and the dispatch of smaller buses recommended in the service plan is designed to address the community's concerns. Alternative 2 recommends incorporation of the service modifications identified in Alternative 1, in addition to providing 30-minute service during peak periods on WHEELS bus routes 1, 2 and 3, serving Dublin and Pleasanton, and four bus routes serving Livermore. The current service frequency is 60 minutes. Alternative 3 recommends incorporation of the service changes identified in Alternative 1 and the frequency changes identified in Alternative 2. In addition, Alternative 3 recommends a new intercity route connecting Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore, and provides a direct link to Chabot College from Dublin and Pleasanton. The WHEELS system currently does not extend to Livermore or Chabot College. Currently transit riders wishing to reach Livermore from Dublin must ride the BART express bus. Those riders wishing to reach Chabot College from Dublin must ride the BART line to Livermore and then transfer to the RIDEO system. The intercity route will provide 15-minute service during peak periods, 30-minute service during weekday non-peak periods and Saturdays, and 60-minute service on Sundays. The intercity route will take over the existing service operated by the BART express line. Inasmuch as the intercity link route is replacing an existing BART route, no increase in overall bus traffic is anticipated. The intercity link will continue to provide convenient transfer opportunities with the BART express bus. The SRTP indicates the total five year capital budget is $10,870,800. This will provide a maintenance facility, 19 replacement buses, 15 buses for service expansion, 2 transit centers (one in Livermore and one in the vicinity of Stoneridge Mall in Pleasanton) , and miscellaneous improvements such as shelters, parts and service, and the purchase of the dial-a-ride vehicles for the Livermore service: The Draft SRTP is not recommending consolidation of the paratransit service, pending completion of a Metropolitan Transportation Commission Study of paratransit services in Alameda County. Additionally, the plan indicates that $6.3 million is required from other sources to fund the capital program for the five year plan period and identifies Urban Mass Transportation Administration funds, Alameda County sales tax revenues, Measure B sales tax revenues, and Federal Aid - Urban funds as several potential funding sources to meet this funding short fall. In a letter dated received April 22, 1987, the General Manager for LAVTA recommended the City Council approve Service Plan Alternative 3 (page 6-8 of the SRTP Draft Report) and the LAVTA Five Year Operating/Capital Plan (Table 7-5, page 7-12) . The General Manager's and Consultant's recommendation indicates this alternative best meets the LAVTA goal to increase ridership while maintaining service efficiency and effectiveness standards. -2- Livermore Amador Valley R E CE I 1 p' E D Transit Authority AP R 1 c93- 6500 Dublin Boulevard Suite 203 ©UBUN RAWSR1110 NOR, CA 94568 415 829.6330 April 20 , 1987 Mr. Larry Tong Director of Planning City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: LAVTA Short Range Transportation Plan (SRTP) Dear Larry: I would like to suggest that the Dublin City Council approve Alternate 3 (Page 6-8 SRTP Draft Report) and the LAVTA Five Year Operating/Capital Plan (Table 7-5, page 7-12 SRTP Draft Report) . Implementation of the above would enhance public transit, not only in the City of Dublin, but throughout the Livermore/Amador Valley. If you have any questions about the recommendations in the SRTP, please do not hesitate to call me. With my good wishes, ySinc ely, is S General manager VS:RR �� n or ATTACHMENT f Iihk & associates 6. RECOMMENDED TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN I INTRODUCTION This chapter identifies the recommended service plan for the LAVTA system. The plan is based on an assessment of alternatives involving a range of transit service improvements. The alternatives address various needs for service } improvements per the results of the operations analysis and market surveys as well as the community mAings held during the course of the plan development. These alternatives wenQ evaluated in terms of key performance indicators which reflect the service policies identified in for the Short Range Transportation Plan. BASIS FOR SERVICE ALTERNATIVES The alternative service plans identified later in the chapter are based on operations analysis of the current service, market surveys, and a public participation process. This public participation included two series of public meetings that took place during the planning process. The following identifies the key findings of these activities and how the service alternatives can address current public transit.needs in the LAVTA service area. Operations Analysis The results of the RIDEO and Wheels operations analysis indicated several key findings which should be considered in the development of the recommended service plan. These key findings are: For both the Livermore and Dublin/Pleasanton service areas there is substantial passenger loadings on several routes relating to school service demand. Although the extenkof this demand is not as great in Dublin/Pleasanton service as ii,%in Livermore, actual levels will be expected to increase as the new system develops a clientele. Although additional trippers can be allocated to meet this demand, the alternatives should also include remedies that do not increase overall operating costs. 6-1 ATTACHM ENT, . jhk & associates k� - Although transit provides direct access to several major employment centers such as Hacienda Business Parks, the ridership levels at these centers are low. With 60 minute headways operated throughout the service period, any major increase in demand to these centers would not be HM likely. A 30 minute service provided during periods would provide the minimum level of service to the commute market. Particularly light ridership was evident along segments of RIDEO Route 5, Wheels Route 1, and all of Wheels Route 2 during non- peaks and Saturdays. Also, in both the Dublin and Pleasanton _ areas light ridership occurs along those route segments serving low density residential areas. .RIDEO Route 5 can be deleted in the area with light ridership ; with the additional time being used to provide more direct service to students accessing Junction Avenue Middle School. If light ridership continues in residential areas during non-peak periods, some form of demand response service should be considered. ;,. RIDEO Route 1 can be extended to provide additional coverage, including direct access to Chabot College. Schedule adherence fell short of the 95% on-time performance standard primarily as as result of early trips. The ongoing monitoring of service schedules should be a priority item for any of the alternative service plans. Market Surveys The on-board survey of current Wheels and RIDEO users indicated a significant rate of transferring to BART Express bus service. This transfer rate indicates the importance of providing both coordinated schedules and comfortable waiting _ facilities for transit patrons. The on-board survey also indicated that the ' predominant users of both RIDEO and Wheels service are school age riders. Any efforts to attract a more mixed user market will require service improvements for such groups as shoppers and commuters. Both the on-board and telephone surveys indicated that frequency of service improvements was the priority item regarding suggested modifications to the systems. The on-board survey indicated strong preference regarding operating service in neighborhood areas as opposed to arterials. The -telephone survey indicated a virtually even split regarding how the service should be routed. ,. 6-2 to �� 'hk & associa[es , Community Participation In addition to the on-board and telephone surveys, community participation in the plan development involved two series of neighborhood meetings in each of the three LAVTA cities. The technical appendix includes materials regarding these public meetings. The first round involved workshops that allowed the public to express their opinions regarding service to LAVTA board members, staff, and the consultant team members. This initial series of public meetings was complimented by mail in and telephone programs. These programs allowed residents to present suggestions and comments on the current service in Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore. The second round of meeting presented the draft service plan in the form of open houses in each s� of the cities. These meetings allowed the public to present comments on the plan including suggestions for further modifications to the recommendations. The results of the various community involvement provided key direction regarding future service development while at the same time reinforcing findings of the operations analysis and market surveys. The major findings that can l g be _ incorporated in the alternative service plans are: Service to Residential Areas At both series of public meetings several residents in the Dublin area expressed concern regarding large buses operating on a fixed schedule during light Y ridership periods. The operations analysis indicated that ridership on Wheels routes is light during the midday period in residential area of both Dublin and Pleasanton. M. The recommended service plan should incorporate design features that will _ address the community concerns as well as the current low ridership along particular route segments during the non-peak periods. In addition to design features, the j concerns of the communities can also be addressed through the use of smaller :z vehicles that reflect actual demand. Improved frequencies during peak periods will allow the system to dispatch various size buses without incurring additional — deadheading costs. 6-3 1 c'�,......... ......-'....,,.,.,.�.«,•...�«,.,..,..,�:,.--o»,.•..,,n,�.•_,._-.'.,y.in.«..:a,.n..,.i....c�rm�ro•a..sn.,.�:+^rrw^t^� ;n:��p.^•,.,..g..�,.r;,,.,;,.•,•y�:c�a�i�..1'�t?.�a°.�?r.rr,�:•;c.:,..,"aF'! ^r'. ...�:'.s_, •,..,r ,.yt�^rr�.t q. . ,.,- jhk & associaccs Access to Schools Per the results of the operations analysis, significant passenger demand is taking place during school periods. The community meetings and other public input in Livermore indicated a strong sentiment for improved service on the current RIDEO system. Also, residents in the Vintage Hills and Valley Trails areas of '? Pleasanton indicated need for improved access to local schools. As indicated under operations analysis, the improvements for school related services should be accomplished as much as possible through reallocation of existing services. This will help avoid operating cost increases and allow the system to better serve a more expanded market base. Improved Service During Peak Periods At each of the public meetings there was concern expressed regarding the level of service provided for commuters during the peak periods. Also, the on-board surveys for both Wheels and RIDEO patrons indicated that "more frequent service" is the most dominent in terms of suggested service improvements. This sentiment was reinforced by communications from the Pleasanton Transportation Task Force (included in Appendix F) regarding the need to attract more commuters to public transportation services. The goal of peak period service improvements is also supported by current local policies such as the City of Pleasanton's Transportation Systems Management (TSM) ordinance. The operations analysis of current service indicated that significant passenger demand take place on routes accessing schools. Although the extent of the demand is more significant for the RIDEO operations, ridership on Wheels routes will likely reach saturation levels within a short time period. As also noted under Operations Analysis, the current ridership levels to major employment centers in the LAVTA service area is very light. To attract additional ridership, as reinforced by the Transportation Task Force and the passenger survey results, the headways on at least some of the routes would have to be at least 30 minutes instead of the current 60 minutes. This service improvement will address t the heavy passenger loads for routes accessing schools. 6-4 _ 'Al ;hk & associates Direct Access to Chabot College To access Chabot College from Dublin and Pleasanton patrons must travel via BART Express service to Livermore and transfer to local RIDEO Routes 4 or 5. Residents in Dublin and Pleasanton as well as staff of the college indicated the need for a more direct and less time consuming routing to the campus site located between Livermore and the Dublin/Pleasanton area. As is the case with access to local public schools, improved service to the community college should be accommodated as much as possible with reallocation of : current transit resources. As noted in Chapter 4 - System and Program Evaluation, there is currently light ridership levels on Wheels Route 1 in the vicinity of its eastern terminus in Pleasanton. This indicates that at least a portion of any service to the college can be accommodated by an extension of this route. Maintenance Facility Residents in the immediate vicinity of the current operations and maintenance facility in Livermore expressed strong concern regarding the noise and bus traffic. This concern on the part of local residents reinforces efforts on the part of LAVTA staff to acquire a site for a new facility. In addition to addressing the neighborhood concerns, the new site would reduce the amount of deadheading involved in the dispatching of buses between Livermore to Dublin and Pleasanton. SERVICE ALTERNATIVES The following identifies alternative service plans which will address the various findings regarding current operations in the LAVTA service area. Alternative 1 - Operations Improvements (No Increase in Service Hours) This alternative would implement several service modifications that would represent a "fine-tuning" of the current operations in the LAVTA service area. The various improvements would not result in an increase in platform hours which is approximately 45,000 per year for the two systems. Specific improvements under this alternative include: 6-5 jhk & associates Realignment of current RIDEO Route 5 to improve on-time performance as well as to provide more direct access to Junction Avenue Middle School. The available time for these modifications will result from deletion of that portion of the route which currently serves the Livermore Municipal airport a immediately surrounding industrial area, p nd the t Modifications to the schedule of RIDEO Route I in order to provide more convenient use by students at Livermore High School, The operations analysis ' indicated that Route 1, which provides direct access between Springtown and the high school, currently has surplus capacity during school bell times. Through the schedule adjustments, some relief can be provided on the other routes which provide access to Springtown - No's 6,7, and 8. Realignment of Routes 6 and 7 in the residential areas located north of East Avenue. The change would involve Patterson Pass and Joyce Street rather than Vasco Road. The operations analysis indicated very light use of the service along Vasco Road. The route change would provide more convenient access to those neighborhoods located to the north of the current route alignment. Extension of current Wheels Route 2 to provide direct service during off-peak periods to Stoneridge Mail. This route is the only one in the Wheels system which does not provide direct service to this major transit generator. The operations analysis indicated that both midday and Saturday ridership on this route is low. The provision of direct access during off-peak periods to Stoneridge Mall by Route 2 will increase its attractiveness to the point of generating new midday and Saturday ridership. 4.3 In addition to providing direct service to Stoneridge will result in complete two way access on Routes 1 and 2 btetween Dublin change ' mall. Thus, residents can have the option of using either route depending on their and the depending specific location. Realignment of one a.m. and one p.m, trip on Route 2 to provide direct access from the Valley Trails area of Pleasanton to Foothill High School, This realignment will provide improved access to the High School without incurring dditional g costs. 6-6 i jhk & associates : The implementation of this change would be contingent on light passenger z, utilization of the trips during the affected time periods. Realignment of Route 3 in the Vintage Hills area of Pleasanton. The realignment, would follow Vineyard, Touriga, and Kottinger as the southern loop terminus. This alignment is similar to that proposed in the initial route plan for the system. However, the route did undergo some alignment changes prior to initiation of the Wheels service as a result of concerns expressed by some of the residents in the area. Although the recommended alignment is preferred over the current alignment from an operations standpoint, any future changes should be first reviewed by those residents in the affected area. Modifications to service in low density areas during light ridership periods. The operations analysis indicated light ridership patterns in residential areas of Dublin and Pleasanton during the non-peak periods. The level of service could justify consideration of a form of demand response service in these areas during non-peak periods. Immediate implementation of this major service modification is not recommended since the ridership levels on each of the Wheels routes is still developing. (the operations surveys were conducted less than six months after service inaugeration). However, the low level of ridership and the need for the Wheels service to operate in the most productive manner possible warrants a further major operations review in the Fall of 1987 to determine if a demand responsive system would be more appropriate. Alternative 2 - Improvement of Peak Period Frequencies This alternative would incorporate the service modifications of Alternative 1 as well as providing 30 minute service on several routes during the peak periods. For the Dublin-Pleasanton service area, the improvements would be implemented on Wheels Routes 1, 2, and 3 and on current RIDEO Routes 1 through 4. The service improvements would result in an additional 13,000 platform hours to the system. The alternative would address several findings of the operations analysis, .' r. market surveys, and community participation programs. Although current route structures of Wheels and RIDEO provide convenient access to major employment z 6-7 jhk & a3302«3 centers, ridership levels are low as indicated by the operations analysis. The market survey indicated frequency improvements as a major item for suggested system improvements. The input provided by the public meetings and other forums indicated that the current hourly headways restrict the travel opportunities for r those commuters who would prefer to use public transportation. The provision of peak period frequency improvements would provide an additional major benefit to the system. As indicated above, low density residential areas are experiencing light ridership levels during non-peak periods. Even if patronage levels,were to increase in these areas, the extent of ridership would justify use of smaller vehicles. The provision of 30 minute headways will allow LAVTA to dispatch smaller vehicles during the non-peak periods without incurring ' additional deadheading costs. Alternative 3 - Frequency Improvements Plus New Inter-City Routes This alternative would incorporate the service changes of Alternative I and the frequency improvements of Alternative 2. It will also include a new LAVTA operated route connecting Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore and a direct link to Chabot College from the Dublin Pleasanton Area. Figure 6-1 describes the routing of these inter-city services. Alternative 3 will result in a substantial increase in revenue hours for the Dublin-Pleasanton service area from. approximately $25,000 to over 46,000. It is important to note that most of the additional hours - over 12,000, involve a takeover of existing service operated by the BART Express U Line. Except for the Chabot i College service described below, Alternative 3 will not result in a net increase in regional service hours beyond the level provided by Alternative 2. t The connection between Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore is currently provided by BART Express Route U. As indicated in the operations analysis, the transfer convenience between BART Express service and local service has deteriorated in recent years. The operation of this service by LAVTA will allow integration of the inter-city link with local service, including the design of timed transfer schedule coordination. The inter-city service would incorporate the following characteristics: 6-8 i ' Jhk & associatcs II II15 minute headways during peak periods 30 minute headways during weekday non-peak periods (6:30 AM to 6:30 PM) 30 minute headways on Saturdays 60 minute service on Sundays (6:30 AM to 6:30 PM) A major function of LAVTA operated services is to provide feeder service to BART. In.addition to providing coordination opportunities with local service, the new intercity route should also allow convenient transfer opportunities with BART Express service to Bay Fair, Hayward, and Walnut Creek Stations. The above service characteristics allow for these transfer opportunities'to take place. Currently, the only public transit access to Chabot College is provided by RIDEO Routes 4 and 5 which serve central Livermore. For those residing in Pleasanton and Dublin, access to the college requires an indirect routing involving BART Express service to Livermore, located beyond the campus site, and a transfer to RIDEO Routes 4 or 5. The provision of a direct route to the college would substantially decrease travel time to the point of attracting significant ridership to transi t. In order to provide this service in an economic manner, current Wheels Route 1 can be extended from Valley and Santa Rita to the campus. The operations analysis indicated that very light ridership occurs along the current southern terminus of the route. By incorporating the time for the terminal loop, along with layover time, in the running time for the college service, the access can be provided without incurring major increases in service hours. This alterative would result irl an additional 27,000 hours of platform hours to the consolidated service. However, approximately one-half of these additional hours (13,000) will be incurred by the inter-city route. EVALUATION OF SERVICE ALTERNATIVES Table 6-1 identifies the results of the evaluation of the three identified alternatives. The description of each alternative identified the expected benefits, 6-10 Table 6-1 ALTERNATIVE SERVICE PLANS AND EXPECTED IMPACTS ON KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FY 1991-92 Dublin-Pleasanton Livermore Service Area Service Area Alt. 1 Alt. 3 Alt. 1 Status Quo - Alt. 2 Frequency Status Quo - Alt. 2 Base Operations Frequency Improvement do Base Operations Frequency FY 1987-88 Changes Improvements New Routes FY 1987-88 Changes Improvements Farebox Recovery 5.0% 10.6% 11.2% 10.2% 9.7% 14.9% 14.0% Total Passengers 188,000 320,000 390,000 481,000 225,460 277,000 334,000 Average Annual Increase in Passengers - 14% 18% 25% - 4% 9% Cost/Passenger $ 7.80 $ 4.41 $ 4. 17 $ 4.50 $ 3.43 $ 3.37 $ 3.26 Passenger/Hour 7.5 7.5 11 .8 10.3 10.9 13.4 13.0 - 'hk & associatcs • including how they will address various findings of the operations analysis, market surveys, and public participation activities. ' The evaluation described in Table 6-1, however, concentrates on various efficiency and effectiveness measures as identified in the policies of the Short. 1 Range Transportation Plan. As was noted in Chapter 3 - Transit Service Policies, separate target performance measures for FY 1991-92 were identified for the Livermore and Dublin-Pleasanton services. This reflects the much longer operating history of the Livermore transit operations. ' To address. the separate standards, Table 6-1 identifies how each system component would perform under each alternatives. It should be noted that the new inter-city service and the direct access to Chabot College are allocated to the Dublin-Pleasanton component. The following describes the results of the evaluation for each of the performance standards: Farebox Recovery Each of the alternatives meets or exceeds the target standard of 10% farebox recovery for the Dublin-Pleasanton system. The frequency improvements. programmed for the Livermore service under I Alternative 2 would result in a slightly lower recovery rate -14.0%, than the status quo alternative -14.9%. Total'Passengers and Average Annual Increases in Patronage The service improvements under Alternatives 2 and 3 will result in major increases in patronage. Particularly significant increases would take place under Alternative 3 as a result of the operations of Ithe inter-city route. The major annual increase in patronage under Alternative 3 is significant given that a goal of the system is to increase transit patronage at a rate higher than the population growth increases of the service areas. Cost Per Passenger IFor both service areas, Alternative 2 performs the best. The peak-. frequency improvements should result in high patronage levels during a concentrated period thereby resulting in economies regarding Ioverall cost per passenger. 6-12 A Passengers Per Hour It An effective way to accomplish overall service efficiency is to F gradually increase system productivity as measured by passengers per hour. Although Alternative 3 calls for a major increase in service hours by 1992, productivity levels for the Dublin-Pleasanton service ..;: area are expected to be high - almost 10.3 passengers per hour in FY ?) 1991-92 versus 7.5 in FY 1987-88. Productivity in Fy 1991-92 for the Livermore service would increase significantly under Alternative 2 - 13.0 passengers per hour versus 10.9 in FY 1987-88. RECOMMENDED SERVICE PLAN IBased on the results of the above evaluation and the key findings of the operations analysis, market survey, and public participation activities, Alternative 3 I (Frequency Improvements - Inter-City Service and Direct Chabot College Access) is recommended for implementation. This alternative best meets the goal of Iincreasing ridership while at the same time maintaining key service efficiency and effectiveness standards. The lead time necessary to acquire the vehicles for the service improvements � will involve at least one year. Accordingly, the implementation of the plan is - recommended for September 1988 to coincide with the start of the new school year. A key factor "in selecting this alternative is'the ability of LAVTA to operate this levels of service given funding availability - currently TDA Article 4.0. It is estimated that the recommended plan will incur an annual operating deficit of approximately $2.9 million by the end of the plan period, FY 1991-92. However, it is estimated that the allocation of TDA Article 4.0 funds for this fiscal year will be $3.5 million. Thus the recommended plan can be implemented while 'at the same time allowing a significant proportion of TDA funds being set aside for capital i' reserves. 1! The financial plan for the recommended alternative is further described in Chapter 7. L e �. 6-13 ,k TABLE 7-4 LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CurrentYr Projected FY 86-87 FY 87-88 FY 88-89 FY 89-90 FY 90-91 FY 91-92 Project Maintenance Facility $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,200,000 Bus Purchases-Fixed Route Replacement (No.of Buses) 10 9 Cost $1,600,000 $1,540,800 Expansion (No.of Buses) 15 Cost $2.000,000 Bus Purchases-Demand Reponse Replacement (No.of Buses) I 1 Cost $35,000 $35,000 Transit Centers $1,000,000 Service Vehicles $25,000 $25,000 Shelters $50,000 $50,000 Bus Stop Improvements $33,000 $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Lease-of Buses $67,000 $110,000 $40,000 Bus retrofit $50,000 Spare Parts $50,000 $50,000 TOTAL $150,000 $2,815,000 $5,750,800 $2285,000 $10,000 510,000 TOTAL 5 YEAR CAPITAL BUDGET FY 87-88 through FY 91-92 $10,870,800 T- '' 7-6 TABLE 7-S LA TA FIVE YEAR OPERATING/CAPITAL PLAN FIXED ROUTE OPERATIONS Current Yr Projected FY 86-87 FY 87-88 FY 88-89 FY 89-90 FY 90-91 FY 91-92 SYSTEM OPERATIONS PROGRAM I REVENUES Farebox 5110,259 5136,000 5204,300 $247,500 $326,600 $378,100 Other Funding Sources-TDA 51,890,541 51,944,900 $2,688,200 $2,760,700 $2,802,000 $2,875,700 GRAND TOTAL-REVENUE $2,000,800 $2,080.900 $2,892,500 $3,008,200 $3,128,600 $3,253,800 EXPENSES Operations and Maintenance $1,602,000 $1,666,100 $2,461,100 $2,559,500 $2,662,000 52,768,500 LAVTA Administration 5398,800 $414,800 $431,400 $448,700 $466,600 $485,300 GRAND TOTAL-EXPENSES $2,000,800 52,080,900 $2,892,500 S3,008,200 53,128,600 53,253,800 OPERATING DEFICIT 51,890,541 51,944,900 $2,688,200 52.760,700 52,802,000 $2,875,700 SYSTEM CAPITAL PROGRAM EXPENDITURES Lease of Buses 567,000 5110,000 $40,000 $0 SO $p Vehicles-Replacement $0 51,635,000 $1,575,800 $0 SO $p Vehicles-Expansion $0 SO 52,000,000 50 SO $0 New Facilities $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 52,200,000 $0 SO Miscellaneous Improvements S83,000 $70,000 $135,000 $85,000 510,000 $10,000 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENSES S150,000 $2,815,000 55,750,800 52,285,000 510,000 $10,000 FUNDING SOURCES TDA-Article 4.0 $150,000 52,815,000 $1,425,800 $301,300 510,000 $10,000 Other Sources 50 $0 $4,325,000 51,983,700 $0 SO TOTAL CAPITAL REVENUE S150,000 52.815,000 $5,750,800 52,285.000 510,000 S10,000 AVAILABLE TDA FUNDS Annual Allocation(estimated) $2,120,023 52,674,499 52,861,700 53,062,000 53,276,300 53,505,600 Reserves(prior year carryovers) $3,258,234 53,337,716 $1,252,300 $0 SO $464,300 TOTAL AVAILABLE $5,378,257 S6,012.215 54,114,000 53,062,000 S3,276,300 53,969,900 OPERATING AND CAPITAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS 52,040,541 $5,161,100 54,114,000 S3,062,000 52,812,000 $2,885,700 BALANCE FOREWARDED $3.337,716 S1,252,290 SO $0 5464,300 $1,084,200 7-12 r • . Bridg��ort a. 1 `%J°i U Gr^mot DUBLIN I I" %`•i }� HIGH `rj♦ j I �1 ; ,IV scHOObw ems` • PF♦�\ai CHABOT COLLEGE o 1 aao� t II I t3--Q2' ,�'l \� ♦t♦ uo �..�:wa...a. wr�wr. S J ;I r:... _ l7�STO- ptERIpGE 1 � / �,,. _ } pile�'� �LJJ MALL 1 HACIENDA � Cibr7alter ♦♦♦ ,3 ♦�♦ ,,��ro/ I� j• } ' � 1 T PARK I �1 ♦'.`.,l I 1 /�.--------7 o< t • 1 BUSINESS 3 y I ♦ V / ���• ♦♦ '1 d �♦ ` 1 � e5 0=:���, • } o la ♦ice �♦ La!Polltas Pine Z' t,� I -)UNCTION AVE. �, } yi; !ti. �r I I e 0 .. ..q �q �y A�c�.INT.SCHOOL i ♦ > $ ` ��� =iii♦♦ s I I a S �°I OI�I.^� �` ` � ��YO� LAiRENC! OS♦ � L`VE`�O�E a HIGH SCHOOL f / > I ,� ull ���. «O..pj Y 1 LJ �p1 Al • 1 „��I --'3 w�f` �ty t y •��� I � � '•t I / •Lys --'3- INT.SCHOOL SANDIA 1 EAST AVENUE � } t ' y'p •pV�lle.Y.p. 4 �—rr E; 1 1 Ilt} O t,r t Ai5 3p . lid t RANADA g 4 1 FOOTHILL A6IADOR S HIGH u 7r t HIGH 1 HIGH °• A• ;r:•a' 7 ncouver Tells Rd. :•,F tt, SCHOOL 1 � w ppj I 1 ' "'.� tt!G r v_I } _ ' \ ���t �r 0 �Concan�on 1 r., ' r _ _ 1 t A. W't'J 1 ♦ 1°p 1+ s v X:A� L �. i \C'% j .` eo=,a1 H v t.� Cc In Q= Transit Center Route 2 Alignment � '•. •�. � . . . ;Figure�6=1 ;..,. . ., Peak Periods Only '; .WHE'ELS Service°Alignment;