HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.3 Valley Wide Transit Study (2) •
• AGENDA STATEMENT
Meeting Date: November 8, 1982
SUBJECT . Valley Wide Transit Study
EXHIBITS ATTACHED : Resolution; 11/2/82; "Local Transit in
RECOMMENDATION : Adopt Resolution
•
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No cost would be incurred by the City
•
DESCRIPTION : On November 2, 1982 Staff met with representatives from the Metro-
politan Transportation Commission, BART, Livermore, Pleasanton,
Alameda County and Supervisor Excell regarding the provision of
public transit services in the Livermore Amador Valley. As you may
be aware, the Cities of Pleasanton and Dublin are presently served
by BART express buses (under contract to AC Transit) , while the City
of Livermore operates its own bus system.
As indicated in the BART 5 year Express Bus Plan, it is BART'S goal
to eventually reduce local service and increase express bus service.
It is well recognized that greater local public transportation is
needed in Dublin and Pleasanton. The Metropolitan Transportation
Commission has indicated that there are funds available to provide
such local transportation from Article 4 of the Transportation
Development Act. The funds available for allocation for fiscal year
1982-83 would have been as follows, if the Cities of Pleasanton,
Dublin and adjacent unincorporated areas were providing local trans-
portation:
Dublin $214,000
Pleasanton 560,000
Unincorporated area 110,000 (or higher)
$884,000
These funds are presently utilized by BART. BART has indicated it
does not know to what extent it would reduce or modify service,
if these cities applied for the funds. The Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) indicated that the County, Dublin and Pleasanton may
request planning funds from MTC for the purpose of assessing local
transportation needs and the feasibility of implementing such a
COPIES TO:
TTCM Nn 62. v
AGENDA STATEMENT: Valley Wide Transit Study
Page 2
local transit system.
At the transit meeting Joe Callahan, of Callahan and Pentz indicated that his firm has
begun collecting data regarding transportation needs. MTC representatives indicated
it would be desirable to have one of the three agencies act as the lead agency in
conducting any such transportation study. Since Pleasanton is generating a substantial
amount of development which will impact public transportation, and further, has the
resources to get such a study implemented, it seems appropriate to have Pleasanton act
as the lead agency.
i
RECOMMENDATION
z It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution requesting Metropolitan
Transportation Commission to fund a local transit study which would include the areas
If
of Dublin, Pleasanton, and adjacent unincorporated area, and further designate the City
of Pleasanton as the lead agency in such a planning endeavor.
RESOLUTION No.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE
CITY OF DUBLIN
REQUESTING PLANNING FUNDS FOR A LOCAL
TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY FROM
THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Dublin City Council recognizes the need for more adequate local
public transportation for residents of Dublin and adjacent communities; and
WHEREAS, Transportation Development Act funds are available to fund local
transit; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasanton and the unincorporated area immediately ad-
jacent to Dublin and Pleasanton may be interested in participating in a joint effort
to study local transportation needs and the feasibility of providing local transit
service; and
WHEREAS, planning funds may be available through the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission to fund such a study.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council requests that the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission making funding available for a local transit
feasibility study, and that the City of Pleasanton act as the lead agency in
conducting such a study.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of November, 1982. .
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
. rinirc
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MEMORANDUM
Date: November2, 1982
TO: Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton WI.: 1002-30-01
Vince Petrites, MTC
▪ • Study by MTC Staff in 1980 of "Local Transit Needs in Eastern Alameda County
P hD: and the San Ramon Valley
Attached is a draft study completed by MTC staff in the summer of 1980. No
Commission action or other MTC action was taken on the conclusions stated in
this draft document. Thus it does not constitute official policy, but is an
internal staff paper which is offerred for information purposes.
Hotel Claremont • Berkeley, California 94705 • (415) 849-3223
*OW 40 Revised: 1/7/82
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
* L
MEMORANDUM
Dat.: 6/24/81
To: Barbara Wauchope fit,; 903.30.01
Paul Maxwell
Fr: John McCall.un
Re: Local Transit Needs In Eastern Alameda County and The San Ramon Valley
The attached report presents findings and recommendations concerning a survey
staff conducted some time ago. We had hoped to have BART's Five Year Express
Bus Plan in hand in order to relate its recommendations to our work. Unfortu-
nately the Plan's completion has been delayed, so we've had to rely on the
consultant's preliminary work for clues on changes in BART policy.
Please review this draft and advise on how to improve it and to whom it should
be distributed.
0
JMC/slm
Attachment
xf cc: Brandwein
W....1 f 1.,...rtnnr • Rorkelev. California 94705 • (415) 849-3223
LOCAL TRANSIT AL IN EASTERN ALAMEDA COUNTY AND THE SAN RAMON VALLEY
" INTRODUCTION DRAFT
In the spring of 1980 BART transmitted a letter to MTC suggesting a study of local
transit needs be conducted for the I-680 corridor between Danville and Pleasanton.
The letter stressed that the area is, "one of the most rapidly growing areas in the
East Bay and, more importantly, is the only area left within the San Francisco Bay
Area Rapid Transit District that does not have local bus service". Recognizing
that considerable interest in local transit within this area has been expressed re-
cently by concerned citizens and community groups, MTC embarked on an effort to de-
termine what the needs are.
It was discovered that few data were available concerning attitudes about current
service and the nature of potential public transit needs. The primary objective of
this initial effort was to survey the area in question in order to develop a better
understanding of the transportation "picture" in broad form. With this understanding
in hand, a decision would be made on whether to pursue a course of more intensive
investigation, one that might take the form of a comprehensive public transit study.
HOW THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED
In September MTC staff met with representatives from the Cities of Pleasanton and ,
Livermore, the Dublin - San Ramon Services District, the San Ramon Valley Community
Center, and BART to discuss the survey. MTC staff suggested that interviews with
concerned officials and community groups be held to determine the extent to which
existing needs are met by public transit, and to gather opinions on what the situ-
ation might be in the near future. Because BART was about to initiate a study of its
express bus contract service as a basis for preparing a 5 Year Express Bus Plan, it
was decided that MTC should focus its efforts primarily on local transit needs but
in coordination with the BART study.
Subsequently, further meetings were held between MTC staff and the San Ramon Valley
Community Center, the City of Pleasanton, and the City of Livermore. Several neigh-
borhood and homeowners associations were contacted by telephone to determine what
the needs are as perceived by the community at large. These associations included
Pleasanton Meadows Homeowners Association, Great American Homes, Mission Park Home-
owners Association, and San Ramon Homeowners Association. Additionally, the Dublin
Chamber of Commerce, Bay Area League of Women Voters, and the Lawrence Livermore
Radiation Laboratory were asked to comment.
FINDINGS
1 . The survey area (see Figure I) is currently served by BART express buses (under
contract to AC Transit), and Rideo-Patchett Transit for fixed-route scheduled
service. The City of Pleasanton and the San Ramon Valley Community Center
operate dial-a-ride services for elderly and handicapped persons only. Fran-
ciscan Lines, Inc., a private carrier, also operates express peak-hour buses
to Oakland and San Francisco. The University of California Lawrence-Livermore
Laboratory is served by BART during the commuter hours. Sierra Lines provides
bus service to locations east of the survey area. The Lab operates an extensive
vanpool program (LabTrans).
DRAFT
• Figure 1 •
, 1 Eastern Alamita County-San Ramon Valleransit Survey Area
‘ 24 , -
r4.44 it r v._
Ilk -
IN,. ea � . 1k,....------,...••
-,�.; aia
• • ,�,-s / r'rr►
.:'.. the:* •::::S:-: ' ,'
_ •�..
/. •
filb "?.-Is...6.. ,2_,,
1,6, . p ,lorm.... ...,..,` .
alk - 3•
:. . ..,
, S
1 �1
• 1:: • ,
_ .....„ i
.5.1 \as I ---„...— ,
•
. \ t ' A v. - , wait
iii
ti f•:.�:: :. a. r 4
AIR . ‘
iltil
Al ..
-1
•3:::■:.:::::: '41111111:1519:1.1' *iiiir 4111 •e e r- i ..:%::if§:K:if:...
* ill.7.1 el•Nis 0 ,__, `WO: * 1:1
. , , ----,7,. ir ■ . ••••••„....1,:tr eak,iw --... .... 'at
4:: ' q••+•• �.., It . tit ' _. (/i_
: larm...7 II, *I -•.t 7:..... - - __
: •• Zvi ��ot, "cy-#01, .:i,4•:•.
. •:•:e.i:::i::. Of CL.I;::y: ..yam ~ , r
. '', '• ":::iiiiiii::::::. .. „i■ . -■ . 7 7 .::::.,:i:
. it::::::.:„.:.:,. s ,
- - ' 1 %.. attlx ! i
X:......:::::: :-:-::::::.... 4, 4 --, ...:::::...:......::::•:.:::::::::::::::.1:::
k
' I")." :. ..••
0 0 3
DRAFT
2. For the most part, local and paratransit needs are adequately served by the
above system. BART buses function well in a non-commuter sense for the San
Ramon Valley and Pleasanton,. and provide critical connections to Livermore
for public and community services. Many riders taking BART buses to the
East Bay do not have the BART rail system as a destination. BART buses have
provided good substitute service for the school bus services lost through
Proposition 13.
3. The following problems and concerns were identified.
a) The appeal of BART express buses for commuters is reduced because of
the many stops and overcrowding by persons using the service for
local trips. (This is especially true in the morning peak hours
when the buses carry many school children).
b) An immediate problem for most communities is the need for direct
transit access to the recently opened Stoneridge Shopping Center at
the I-580/I-680 interchange. Continued light industrial and commer-
cial development in the Dublin area will create a need for additional
transit service in the future.
c) The lack of feeder bus service to BART express lines is another concern.
This is an especially critical problem in the San Ramon Valley which
is rapidly developing in large housing tracts. Several of the home-
owners groups in the Pleasanton area also expressed concern on this
point. Some of the more remote tracts (Pleasanton Meadows and Great
American Homes in particular) are served by community vanpool programs
but for the most part commuting is done by automobiles. In the Liver-
more area the Rideo-Patchett system is extending its routes to serve
new tracts.
d) Some concern was expressed about the adequacy of current trunk service
(frequency and location of stops) to major trip attractors in the
Livermore area: Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, Chabot College,
County Court House, and Valley Memorial Hospital .
e) Above all , concern was expressed over possible changes in the BART
express bus system that would substantially reduce the effectiveness
of BART as a provider of local service.
BART EXPRESS BUS FIVE YEAR PLAN
BART is currently preparing an Express Bus Five Year Plan (1981-1986). The plan,
due for completion this summer, will focus on the corridors in Alameda and Contra
Costa counties presently served by BART express buses. The plan will recommend
changes in service policy to increase service during commute hours, increase line-
haul travel speeds, provide more reliable interface between BART trains and express
buses, and change operating relationships with local transit operators as appropri-
ate. These policies will be realized through a modified express bus system aug-
mented by strategically located park'n ride lots.
DRAFT
...T..
4i1) 0 DRAFT
DeLeuw, Cather & Company, consultants to BART in Plan preparation, have proposed
specific service policies for the corridor in question. The following narrative
outlines the changes to current service recommended by the consultant and intended
to be in place by 1985-86.
1. Dublin - Livermore Corridor
This area is currently served by the U Route which consists of the Basic U
Route and two neighborhood collector routes, the UL and UP Routes. The
three communities of Pleasanton, Livermore and Dublin presently have access
to the Bayfair BART Station in San Leandro and to the Hayward BART Station.
The Basic U Route provides service to the Hayward Station for all three
communities, while the UL and UP routes provide peak period only service
to the Bayfair Station from Livermore and Pleasanton.
The consultant recommends that the Basic U Route be maintained with slight
rerouting modifications. Supplementing the Basic U Route would be the
existing UL and UP peak period commute routes also with minor rerouting
changes. A new commute Route, UH, serving the area south of Livermore would
be added under the Plan.
Route Descriptions (Figure II)
o Basic U Route - would be rerouted in Pleasanton to serve the new
Stoneridge Shopping Center. The present routing between Livermore
and Pleasanton will remain unchanged. It will continue to interface
with the D Route in Dublin, and provide service to a a RT
Station via I-580. I.J I
o UL Route - is a commute period only express service which serves the
east Livermore area. The rerouting is recommended to remain un-
changed through Livermore, with possible routing changes made later
to serve the proposed Livermore BART Station. The Plan recommends
that the Route be made more direct to the Bayfair Station by re-
placing service to Dublin and Regional Street with a stop at the
new park-n ride lot at Tassajara Road and I-580.
o UP Route - provides commute period only express service between
Pleasanton and the Bayfair BART Station. The UP is recommended to
be modified to provide some service to the residential area west of
I-680. The Plan recommends that in order to serve the residential
area, the existing route be changed from its current usage of Hopyard
Road to I-580 by rerouting along Stoneridge between Hopyard and Foot-
hill Road. Service to Dublin via the loop of San Ramon Valley, Amador
Valley, Dublin Blvd. and Regional Street would be retained. The
current reverse commute service to the Lawrence Livermore and Sandia
Labs would also be retained.
*It should be noted that the BART Express Bus Five Year Plan is a BART staff
responsibility. The consultant's role has been to recommend possible service
policies that might serve as a basis for the BART work. None of the proposals
or recommendations discussed in this section have yet to be formally approved
by BART.
DRAFT
0•
0••
•
•
CA•
• oy'' 1 ` 1�f- �' s.%'.. , ,. : , a
9111 P. • _ f . !...°=,• i -.../A �� 1L�� • -� U. '� , D
i y. > 401 '�•
4
ill pt... „trig ci-,...., •-• :I,. . ,..,•• ■,,... ... ._ • •_... -
. • e v z: -0F2T..., .,-2.). ,...• tyl-'.',...., -..,..... . .%..., ,.: I
33 a
c, i. ,, ix > r• O c fp
i
s y \ a x•
, 0
..4:e Jo .. . i
JQ
y1 i
•_1/ C
■ . .—' ,....../.. .., s. a,; -..‘ -----.' .‘ -5' 0 ' D g
Nitir -
3
. .°-.--- ". - \j‘5‘ g 1 ' .
. ;1 trEl em. .?... 4
` • • 'i i l . r11 •-- 'Y 1 va.'... • i _.r.:;.. :-* \1 .�.il ,,... - '
1 z
V ` • _. t•.s r'' ry ti
C . In - • .ti" y` a 6" p'.� v, >c.�•,„• ; •.` J� •.- •;:::•-v C 's
" Lam, .1
•
y.
• 1
1 ✓�r� s...•r f ,t .1 i .. . *"...'fit' ' 7 . . 3••••,
I
.j . i y r ;— :. ! is
--�•
6
fp., p
o New UH Route - This recommended commute period only express service
would be instituted to serve South Livermore. Service would be
provided along Holmes Street from Wetmore to 4th Street. Similar
to the UL Route, the new UH Route would provide service to the new
park'n ride lot at Tassajara Road and 1-580 prior to its freeway
service to the Bayfair BART Station. In the future, the Route
would be modified to serve the proposed Livermore Station.
2. Danville - Dublin Corridor
The communities within the San Ramon Valley area are currently served only by
Route D. This Route provides access to the Walnut Creek BART Station. Under
the current service, there are 42 intermediate stops between its southern
terminus in Dublin and the Walnut Creek BART Station.
Consultant recommendations suggest limiting the number of intermediate stops
to nine, thus, making the service faster. Two new peak period only express
routes are also recommended for institution in the area. Route DD would pro-
vide service between Danville and the Walnut Creek BART Station. Route DS
would provide service between Crow Canyon, San Ramon and Dublin areas and
the Bayfair Station.
Route Description (Figure III)
o Basic D Route - as stated earlier, the number of intermediate stops
would be reduced from over 42 to nine. The southbound service from
the station would use I-680 with freeway stops at Livermore Road
and Stone Valley Road in Alamo, and El Cerro Road in Danville. The
service would leave the freeway at Sycamore Valley Road, and follow
San Ramon Valley Blvd. to its terminus in Dublin.
o New DD Route - This commute period only express route begins in
Danville at Greenbrook and San Ramon Valley Roads. Prior to enter-
ing I-680 enroute to the Walnut Creek BART Station, frequent stops
would be made on Greenbrook, Sycamore Valley Road, Camino Tassajara
and Diablo Roads. Freeway stops are also provided in Danville and
Alamo.
o New DS Route - This new commute period only express route would
initiate service from the Crow Canyon/San Ramon area with through
service to the Bayfair BART Station. The service would begin at
Crow Canyon and Bolinger Canyon and San Ramon Valley Blvd., make
frequent stops along Crow Canyon and Bolinger Canyon Roads and
duplicate the D Route stops on San Ramon Valley at Montevideo, Pine
Valley Blvd. at Montevideo, Pine Valley, Alcosta in San Ramon and
at Dublin and Regional Streets. The service would be non-stop from
this point to the Bayfair BART Station.
D R A
. 7
Figure HI
- Proposed BART Express Bus Routes—Danville-Dublin Corridor •
•
• ';. Walnut Croak BART �.y/,�'A� \I Cre k i "'
! ` 14.x./ .471s. -•'�\ .J0
"C�� • "' a� rt r � 0 I,� F ..-,,,\...ke.t.
-�.. Clty�.,�r,�"�I `�—y 41!", t-
-:`
•
+ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11116 l:!! •�'` •\ • ..", _
Gam, • - l • "�
t afayette• : :-...: \,� a}n 1Ct�ek ` ` `.•- ,o —• . r -o, � . ^
:-.-.,;*".;• Valley 4i,•••%' ' . r L .- . Y�r�- - - -` - y - ---_
# .,.- .• _ •°: =\ i- to _..,, . i •
\•�`,+ `'i _ _ - - .1.4 2-- \ 9 _ .sl- 1 i
• ,,i .,„... ,^ .., • ....• 1�, ,, . - - Atamo '` _-. 2 'l° _ z-`�
D�• ..... \ ~'+i - \ . L . . •-*Iaml o >. t� , ,a..-
i • 4 •�Q -47', - • �l Men .•- = - _��r•' •- -,r'.i.• _fTSaltf C a' '•a. +fie= - ,, V_• •.0 '�� _`l_- ;1`/ L..,,_ •\ n r
SkiiiipiN •INbtotaQw "= _ _; "` I_-5 . sue\ _:.•l .,:•
. ♦ MAL PAR •r - !~f'
`♦ l_ � -J . �0� j~YV i��_� �' y_- c am _ ....
♦,r L A ' - (p! •' ' g� .-, - •• -
•- � \--.c -
-= o A _ ._ -:- ' - -_ }`~ _ - (-- -♦ ff. -'- •- .. -•_- BM■ 24 '_ ♦ , 1 . to
•
'••.1•.AK KNOUe '•. - - •- :i' . '1 -•, '. - -� • . Ramon '' •+ • ' •-
-
.. :\.....\__N 7...: • ••-44..2 -__: ....e..40N• ... , 41\.••••• 0 • ::-. •
�/ i yy-7•'��G .• - 9 - _ f L :14; ° ♦ 1•
- •. r.:.- �:�� _.„.� V,' .;-• 4 :ABM -pp ' �A r /•Fr\. '� \\
. f fit: -_ — - `_.-- �'� aC �. _ D �' `
-es., .'f�i' L.� ERGO KC AQLA - \•3- 4 •
'Ba Falr BART -Ir1 ti �� - 7 -..-;,,,,-).%.
. -
•c r
- - —• -•
K• AREA - roa CT r l• '
'` . —�- - \ - = 17"'°'\ ,•y - , _% -0 ice;;;.4- -A,,.:". _ -
4044% .
Basic Service, Stops :0 •
• • • • ••.. . Commuter Express (Peak Hours Only) :DO, DS
8
. ' DRAFT
IMPACT OF BART EXPRESS BUS PROPOSALS UPON IDENTIFIED CONCERNS
Changes in current service as proposed by the consultant would alleviate some of
the concerns and worsen others. The Dublin - Livermore corridor would benefit
from direct connection to the Stoneridge Shopping Center, and some new service
to residential areas west of I-680. The commuter express service, with fewer
stops and more direct routings, would likely attract more commuters. The
consultant also recommends retaining the existing frequent stop routing through
Pleasanton until local service is provided. In the Danville - Dublin corridor,
the additional and more direct commuter service will undoubtedly please commuters;
but the reduction in number of stops will reduce the effectiveness of the service
in meeting local transit needs. (The issue of feeder service to BART express buses
is outside the objectives of the BART Plan.)
In commenting on the consultant's proposals, MTC staff made the following points
concerning the implications for local transit in the survey area.
o MTC strongly supports the recommendation to continue frequent stops
in Pleasanton until local service is provided, including the bus
stop at Stoneridge Shopping Center.
o Any_new service configuration that substantially changes current
patterns of express bus service should be implemented only after
local service, where available and appropriate, has been substi-
tuted to fill gaps caused by changes in express bus service.
o The location of express bus stops should be determined in con-
junction with local transit planning in order to ensure the best
transfer relationship possible between express and local services.
This is especially critical given the intention to reduce the num-
ber of stops.
o The consultant recommends auto commute to bus stops as the first
line of feeder service; the provision of additional parking space
and park'n ride.lots is a principal recommendation. We would
support this intention but only in conjunction with a concerted
effort to make local transit provide effective feeder service
to BART express service.
o Concerning the provision of transfer points and stops in Livermore,
the consultant recommends one transfer point (Rideo/BART) and few
stops. Were trips from outside origins to major activity centers
(Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, Chabot College, etc.) considered
when developing the proposal on the number and location of bus stops?
CONCLUSION _
On the basis of the survey findings there does not appear to be any immediate need
for a comprehensive transit study in the area. Current transit service"- s adequate
for the most part and where needs are most accute, steps are being taken to provide
some improvement in service. In some locations circumstances are such as to make
it difficult to support new or expanded local service. This is especially true in
the Danville - Dublin area where development is mostly residential , low to medium
density and fragmented; there are few major trip attractors, such as shopping and
employment centers, and with the impending loss of Federal funding subsidies to
DRAFT
9
• to local operators, it is doubtful existing local service could be augmented to
meet new demands. However, growth within the survey area will eventually justify
expanded local service; and concerns raised in this report about the nature of
possible changes in BART express bus service and their relationship to local needs
bear watching.
It is recommended that MTC continue to work jointly with BART and local operators
(Rideo-Patchett, Central Contra Costa Transit Authority) to address any specific
needs revealed by the BART Express Bus Five Year Plan or by concerned parties
in the area, and in a manner appropriate to the realities of funding, potential
transit service capabilities and urgency of identified concerns. •
•
DRAFT
kj
i \
4
"LOCAL TRANSIT IN THE LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY"
November 2 , 1982 /
1. BART EXPRESS BUS RIDERSHIP (Average Weekday)
} 1975 1980 1982
U/UL/UP 1051 2537 2491
( D 532 2821 3072
2. 1982 RIDERSHIP BY LINE
U 1635 409 (25% TO BART) 1126 (75% LOCAL)
UL 623 330 (53% TO BART) 293 (47% LOCAL)
UP 233 209 (90% TO BART) 24 (10% LOCAL)
2491 948 1543
D 3072 768 (25%) 2304 (75%)
3. Attachments
a. Five Year Plan Summary
b. Existing Service Analysis
c. 1985/86 Plan for D $ U
4. Continuing Area of Concern
a. Lack of local transit in Pleasanton, Dublin and
San Ramon.
•
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview •
The proposed Plan calls for streamlining existing local service
into a rapid and attractive freeway express service that connects
the BART Rail System with BART Bus/Park-Ride stations located at
future rail station sites . The proposed plan features the follow-
ing four elements :
1. Decrease the total travel time required for Express Bus trips
by reorienting routes from local streets to freeways , as local
transit agencies are able to take over the local service now
• provided by BART;
2 . Develop BART Bus stations at future rail station sites that
provide parking capacity and convenient facilities for trans-
, ferring between local feeder and BART buses;
3. Improve schedule coordination between BART trains , BART buses •
and local buses to minimize patron transfer delay, thereby
making bus/rail transfers more attractive ; and,
4. Implement a management information system that permits
continual monitoring, evaluation and refinement of the bus
system so that service can be delivered in the
most efficient manner possible .
The proposed system would offer significant improvements in
several key areas : minimizing Express Bus operating costs , in-
creasing rail patronage and revenue , alleviating rail access
problems and functioning as an interim extension of the rail
•
•
system. In summary, the proposed plan offers a unique opportunity
.both to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing
BART Express Bus System, and to take concrete , visible and signifi-
cant steps toward accomplishing other key BART goals .
0
1
• TABLE IV-1
0• . GOALS, OBJECTIVES, PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND STANDARDS
1985/86 1979/80
1 - PROPOSED l EXISTING
( GOALS OBJECTIVES PERFORMANCE INDICATORS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS PERFORMANCE
C�A. Develop Express 1. Develop BART a. Provide adequate Implement as
Bus Service as Bus Stations parking capacity indicated in -
Interim at future rail Chapter VI
• Extension of station sites b. Provide attractive
Rail Service station amenities
2.Encourage local _ a. Develop frequencies
operators to and schedules Implement as
provide feeder compatible with indicated in - •
. service to BART Express Bus Service Chapter VII
• Bus Stations .
a. Bus travel time
•
B. Increase BART 1. Provide higher auto travel time.* a. 5 1.3 a. < 1.7
Rail level of • b. On-time performance b. 295% b. NA
Patronage . Express Bus
Service c. Maximum load factor c. 1.0 c. 1.0
d. Average vehicle speed d. 2.24 mph d. > 21
2. Coordinate BART a. Coordinate service a.Develop bus schedules
train and frequencies and that match bus and a. NA
Express Bus schedules train arrivals/
Services b. Missed connections be- departures
tween BART trains and b, < 5% b. NA
buses as % of all
connections
• 3. Hold bus depar- a. Develon bus wait Hold buses up to ..
pendingotrain procedures 1.0% of bus headway -
, arri'r� s
"., C. Increase 1. Reduce the sub- I a. Farebox recovery ratio* a. 2.25% a. _> 14%
Operating Cost ger for Express
Effectiveness Bus Operations .
2. Provide a. Bus/rail transferees as .
effective % of all bus patrons* a. Z 60% a. > 27%d
Express Bus b. Passengers per vehicle b. ? 1,0 b. > .95
Service to operating mile
increase c. BART rail passengers c. 214 c. > 5.2
service per bus vehicle,
attractiveness operating hour
•
d. Passengers per vehicle d. 2 23 d. > 20
operating hour*
e. Operating Subsidy* e. .t$1).19 e. < $0.22
per passenger-mile
D. Provide 1. Encourage a. Establish uniform fare Equal base fares -
Coordinated transferring structure based on MTC
. Services between guidelines
Among operators b. Develop joint pass for
Operators fare payment between:
•
•
• - Express Bus and trains - 1982 -
- Express Bus and local - 1983
bus service .
• I
2. Develop con- a. Implement proposed
venient and FY 81-82 transfer
comfortable facilities at: !!I
transfer - Willow Avenue - 1981 -
• sites - Hilltop Drive - 1981 -
- Rudgear Road - 1981 -
*Primary performance measures to be used for route-by-route analysis (Chapter V) .
**Does not include deadhead miles.
EXISTING SERVICE ANALYSIS
South Corridor
Analysis :
The U/UL/UP route achieved the best overall performance . Its ratio
of transit to auto access time was 1 . 14 , the best in the Express
Bus system. The farebox recovery ratio of 14 . 2% was slightly above
the system average , although substantially below the system standard
of 25%. The U/UL/UP route carried 21 passengers per hour which is
below the standard of 23, but greater than all routes except the M.
The combined U/UL/UP route exhibited an overall 20% rail/bus transfer
percentage . However, there was substantial variation in the transfer
percentage between the basic U route and the peak period UL and UP
subroutes . The transfer percentage for the basic U route was 25%
while the UL was 53% and UP - 90% .
Conclusions :
The existing series of U routes is the most successful in the Express
Bus System, however, the performance of these routes could be im-
proved through the development of park/ride facilities at strategic
locations .
Central Corridor
Analysis :
The D and M routes primarily serve local trips rather than trips
bound for the BART rail system. As a result, the D route exhibits
1 the lowest rail/bus transfer percentage , and the highest average
access time compared to auto access time . However, the M route
achieved the highest farebox recovery ratio while the D route
achieved a median ranking. These indicators reflect the local nature
of the routes , and the attendant frequent stops and low operationg
speeds . Generally, bus travel time is twice that by auto on the M
and D routes . This factor discourages patrons from using these
routes for access to the BART Rail System. To illustrate , in FY
1980 - 1981 , 75% of D bus riders did not use the D to reach BART.
This suggests the need for two separate kinds of bus service in the
corridor: 1) locally-oriented service that meets intra-corridor
travel needs ; and 2) an attractive , rapid BART feeder bus service
that is competitive with the private automobile .
The M, and most of the D routes operate within the jurisdiction
of the Central Contra Costa County Transit Authority (CCCTA)
and should therefore be taken over by CCCTA at the earliest possible
time . Indications are that CCCTA will be in a position to take
responsibility for the Martinez-Walnut Creek service in 1983 .
However, it is unknown when CCCTA will be able to operate local
service between San Ramon and Walnut Creek. Every effort should
be made to expedite this process . BART should continue to provide
local service in the interim period.
One other factor affecting the implementation of an attractive
freeway-based express/park-ride service is the availability of
park/ride capacity. Immediate attention should be focused on
locating, acquiring and developing park/ride facilities in the San
Ramon Valley Corridor. Inasmuch as Caltrans only owns one site with
limited potential, BART will have to explore the lease and/or joint
use of private property near I-680.
Conclusions :
A freeway express bus system serving park/ride facilities should be
implemented as soon as possible . These efforts should be given a
high priority, given the generally inefficient and ineffective
service in this corridor. BART should also urge CCCTA to assume
u
responsibility for local San Ramon-Walnut Creek service by FY 1983/84 .
1
RECOMMENDED 1985/86 SERVICE PLAN
Basic U Route
The U would eliminate most all existing stops in Livermore except
for a stop at a park/ride facility at the future West Livermore
BART Station site at Stanley and Murrieta Boulevard. This facility
would serve as a hub for the local Livermore transit system when
the station site is developed as a BART Bus station.
4170 4:1
travel needs ; and 2) an attractive , rapid BART feeder bus service
that is competitive with the private automobile .
The M, and most of the D routes operate within the jurisdiction
of the Central Contra Costa County Transit Authority (CCCTA)
and should therefore be taken over by CCCTA at the earliest possible
time.. Indications are that CCCTA will be in a position to take
responsibility for the Martinez-Walnut Creek service in 1983 .
However, it is unknown when CCCTA will be able to operate local
service between San Ramon and Walnut Creek. Every effort should
be made to expedite this process . BART should continue to provide
local service in the interim period.
One other factor affecting the implementation of an attractive
freeway-based express/park-ride service is the availability of
park/ride capacity. Immediate attention should be focused on
locating, acquiring and developing park/ride facilities in the San
Ramon Valley Corridor. Inasmuch as Caltrans only owns one site with
limited potential, BART will have to explore the lease and/or joint
use of private property near I-680.
Conclusions :
A freeway express bus system serving park/ride facilities should be
implemented as soon as possible . These efforts should be given a
high priority, given the generally inefficient and ineffective
service in this corridor. BART should also urge CCCTA to assume
responsibility for local San Ramon-Walnut Creek service by FY 1983/84 .
3 RECOMMENDED 1985/86 SERVICE PLAN
Basic U Route
The U would eliminate most all existing stops in Livermore except
for a stop at a park/ride facility at the future West Livermore
BART Station site at Stanley and Murrieta Boulevard. This facility
would serve as a hub for the local Livermore transit system when
the station site is developed as a BART Bus station.
The U would retain its present route and stops between Livermore
and Hayward, but in Pleasanton would be rerouted to serve the
Pleasanton Station park/ride site .
The U weekday service would offer 30-minute headways during the
peak and midday periods , and hourly service on Saturdays , Sundays ,
and holidays .
UL Route Commuter Service
In addition to making its current stops including the transfer
point at Dublin and Regional, the UL would also serve a new BART
Bus station/park and ride lot at Tassajara Road and I-580 and the
Livermore BART/Bus station. Reverse commute service to the Lawrence
Livermore and Sandia Labs would also continue, using U and UL buses
in service from BART stations in the AM peak and vice versa in the
PM peak.
The UL would operate at 30-minute headways during peak periods
only. UL service would arrive at Bay Fair BART between 6 : 00
and 9 : 00 a.m. , and depart between 3: 00 and 6 : 30 p .m.
UP Route Commuter Express
The UP routing would also be slightly modified to serve the Pleasanton
Station site and residential areas south of I-680 . It will continue
to make all existing stops . The UP would operate at 30-minute headways
during the peak periods . The UP would be scheduled to arrive at Bay-
fair BART between about 6 : 30 and 8 : 30 a.m. and depart between
4: 30 and 6 : 30 p .m.
US - Crow Canyon/San Ramon Commuter Express
This route would originate at Crow Canyon Road and San Ramon
Valley Boulevard. It would then make the present D route stops
on Village Parkway, San Ramon Valley Boulevard, Montevideo , Pine
Valley, Alcosta, and Dublin and Regional before nonstop service
to Bayfair BART.
Weekday service on the US route would be provided at 30-minute
headways during peak periods with buses arriving at Bayfair BART
Station between 6 : 00 and 8 : 00 a.m. and departing between 4 : 30 and 6 : 30
p.m. No midday, evening holiday or Sunday service would be provided
on this commuter-oriented route. The proposed route is shown on
Figure VI-2.
Central Corridor
BART Express Bus service in the Central Corridor would be greatly
streamlined by 1985 to offer one freeway express route.
DE Route
The DE route would operate entirely on Interstate 680 between
Walnut Creek and the Pleasanton Station park/ride site . The DE would
make stops at BART bus stations located in the vicinity of I-680 and
Livorna Road, Stone Valley Road (Alamo) ; El Cerro Boulevard, Sycamore
Boulevard (north of Dublin) . The DE route would then serve the
Dublin transfer point at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and
Regional Street prior to terminating at the Pleasanton Station
park/ride facility.
Time savings between the existing D route and proposed DE route
is estimated to be from 15 to 20 minutes per trip .
Weekday service on the DE route would be provided at 30-minute headways
during peak and midday periods, and 60 minutes at other times .
Hourly service would also be offered on Saturdays , Sundays and Holidays .
--
. ,
,
I-. •.. u ,..■ ..., • ,..., '0-J -.. •
0 r•-4 I, > 0 CD 0 .
. . ...I ca ..- 0 CO ••-1 r.4
..• 0 . •0 .0
.-I 0 tp
4-1 tO Olf) •-• C ,r)4-4 4, VI 1.4.
> ..,:.
•or•cr-lj 1,,.54
CO 0,•.4 t .-- ,..•: .11 V)••••I ni 4-I 3••-• > •-0
.. .-4 ••- o 0--tt- >•.:.-...0 0.) . .••••■
• '0 0 • 0 >,, V) .0 4, 4V 0 CI ›... C Cl S-4 $... • ... •...
• . I..4 'IC/ 0 1-, • •• 4-, 5 0 4,-, • o aa -a .--4 0,.0 .."
0 r-4'I0 > 1-,••••I C ••'LI 0 ...-r- 1-,•.-I Cl •,, r: „:,3 .1 co :;-?. so
-,• 0.1...4 . g••-■• o .._-% > o o to 0,.--4 0 •-..... 0 0.-j 04..
r
t"3•...1...I ..4.4 La.."0••-• CI••••1.-I ci 44 >.,
" 0 cQ
.5 404 P4 tc■ ,J ‘-, al 4, tO 0 4-t U 0 :I rS :.• 0 C).-..0
. :.....
0 >, cj r3 cl ••• . ••C cl c-.1 Cl • (-)
-". 0•0 0 • C.)t..-4 0 WI 0 0) CI 0 4.4 t../ I..•01 C..) •••
Ei 4, y......_, 0 ,.. 0 ....1 CA 0'0 ••-• 0 o > rs
o 0 r :•-• a. 1/•-I .4 I-4 IA 0••-• a. 0•--1 I....A t•-• I, =•.4 t...)
...0 0
P C.1
0.0 i-. • 12 K.: ...,
it,••-,
........ , ....,
P ,„, • c•3 g -0
4-I CO P.., .-. 0•t-t 4.1 n _a .-. > C., 4).-1 4-1 U 1.0 A
C.) •
,0 0 $. ...ti ,..?
.4-1 CI 7.7•-•
.0•-•' fil ,
t..).Q tn >C4 Cl 0 PO •":: L• ;••Cr■ 0 LI-I ›...."' u -a 0•-:',--o
. 0 .6. CI) S....... .1.... s. 0 ,-.-••••.g o o•:-.71•-.., . 0 a • •••1
e.:. C.) ... > 0.4 4, .. •••4 :,.......:C3 0,t4 i-, r-4 1.-4•Cc LI••-4 0
10... ■..2
5
•.-1 0 .•c.-. in ,-,
> 4" • o --' 0.75 > 0 C v, ,...
rs ,-ii ul 3-.(--. ..-4 r0 .0 4-) , .‘..--4
0•-4 -el.--1 4,
>•n •
Li F. 0 13 4-) , .1:1 P. 33 S, 0 2 S.7. ,z)0. al ....>4:2 ....-: 0 >
4-4
0 > 54 k--• ,-. 0 >, .. .-, ,-, 0 e''..)
.... . .
.... ,... ,...- 0 0-,0 › 0.. ...., 0 0 c-0 . c 0.-. • in 0 • cri
0 G.) 0 0..q '4. 4-1 0 C.1 0 C.) 0..-1.-0 r-I 0 0 CU•••• n
•,-..... ;:-..• 0., s........ >.•-p a 3..s- a. •-. r: > t•3 r. VI 4,
4,
0 .... 0 0 kt. ....1 0 ••••1 0 .4 CY .1 0 > a > ' tr.) --< i e4
0 1-•..-E•-■ ,....-- 0 ..-4 -...* .0 a1 rs 0 CD .--I = ••• 0 Cl.)CD • •• 11 - --
1..,,-,,--4 cl. ,-; 4., 0 0 6.,,. .-■t.,-t >•os 1, 0 Cl) = E.. 0... 64 V) 4-, al 1.„C0‹. .
R.:J.0 •-• 7 4-• > :"....... 0 ›:•••••_• 0,0 D 4-1 > ifi C c._. g c.1 c....•ir, ..,, i•-• .■--,>
.....0 52 0,,„g!:-.4 _g•••4 I"••1 1. 0 .-;.-I 0 .A. . a. . 2F-••••••14 .
, . .
• • •
•
•
i •
,,, . . •• • .
^ •
I'a
i ..:-.,.; s0 s • a I
1 .
a s e ' •
c0 >•
....,,c••a a #
s.. I
e I
t . ,
•
i
I s I
1
CO k-r.
,
i .
:4 0 • 0 CD C3 •
0. el lel el . VI
•..../
. •
03 • •
....,„
VI
CD • 1 1 I
CO 1 I 1
Ul 1.1.3 10 I I I • •
t 03 V)
•-■ CI 0 1 0 I
CV .ey. ..y•■--1 te) • I I I
4..... IC) . -
:.•4 C3 CD
CO 13.. 1.1 10 VI ' en
c)
• .-4 .
ad • .
>-. 8
• ..:,..-1
.....
(31 I-.4 '-•;4 C:4 • I I t
.
0 ,...- I 1 • - I 0
S.0 VI
0
• :..3 0 d , , •,,-,,,,, u
443 .41 • 0 0 0 ^
.... .„.
-•••• :-.,:.'' CD / I 1 tA CO ti VI
g
cc) :Ft:2; • 1
. • 1 I en‘0 0
0 I 0. C)
0.. 2 Cr)
I ,... 3)0 03 0
Cl) • Q. 03 le) en v., 4.0
=
q .-. .
til tO vs In
0 4) 0 0
V) t) U U U•
0-0 41"0 0 0
_I.V.) 1;1 c) 1 4 I 1.) r....•.0 0. a.
at I s tn vi
--:.•••..... 0 a.
0 0
10 •FO I
I s
I 1
I 4-s a.0 a V.. U.
•-3
00 ..f) • g S C9 II):t*C?1 8,93 2: g Ft
,....F-, •-...>.C) 03 4 0 4 IA•.-4 I 4, 0 64 I f.-.•r-/ t V/
W C.I •-f,-.4 In
CO ....-j""' •
8
4, I I
C) a 4,T..I 4,'"U 4-, > 0 4-I
aa
,-4 4J•'-4 Cl•,1 c:...4..-1 4,,..
1.4 0 •' 0 1 c:3 0 •1.V3 V);Z.V) tf).-1 V)V)
23. 141 . . F tol t0 •
in ••:s•
io
u
.:,' ,•-■ •.- .0 4 s 4 0 0i) q)
1
0 .
0 I 0
I)
1 ......•
I-4::-.GI 0 I
S I
I I
S .
O 0•-:
V/ •••1 I 0
ar.
VI
/ 0 03 P1
....... I I I 0 4) 0
--.t 4) C3 4.1 FCI
.
•It . I-I 1-1•.-1
:14 ••••••:-4 C 0 CI C3 :•14 Cl/,,,,, P
;A.. t•-, t.-, ,..., ,..-,
...,„„ ,_.
•
•
• . .
• Cl) ,
. Ill a
I-1
•
(••••
11.-•
.-.1
l•-•
• •
. 0 0
• tra • .r.
.
r...) • f i)
.......
Ci •••:'
0
:.- •-•
J ' .
c-
.
C 7
T
• .O.1 N C
V) .1 x ^ • C) N
, "0 /.4 0 0 > 0 N•r-, 144 444 • • C
H O +-' .0 H C) N O 0 4.4 C) •C. O
• N u 0 0 b-• C3 N C) U U C 1•• U C O +� .0 x
• C C 7 U'O - i.C O ++ u
~ .: O 0 C) a'V)
v
•.1.1 ..-1 4...I U C i-, C 0 N U ^,. G .. ^J^J
_
++ CC 1. s•+ ^ '-. O N) C -0 F o >G:•r... C C0 3 •c J N ^J 'D _
t C)Ca•C CS r r In C .0 C4 t7.L f--C 0 ) M 1 > O0C \ E 4 I. T
e + C) . C 0 l. 0 L. N 0 G CL^• N C1 3-. ++ 00 W V..1
U C 0 .O-' V) ^Jr ■' U 0 C. •.I ..C.. O tS u 1. N r. N M 1.
•.1 +.+ C x pE '-' C) .i c•-• w:C 4-• CC. t"0 10..L u> CO N< +O+
++.-c O ++ •0 C) C� CC .1 +.+ - F+ u • C U ••+ ^1 6 - ..--+..'.,
.G U1. C) Cg0U ;4 W 0 C 2 . �7 • .. h 0< ,x
_ +)W C C1 CO 1» >. • r O ••1 LLLOOO V NC .,y +_, O U 'C c.
C)d 0 1. @ N ?CUN '� CC •'CC x u C ut C) N CC 4-6''''i v
U • 1. C)4.+V) 0 ++ CC 1• C C 0 V) ut ut c3 > C • ., o :d 1.. c
6 •.•1 rt M' C 0 0 SC•.--, O M•.i C) C) CJ•.. 0 0•••. CC u o) 4 C) -4.1
i >.1
1.•^c w C .1•-.
O C O C i. = 0 t7 u G
D 4.-4 O VI r O CI C I. -, U ti~ >
.+ U S •+ ...IN) V) G •b
ad O'O L. 0 U 0=c-• U GC Cs i to ++ C 4.' ..iG. SH C \ E C ++C O x-5 >
o o 0)-- n o h 1. c ++ i o x c N o o V ■ n-7 C a
• ++ c . ...-I U C F. O 0 z C1
O +-•O 1.++ 0 U ..-6
IA c -.1 C CC :4 1. 0 C) C) A> U +.+ O >..c=1 ++ H W C >.1. CC 0. u
Vi ct v)•.. CC U••• C.3 4 C) 0 $.. CS•.1 N .. i. U C) >• C. CJ i
C) to x C G.••-.C.• 1. C 0 X.-7 •H _C_< U 3.X < �..i-. O ut 3 % •• II II
I. C) C) d a E'CC U . C) 'r 'o L O C) ; Co C O U O 1 G C
G C) C)) +•' O \ 0 CO O'C t� C7 U C) U J C C .0 C) U >
Y
4-1. C C1 N 1. 0 cc v < Z O••4 Ct s. i+ U <..i 4 .1 1..1•.-1 -P.
W a.U 'L]V) +.. a.-+ 1.:a co U L:. c3 0) a t- >a. C:•U U G v r.G 1~C::•.•) �' ...)
•
rl
I`+i Y • • • O so
• • • •
o
• • • • O
.o p) ..) • • • CO•CO O•
\<0 • • • 0 M
) in�•--■ I I • 6 M
O .t. M•X • 1 1 0
.G C:. • I • c')
O
in •
CO 2
-4- , I 1 tO0 .O0 C vi
• �> • • • O O O U rt(NI 1.4 • • • .a .G l.
C O OD V i. G
� I • I 0 0 CZ 11) Ci y
... .-. • • • co M C. v
w �
0
-
• S pp
a 4.
Z�C O . • O
(f 2• '. t p co • • 0 •
• lL ` CO 1) O • • .0
CC: CC. G c'1 ••. M • , M •
L' q G.c.
I-to
q :.;.1 6. M M • lO')
U
i i OO p y C
CO CSS
:11 O O O C i 1 a. M M M •"•1- - •
441 •c
V) -
C)
•...
F•
H
•-a
ri
U
U
• C ra. 1
in C d
14 5o 0 6 m i
C h�, C 0 Q
•