AC TRANSIT DISTRICT GM Memo No. 08-017 Board of Directors ... · Board of Directors Financing Corporation SUBJECT: ... Considering the operation or ownership of park and ride centers

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT GM Memo No. 08-017 Board of Directors Executive Summary Meeting Date: May 28, 2008

Committees:Planning Committee Finance and Audit Committee External Affairs Committee Operations Committee Rider Complaint Committee Paratransit Committee Board of Directors Financing Corporation

SUBJECT: Consider Amending Board Policy to Allow Demonstration Projects with Lowered Parking Fees at AC Transit Managed or Owned Transit Centers

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Information Only Briefing Item Recommended Motion

Consider Recommended Motion to Amend Board Action of October 15, 2003 (GM Memo 03-262a)

Fiscal Impact:Reduction of the parking fee requirement will result in added annual District costs. Staff estimates the cost for the 12-month project herein proposed for the Richmond Parkway Transit Center as approximately $50,000. It is anticipated there will be some increased fare revenue to partially offset these costs.

A positive outcome from the proposed Demonstration Project will strengthen the position of the District to retain $28.7 million in funds committed to constructing a 660-space parking facility and expanded Transit Center at the existing Richmond Parkway Transit Center site. The Transit Center has the potential to substantially increase Transbay bus ridership.

Background/Discussion:In October of 2003, the AC Transit Board approved a series of actions included in GM Memo 03-362a: related to Park and Ride Transit Centers to wupport bus ridership. That GM Memo is included as Attachment A to this memo for ease of reference. One action recommended for adoption in GM Memo 03-262a was “Adopt Transit Center Park and Ride Policies.” The proposed policies included the following:

1. Recognizing the need for park and ride infrastructure to support some express bus services

BOARD ACTION: Approved as Recommended [ ] Other [ ] Approved with Modification(s) [ ]

The above order was passed on: .Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary By

GM Memo No. 08-017 Meeting Date: May 28, 2008 Page 2 of 6

2. Working with partner agencies, such as CalTrans, to investigate site and funding opportunities

3. Considering the operation or ownership of park and ride centers 4. Requiring that capital costs for park and ride infrastructure be funded by external

capital sources 5. Requiring the operating costs of park and ride facilities be funded by users, via parking

fees6. Declaring that the goal for parking fees is to cover amortized capital costs as well as

operations and maintenance costs; however, the policy clarified that the Board may choose not to seek this goal in some circumstances

Richmond Parkway Transit Center Experience

Over the past several years, the District has acquired experience operating the Richmond Parkway Transit Center (RPTC) parking lot. Various analyses have been conducted, and consultant recommendations have been made regarding parking fees for the 660-space parking garage about to be constructed on that site. A number of public agencies have made comments on parking fees charged at RPTC, their impacts on financing park and ride infrastructure, and on agreements for future facilities such as Ardenwood. In all instances, the conclusion has been that parking fees are substantially at odds with the basic goal of supporting bus ridership.

The issue of fare elasticity has emerged with respect to RPTC. Briefly, fare elasticity refers to the impact of fare changes on ridership. It is generally assumed that an increase in fares will result in a loss of ridership, as a result of some people’s unwillingness to pay the increased cost. This has been the case at RPTC. When parking was free, the lot would fill before 7 a.m., and evidenced demand for substantially increased parking. Since the $3 parking fee was imposed, a de facto fare increase, the lot has not filled up. It is generally three quarters full, with approximately 50 spaces left empty.

Although estimates of ridership are complicated by the recent introduction of all-day service on the LA route, it is reasonable to assume that without parking fees those spaces would be filled. The empty spaces represent a loss of over $5,000 in monthly passenger revenue. In any case, it is clear that a substantial number of commuters who previously parked in the facility are no longer doing so. Further, there has not been a corresponding increase of 50 daily parkers in the nearby, free CalTrans parking facility at Hilltop.

There have been on-going discussions of various ways to ameliorate the parking fee. One suggestion was to charge a parking fee, but to provide a free TransBay bus trip for the patrons who paid to park. This proposal raised several issues, in part because the District estimates that about 50% of parking lot users take advantage of casual carpools to travel to San Francisco in the morning. Moreover, the Richmond Parkway Transit Center lot was originally constructed with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funding. FHWA regulations state that fees assessed at park and ride facilities cannot be used to subsidize


transit operations; thus, providing a discount to bus riders, while offering no incentive for carpoolers, may violate FHWA guidelines.

Another proposal that staff considered was to reduce the parking fee by one dollar. However, staff theorized that this minor reduction would likely not guarantee that the lot would be filled once again, since even a $2 parking charge represents a significant cost increase on top of the Transbay fare. It is anticipated that lowering the fee to $2 would generate only a modest increase in lot utilization.

Consultant Recommendation Regarding Parking Fees

A series of consultant studies conducted for the West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) and for the RPTC Planning Group, which AC Transit chairs, have clearly indicated that demand exists for a 600-800 space parking facility, as part of a transit center.

A total of over $28.7 million ($16 million in Regional Measure 2 (RM-2) funds and $12.7 million in various Contra Costa County State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds) has been formally committed to the development and construction of a 660-space parking garage and transit center on the site of the existing RPTC park and ride lot. The environmental document for the project is due to be completed in Summer 2008, with engineering and design to start shortly thereafter. Staff anticipates that the Plans, Specifications and Engineering (PS & E) aspects of the project will take approximately one year to complete. As the PS & E process proceeds, staff likewise hopes to be in the process of evaluating the results of the Demonstration Project.

Part of the analysis prior to the environmental work was included in a memorandum authored by Nelson/Nygaard Consultants, “Parking Demand at the Richmond Parkway Transit Center” (Attachment B). The document contains several statements with respect to the imposition of parking fees at the prospective facility. Those statements include:

1. “We believe that the operator of the parking lot has relatively little ability to charge for parking given the availability of free parking elsewhere in the corridor, particularly if the current constrained parking supply is greatly enlarged.”

2. “By increasing the size of the parking lot to meet perceived demand, the operators are also proportionately decreasing their ability to charge for the product.”

3. “There are significant barriers to charging for parking at the Richmond Parkway Transit Center, despite its ideal location.”

Public Agencies Question Need for Garage, Based on Current Empty Spaces

Public agencies and consultants agree that the construction of a large garage at this site is justified, with strong demand that would lead to increased transit use and decreased auto traffic on Route 80. Staff notes that this consensus opinion is based on the premise of no parking charges being imposed. Further, the one-quarter-empty status of the current


parking facility is endangering funding for the overall parking garage/enlarged Transit Center facility. CalTrans has noted that the existing parking lot has not filled up since parking fees were imposed, and has questioned the justification of building a costly parking garage that may likewise not be filled.

As mentioned above, RM-2 and STIP funds have been allocated for this project, but those funds still have to be released to AC Transit by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for the RM-2 portion, and from both the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCCTA) and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for the STIP funding. Although these monies are currently allocated and available during the construction period, the intense competition for transportation funds in California at this time suggests that the prudent way to proceed is to ascertain whether lowering the parking fee would increase lot utilization, and lead to more certainty of funding support for the parking garage project.

Review of Issues

Over the past several years of charging a parking fee at the Richmond Parkway Transit Center, the District has had an opportunity to analyze the effects of the Board requirement that operating costs of park and ride facilities be funded by users, via parking fees. Staff notes that the imposition of a $3 parking fee appears to have resulted in a significant negative impact. The fee appears to have driven parkers and bus riders away from the facility, and caused both consultants and other public agencies to question whether the larger transit center should be constructed.

A variety of alternative approaches to the current $3 parking fee have been proposed, ranging from rescinding the fee altogether to increasing it to $3.50 (the cost of a Transbay fare), and including a free ride on Transbay service with a parking receipt. Increasing the fee to $3.50 – and further increasing it to $4 in the near future, as part of a possible overall fare increase – was met with strong opposition from CalTrans, who retains ownership of the land and is a party to the maintenance agreement under which AC Transit operates this lot. CalTrans staff is concerned that such an increase would further penalize casual carpool users, as well as WestCat local service patrons. The WestCat General Manager does not have data on the number of WestCat patrons who may use the RPTC; his sense is that the number is “very few (if any).”

Additionally, it is assumed that an increase in already-high parking fees would lead to lower lot utilization. Less patronage would in turn lower fare revenues. Staff notes that a substantial amount of the parking fee pays for parking fee collection. Presently, the monthly amount attributable to the collection of parking fees is $2,950. Raising the parking fee could therefore result in several negative impacts to the District, as well as to casual carpoolers, and to a small number of WestCat patrons.

Rescinding the parking fee altogether would resolve the lot utilization and funding retention issues raised earlier, but would represent a substantial departure from existing Board policy. While it would remove the costs of fee collection, the District would continue to be


responsible for security costs. Although eliminating the parking fee would be well-received by the public, the point must be made that any subsequent need to charge for parking would meet with resistance. In essence, maintaining a nominal parking fee allows for the potential of future parking increases.

Finally, the proposal to reduce the parking fee to $2 was considered and rejected as a “half-measure” option, which would not meet the current requirement of fully funding parking lot costs, and which would also not likely generate a significant increase in lot utilization.

Staff Recommendation

It is the recommendation of staff to implement a 12-month Demonstration Project, charging a $1 fee for parking. Revenue collection costs would remain $2,950 per month. Assuming that the Demonstration Project was successful, and all 200 spaces in RPTC were filled, this means that the net revenue to the AC Transit from parking fees would be about $1,000. The calculation is as follows: 200 spaces X $1 X 20 weekdays/month = $4,000 gross revenue. Gross revenue minus collection costs = $1,050. Staff will closely monitor lot patronage over the 12-month period of the project, to ascertain the accuracy of the hypothesis that lowering the parking fee will result in the lot being filled to capacity once again. Staff anticipates that the data that is collected will support the use of $28.7 million in RM-2 and STIP funds for construction of the 660-space parking facility, and will also set a precedent for charging a $1 fee for the parking garage once it is completed.

As further support for the above recommendation, staff notes that the Demonstration Project is likely to have a positive impact in two important areas: reducing traffic congestion on Route 80, and attracting auto drivers onto transit. Therefore staff recommends facilitating the proposed Demonstration Project by amending the Board’s 2003 parking policy, in order to allow projects which may not fully fund parking facility costs for a specific amount of time, in order to increase lot utilization and increase bus ridership. Staff recommends that the Board amend the requirement that operating costs of all park and ride facilities owned or operated by AC Transit be fully funded by users of the parking facility, to allow for demonstration projects.


Prior Relevant Board Actions/Policies:GM Memo 03-262a: Approve Actions Related to Park and Ride Transit Centers to Support

Bus Ridership GM Memo 03-172: Initiate Discussions Leading to a District Transit Center and Park and

Ride Policy

Attachments:Attachment A: GM Memo 03-262a – Approve Actions Related to Park and Ride

Transit Centers to Support bus Ridership Attachment B: Parking Demand at the Richmond Parkway Transit Center

Approved by: Rick Fernandez General Manager Nancy Skowbo, Deputy General Manager Service Development

Prepared by: Jon Twichell, Transportation Planning Manager

Date Prepared: April 11, 2008

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT GM Memo No. 03-262 a Board of Directors Executive Summary Meeting Date: October 15, 2003

Committees: Paratransit CommitteePlanning Committee Finance Committee External Affairs Committee Operations Committee

Board of Directors

SUBJECT:Approve Actions Related to Park and Ride Transit Centers to Support Bus Ridership

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Information Only Briefing Item Recommended Motion

1) Adopt Transit Center Park and Ride Policies; 2) Authorize General Manager to Enter Into a Memorandum of Understanding for theDevelopment of the Richmond Parkway Transit Center; and 3) Authorize General Manager to Enter into an Operating and Maintenance Agreement

with Caltrans for the Richmond Parkway Transit Center.

Changes to this memo, as noted in bold, reflect comments from the Planning Committee as well as additional staff comments.

Fiscal Impact:

BOARD ACTION: Approved as Recommended [X] Other [ ] Approved with Modification(s) [ ]

MOTION: PEEPLES/WALLACE to approve staff recommendations as presented and shown below(7-0-0-0).

Adopt Transit Center Park and Ride Policies; Authorize General Manager to Enter Into a Memorandum of Understanding for the Development of

the Richmond Parkway Transit Center; and Authorize General Manager to Enter into an Operating and Maintenance Agreement with Caltrans

for the Richmond Parkway Transit Center.

Ayes: Director Peeples, Vice President Wallace, Directors Harper, Jaquez, Bischofberger, Kaplan, President Piras - 7

Noes: None – 0 Abstain: None – 0 Absent: None – 0

The above order was passed and adopted on October 15, 2003.

Rose Martinez, District Secretary

By

GM Memo No. 08-017Attachment A

GM Memo No. 03-262a Subject: Consider Actions Related to Park and Ride Transit Centers Date: October 8, 2003 Page 2 of 8

None at this time. District has received $153,000 in STA funding to facilitate planning and project management of the Richmond Parkway Transit Center, and will receive an additional $37,500 in Contra Costa County Transportation Authority park and ride funds in the near future.

Background/Discussion:

The Park and Ride Policy Discussion contained in this memo is especially timely for several reasons:

1. The condition and operation of the Richmond Parkway and Hilltop Park and Ride Lots is extremely poor and unsafe. exposing the District to risk and liability.

2. Significant amounts of new capital monies are likely to be available to build transit centers and park and ride lots along the I-80 corridor and in the San Mateo Bridge and Dumbarton Bridge corridors (mostly through bridge toll increases but also pending federal transportation reauthorizations).

3. The Region is developing the new RTP, the counties are refining their countywide plans, and the District is updating its SRTP, allowing for policy input on express bus and park and ride lot issues at both the regional and local level.The ability to capture funding anticipated for express bus and ancillary facilities requires identifying these projects at this time.

The AC Transit vision, as articulated in the District’s Short Range Transit Plan is to be the mobility manager for the East Bay; allowing anyone to go anywhere they want safely, quickly and efficiently. The District’s efforts have been focused on providing fixed-route and paratransit service, with some attention to infrastructure to support the service, such as at transit centers. But the major premise to date has been that people will access bus service at the origin and destination of their trips either by walking/wheeling, bicycling, or using other mass transit. This memo recommends that the District officially expand its support for transit centers to include park and ride facilities where appropriate, and that the Board approve policies governing the operation and maintenance of park and ride lots. Further, the Board should authorize the General Manager to enter into agreements related to the Richmond Parkway Transit Center.

National Experience with Park and Ride Facilities


Park and ride facilities have fulfilled a need to collect and shift travelers from low-occupancy vehicles to high-occupancy transit vehicles for more than 60 years. As stated in NCHRP Synthesis 213, Effective Use of Park-and-Ride Facilities, published in 1995, “Park-and-ride facilities represent an important component of many transit systems in the United States.” A substantial body of transit and research literature has reviewed and supported the essential role of park and ride facilities in providing transit ridership.

The NCHRP report recommends clear criteria for locating park and ride facilities:

“Locate park-and-ride facilities in congested travel corridors…with high levels of travel demand.”“Include preferential transit services, either rail or HOV lanes, to enhance park-and-ride facility ridership levels.”“Orient park-and-ride facilities to ensure good accessibility and visibility.”

A recent analysis of park and ride facilities operated by 24 major transit systems, as reported in The Urban Transportation Monitor on June 13, 2003 (Attachment A), indicates that a substantial number of transit agencies, both bus and rail in this country and in Canada, currently consider park and ride lots critical to their transit operations. Transit operators participating in the survey included BART, Miami, Houston, Dallas, Seattle, San Diego, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City and Montreal. Many of these operators provide over 1,000 park and ride spaces, such as Houston, Tacoma, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City, Calgary and Montreal.

The primary characteristics of successful park and ride facilities, as defined by these transit operators, include:

1. A location generally equidistant between the outskirts of their urbanized area and the core central business district. 2. Over 90 percent of the lots were served by express transit service and/or transit service with priority. 3. Over 70 percent of the lots were located within a half-mile of a major highway.

4. Over 70 percent of the lots are served by transit service with headways of 10 minutes or less.

A comparison for AC Transit to consider is the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority of Austin, Texas. Much like AC Transit, Capital Metro is an all-bus operator in a medium-sized city and urban area, with substantial service to a major university, and is considering the implementation of Rapid Bus routes. CMTA’s Five Year Facilities Plan, as amended in May of 2003, contains the following statement: “Express services should be anchored by off-street parking, and the amenities at the parking lots should convey that express service is premium service.”


Austin’s Five-Year Facilities Plan includes the construction of a good number of well-appointed park and ride facilities, most in conjunction with transit centers, with a built-out total in excess of 1,000 spaces.

Regional Experience

The Bay Area case for the necessity of park and ride lots supporting express bus services has been made many times, in many studies. Recently completed analyses supporting park and ride facilities in the Bay Area for transit use include the Bay Crossings Study, the Water Transit Authority Study, and the Contra Costa Express Bus Study. The Contra Costa report concluded: “Another critical additional investment need in this corridor is an increase in park-and-ride spaces. The opening of the HOV lane on Interstate 80 resulted in an unanticipated surge in the popularity of park-and-ride lots, creating a shortage of spaces.” In addition, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s 2002 HOV Lane Master Plan recommended an investment program to “add as many as 387 new miles of carpool lanes around the region…and build more than a dozen new express bus/park-and-ride stations around the Bay Area.”

Additional studies reviewing park and ride facilities for express bus support are underway. Caltrans has recently begun a state-wide Park and Ride and HOV Transit Enhancements Project, with AC Transit planning staff on the Technical Advisory Committee. The initial presentation of this study included the I-80 Corridor, particularly the portion served by Vallejo Transit, as a statewide model for success. Also underway at this time is Caltrans District Four’s Bay Area System Plan for Regional Express Bus Service. That study, being conducted by the UC Berkeley Transportation Center, has as a vital task the identification of “Needed Infrastructure Improvements,” including park and ride lots.

AC Transit Experience

Newer AC Transit Transbay express bus markets, such as the LA and SB lines, are located in the outer portions of the District and are increasingly dependent on park and ride facilities to bring passengers from their origins to Transbay service. Unlike traditional Transbay service, which penetrates dense neighborhoods in urban areas and relies on patrons who walk to the bus, express bus service serves outlying areas by collecting riders at a few locations before entering the freeway, often with high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, and proceeding to one or more destination stops.

Transbay lines are currently supported by several park and ride lots, but they have not been guided by any official planning or policy recommendations. As a consequence, the location of the lots is based almost solely on availability of land, with little analysis of how well they serve express bus markets. Additionally, almost no attention is given to security and maintenance of the lots, which is a critical component to attracting customers. The two most


successful park and ride centers served by Transbay buses are the Richmond Parkway Transit Center (RPTC) and the Ardenwood Transit Center at the Dumbarton Bridge. Both of these facilities fill very early in the morning and there is significant demand for additional spaces. In December, the District will eliminate several low-productivity Transbay lines, including the LB, LC and LD lines in Contra Costa County, which will likely increase demand for access to the remaining LA line. Both of these sites are highly visible, and are located at critical sites associated with interstate and state highways. Other AC Transit-utilized park and ride facilities, such as Castro Valley, Island Drive in Alameda, and the Hilltop Park and Ride, suffer from poor locations which are not easily visible, have no on-site security and limited usage.

It should be noted that the development of Park and Ride lots in the District’s suburban fringes is consistent with AC Transit’s service policies. These policies clearly identify the need to provide transit service differently in the suburban fringe from that provided in the urban core. It is therefore appropriate that suburban bus transit operators acknowledge reality and consolidate passengers at Park and Ride locations. Suburban densities and the level of traffic to core generators almost always means that using AC’s traditional express bus pattern results in many meandering miles of poor patronage. In contrast, consolidating passengers at Park and Ride locations maximizes patronage and minimizes bus operating cost.

Recommended Policy Guidelines Related to Developing Park and Ride Centers:

AC Transit staff recommends that the Board approve guidelines that will be used to begin integrating park and ride transit centers into the District’s planning process. These would include:

1. AC Transit planning documents, including the Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP), should recognize the need for park and ride infrastructure to support some express bus services. Future express bus planning studies should analyze the need for park and ride centers as a critical component of the proposed service. A preliminary list of park and ride locations in the District's service area that should be investigated is shown in Attachment B. These six locations are based on existing and future service needs, have been identified in other planning studies, and have potential funding sources. This list will be updated in future versions of the SRTP. Bicycle lockers should be considered, where appropriate, as an essential component of Park and Ride Transit Centers, as should the presentation of transit information and the availability of transit ticket sales.2. AC Transit should begin discussions with partner agencies, such as Caltrans, to investigate site opportunities and funding opportunities to increase capacity where needed at existing sites and develop new sites, where warranted to support existing express bus service.3. AC Transit should consider assuming operation or ownership of park and ride centers where they are needed to access AC Transit Transbay service.


4. Capital costs for all park and ride infrastructure owned or operated by AC Transit will be funded by external capital sources. 5. Operating costs of all park and ride infrastructure owned or operated by AC Transit will be funded by the users of the parking facility. Federal highway regulations clearly limit the fees which can be assessed at park and ride centers when federal highwayfunding has been used to construct that facility, such that the fees can only cover operating and maintenance costs; parking fees cannot be used to subsidize transit operations. 6. The goal for parking fees is to reflect the amortized costs of capital investment in a Park and Ride Transit Center, regardless of how funded, as well as operating and maintenance costs discussed in 5. above, except where specifically prohibited by funding source. The Board may choose not to seek this goal in some circumstances.

In addition, the following definition of appropriate locations for Park and Ride Transit Centers should be included in the SRTP:

AC Transit reaffirms that its basic service model for local and East Bay Rapid service is on-street operation and pickup, reinforcing a walkable and pedestrian oriented urban design. In most locations in the service area, AC Transit Transbay operations can also be provided efficiently and effectively through on street operation and pickup. AC Transit further reaffirms its committment to supporting transit-friendly development throughout the service area.

However, under current conditions, especially in the fringes of the service area, Transbay/express service cannot be provided effectively or efficiently through on-street service. As a result, AC Transit will consider owning and/or operating automobile park and ride facilities for transbay and express services in these locations because:

a. The population density of the area is too low; and b. The pedestrian access for residents in the area to streets where service might operate is poor.

In addition, in all cases where substantial park and ride investments are made, the District will view these investments as part of a broader effort to develop a transit-oriented community adjacent to the proposed facility, with the park and ride facility serving as an initial project to develop a viable and atttractive transit option.

Specific Issues at the Richmond Parkway Transit Center

The Richmond Parkway Transit Center (RTPC) is currently the most critical park and ride center used by our Transbay riders, and existing conditions there make it extremely difficult


for many riders to access it. The lot fills by 6:45 a.m., vandalism to parked vehicles is unfortunately a regular occurrence, and on-site bus shelters have also been vandalized and subsequently removed. Caltrans, the current owner of this facility, cannot provide on-site security or prompt, regular maintenance, and wishes to divest itself of the RichmondParkway Transit Center, as well as other properties.

AC Transit staff has been investigating the provision of on-site security and replacement of the removed bus shelters, by negotiating an encroachment and maintenance permit with Caltrans. Funds for physical improvements, as well as AC Transit staff time, are being provided by STA funds previously allocated for capital improvements to the lot. Providing on-going security would require a parking fee to cover this operating cost.

In the long term, $8 million in capital funds for a parking garage at the RPTC site is contained in the Contra Costa County STIP. The proposed garage will contain up to 800 spaces. An additional $15 million is programmed in S.B. 916, the potential upcoming Bridge Toll measure. AC Transit has been participating in a planning group attempting to pursue both long range and short range improvements to this facility.

To facilitate immediate improvements at the RPTC, staff recommends that the Board authorize the General Manager to enter Into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with six partners for the development of the Richmond Parkway Transit Center. The other agencies participating the MOU are Caltrans, WestCAT, WCCTAC, and the Cities of Pinole and Richmond. The MOU, which is shown in Attachment C, commits the parties to regular communication around the issues faced at the Parkway, and states that the partners will retain consultant services to prepare a planning and conceptual design study in anticipation of potential funding to construct the expansion project at the Parkway.

Staff also recommends that the Board authorize the General Manager to enter into an Operating and Maintenance Agreement with Caltrans, under which AC Transit would become responsible for the maintenance of the existing facility, including security measures. Caltrans would allow AC Transit to institute a paid parking program to cover the security and maintenance costs at the facility.

Prior Relevant Board Actions/Policies:GM Memo 03-172 Initiate Discussions Leading to a District Transit Center and Park and Ride Policy

Attachments:Attachment A: The Urban Transportation Monitor, June 13, 2003, “Characteristics of

Successful Park and Ride Lots”


Attachment B: List of candidate park and ride sites for review within the Short Range Transit Plan

Attachment C: Memorandum of Understanding

Attachment D: Draft Operating and Maintenance Agreement with CalTrans for the Richmond Parkway Transit Center

Approved by: Rick Fernandez, General Manager Kathleen Kelly, Deputy General Manager Service Development

Prepared by: Jon Twichell, Transportation Planning ManagerAnthony Bruzzone, Manager of Special Projects

Date Prepared: October 9, 2003

GM Memo 03-262a Attachment B

List of Potential Park and Ride/HOV Facilities/Transit Centers to Investigate

Richmond Parkway Transit CenterIncludes new garage, improved HOV bus access, new HOV off-ramp from north I-80 into Parkway, possible on-line station.

Funding sources: $ 8 million CCC STIP $16 million, bridge toll capital (S&H code section 30914(c) (9))

Gilman Street, BerkeleyIncludes park and ride for buses at foot of Gilman Street. Could be merged with WTA Berkeley ferry terminal. Scope includes planning, urban design and construction.

Funding sources: $16 million, WTA bridge toll capital (S&H code section 30914(c) (25)) $48 million, WTA bridge toll capital (S&H code section 30914(c) (28))

West Grand Avenue, OaklandIncludes bus access improvements for West Grand Bay Bridge approach, possible new park and ride near Maritime and West Grand.

Funding sources: $20 million, AC/ACCMA South Bridge Group toll capital (competitive) (S&H code section 30914(c) (29))

San Mateo Bridge Bus Access Improvements, Hayward

Includes park and ride facilities at BayFair BART, Hayward Airport, Chabot College (and/or adjacent location). Also includes TOD study for Hesperian Blvd from Winton to Highway 92. Includes HOV on-ramp to 92 from Hesperian.

Funding sources: $20 million, AC/ACCMA South Bridge Group toll capital (competitive) (S&H code section 30914(c) (29)) $20 million, Safe Routes to Transit capital (competitive) (S&H code section 30914(c) (20))

Dumbarton Bridge Bus Access Improvements, Fremont-NewarkIncludes expanded park and ride facilities at Ardenwood Transit Center (Highway 84 and Ardenwood) and Fremont and Decoto Road.

Funding sources: $20 million, AC/ACCMA South Bridge Group toll capital (competitive) (S&H code section 30914(c) (29))

GM Memo 03-262a Attachment C

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSIT CENTER

THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSIT CENTER is entered into as of _______________, 2003, by and between the following public agencies, which shall be known collectively as the “Richmond Parkway Transit Center Planning Group” (“the Planning Group”). The agencies comprising the Planning Group are: (1) the California Department of Transportation (hereafter “Caltrans ”); (2) the Western Contra Costa Transit Authority (hereafter “WestCAT”); (3) the City of Richmond; (4) the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (hereafter “WCCTAC”); (5) the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (hereafter “AC Transit” or “District”); and (6) the City of Pinole.

This Memorandum of Understanding constitutes solely a guide to the respective intentions and policies of the parties involved. It is not intended to authorize funding or project effort nor is it a legally binding contract. Funding commitments providing for the deposit of funds for specific work phases or project effort committing machine or personnel time will be covered by one or more separate cooperative agreements as may be outlined herein.

RECITALS

A. The six agencies entering into this Memorandum of Understanding have for the past several years been working together as an informal planning group to advance funding and construction of an estimated 800-space parking facility and Transit Center, prepare appropriate environmental documents and identify associated mitigation, and plan, design, and implement interchange and access improvements at the site of the current Richmond Parkway Park and Ride lot; and

B. Caltrans is the current owner of the site and the existing parking facility, and is involved in the planning process for the new facility, but Caltrans does not desire to own or operate the site or the new facility once constructed; and

C. Caltrans and the City of Richmond presently share responsibility for the maintenance of the existing facility under the terms of a 1996 Memorandum of Understanding between Caltrans & the City; and

D. The Planning Group desires to formalize their involvement in this project and provide specific direction for short term and long term management of the Transit Center project; and

E. AC Transit and WCCTAC have taken the initiative to generate funding for the project; and

F. The Planning Group recognizes that the Hilltop Drive Park and Ride lot, located at the interchange of Hilltop Drive and Interstate 80 (on the east side) and also owned and operated by Caltrans, is another important and closely related parking

facility serving the same corridor as the Richmond Parkway Park and Ride lot, and is expected to receive increased use in December 2003 due to anticipated AC Transit service changes.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Memorandum of Understanding agree as follows:

1. To meet on a regular basis (to be defined by the parties) to facilitate the continued development of the Richmond Parkway Transit Center expansion project, as well as short-term improvements to the existing Richmond Parkway and Hilltop Mall Park and Ride lots.

2. The term of this Memorandum of Understanding is for a period of 5 years or until the ownership of the Transit Center property is transferred to another party, whichever is less.

3. The current Chair of the Planning Group is AC Transit, represented by its Transportation Planning Manager, Jon Twichell. The parties agree that they will annually select one of the agency representatives to act as Chair of the Planning Group. The next Chair will be selected for a one-year term to commence January 1, 2004.

4. AC Transit shall designate a staff member to serve as the Project Manager. The Planning Group will provide direction to the Project Manager as needed.

5. All formal actions by the Planning Group shall be made by consensus, or, in the case of disagreements, by majority vote with one vote allowed per agency. However, as owner and manager of the current Richmond Parkway Park and Ride lot, Caltrans shall retain the final decision-making authority on all actions pertaining to the operation of the existing facility.

6. No later than December 31, 2003, AC Transit and Caltrans intend to enter into an Operating and Maintenance Agreement, whereby AC Transit would become responsible for the maintenance of the existing facility, and Caltrans would allow AC Transit to institute a paid parking program according to all applicable laws, regulations, and policies.

7. No later than October 31, 2003, the Planning Group intends to retain the services of a Consultant to conduct a Planning and Conceptual Design Study for the expanded parking facility and Transit Center. WCCTAC shall oversee the study and the selection of the Consultant. Each Planning Group member agency may have one representative on the consultant selection committee. The contract will be awarded and administered by WCCTAC. The Consultant services will be funded equally by WCCTAC (using $37,500 of Contra Costa County Measure C “Park and Ride Lot” funds) and AC Transit (using $37,500 of State Transit Assistance (STA) funds).

8. The Consultant will perform the services listed in the attached Request for Qualifications (RFQ), and will prepare a final report to be used as a basis for any environmental analysis and documentation required prior to the construction of

the new facility. The RFQ was drafted by WCCTAC and AC Transit staff, and reviewed and approved by the Planning Group.

9. The Planning and Conceptual Design Study is expected to be completed within a period of 6 to 8 months, concurrent with consideration by California voters of “Regional Measure 2”, also known as the Bridge Toll Increase bill or “RM 2”, in March 2004. If RM 2 is approved, funding will become available for the environmental analysis, final design and engineering, and construction phases of the Richmond Parkway Transit Center expansion project.

10. No later than June 2005, Caltrans intends to transfer ownership of the existing site and facility to either AC Transit or a new Joint Powers Authority comprised of members of the Planning Group.

11. Upon receipt of a formal written request from the Planning Group, Caltrans agrees to initiate the internal process of “decertifying” the Hilltop Drive Park and Ride lot as an operating State right-of-way, which would allow the operation and/or ownership of the property to be transferred to another public agency or a Joint Powers Authority. Caltrans will consider exploring self-funding opportunities for lot security if the usage could sustain a self-funded contract.

12. No party to this Memorandum of Understanding, nor its Directors, officials, officers, or employees, shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of a negligent act or omission of any other party under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to it under this Agreement.

13. Any of the parties to this Memorandum of Understanding may terminate their involvement in the Planning Group or MOU at any time by providing written notice to the Chair of the group at least 30 days prior to the effective date of such termination. In such a case, the Planning Group shall continue to function with the same duties and responsibilities, unless the remaining members vote to terminate the entire Memorandum of Understanding and dissolve the Planning Group. AC Transit and WCCTAC agree that once the Consultant contract is awarded, their respective financial commitments to funding the Planning and Conceptual Design Study shall remain in effect notwithstanding any decision to terminate their involvement in the Planning Group or any other agreements outlined in this MOU.

__________________________________ Date: ___________________ Bijan Sartipi, District Director

For Caltrans, District 4

__________________________________ Date: ___________________ Rick Fernandez, General Manager

For AC Transit

Approved As To Form

___________________________________Kenneth C. Scheidig, General Counsel

For AC Transit

_________________________________ Date: ___________________ Charles Anderson, General Manager

For WestCAT

___________________________________ Date: ___________________ Irma Anderson, Mayor For City of Richmond

___________________________________ Date: ____________________ Janet Abelson, Chair For WCCTAC

___________________________________ Date: ____________________ Maria Alegria, Mayor For City of Pinole

04-CC-80-6.2

(AC Transit Edits to Caltrans edits of Agreement – August 12, 2003)

DRAFT AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE RICHMOND PARKWAY TRANSIT CENTER ON ROUTE 80 IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND

THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into effective this ________day of _____________________, 2003, by and between the Department of Transportation, State of California, hereinafter referred to as "STATE", and the Alameda – Contra Costa Transit District, hereinafter referred to as "DISTRICT".

A. RECITALS

1. A park and ride facility, hereinafter referred to as “FACILITY”, will be improved by DISTRICT under an Encroachment Permit.

2. The FACILITY, which is within the DISTRICT’s service area, is partially located within STATE’s right of way on the west side of Interstate Route 80 and Richmond Parkway in the City of Richmond and unincorporated Contra Costa County as shown on Exhibit A, attached to and made a part of this Agreement.

3. Both parties mutually desire to specify the respective FACILITY operating and maintenance responsibilities of the two parties, in particular the maintenance and security functions to be performed by DISTRICT, and to specify the terms and conditions under which such work will be performed.

B. AGREEMENT

This Agreement shall supersede any previous Agreement relating to DISTRICT’s maintenance of FACILITY. In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein contained, it is agreed:

1. DISTRICT shall perform such maintenance work as is specifically delegated to DISTRICT as hereinafter described under Section D, or as said section may be subsequently modified with the written consent of the parties hereto, acting by and through their authorized representatives.

2. DISTRICT shall maintain, at DISTRICT expense, a parking facility for users of the park and ride lot on the entire FACILITY area.

3. Rights granted to DISTRICT under this Agreement are restricted to maintenance, security, and the collection and enforcement of FACILITY parking fees. Any other use or presence by DISTRICT or the DISTRICT’s authorized contractors will require that a separate encroachment permit be issued to that party from STATE.

1

04-CC-80-6.2

4. DISTRICT shall not, at any time, use or permit the public to use FACILITY in any manner that will interfere with or impair the primary use of FACILITY as a park and ride lot.

5. STATE reserves its right to use those areas within STATE’s right of way for future construction, reconstruction, expansion, modification, or maintenance purposes without restriction or reimbursement to any party should FACILITY be reconfigured or closed.

6. STATE reserves the option to inspect, at random, all areas of FACILITY to assure conformance with standard STATE maintenance levels. Such inspection does not preempt or modify the DISTRICT’s maintenance responsibilities assumed under this Agreement.

7. An encroachment permit from the STATE will be required for third parties if DISTRICT contracts out the FACILITY maintenance, security, or fee collection duties to a Contractor not approved in advance by the STATE. Said Contractor shall be subject to the same inspections and responsibilities as specified herein for work performed directly by DISTRICT. The enforcement of parking regulations by uniformed governmental personnel shall not require an encroachment permit.

8. The Term of this Agreement shall be for a period of 5 years unless terminated earlier pursuant to Paragraph G. below. This Agreement shall commence on October 1, 2003. DISTRICT will reapply every five years for a new encroachment permit, which will stipulate reasonable terms of entry by DISTRICT onto STATE's right-of-way for the purpose of maintaining and operating FACILITY.

C. MAINTENANCE DEFINED

Maintenance is defined in Section 27 of the Streets and Highway Code.

D. MAINTENANCE FUNCTIONS

The maintenance functions that are delegated to DISTRICT, at DISTRICT's sole expense, are as follows:

1. PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE

This maintenance includes minor pavement maintenance such as pothole repair, sweeping, and debris removal of the paved surface when necessary. It shall not include repaving of the lot surface when the overall pavement condition deteriorates to an unacceptable level, which repair shall continue to be the responsibility of the STATE.

2. LITTER AND GRAFFITI

2

04-CC-80-6.2

DISTRICT shall be responsible for maintaining the f FACILITY in a condition free of litter, debris (including all broken glass) and graffiti. .

3. SIGNS

DISTRICT shall be responsible for the installation of signage necessary for the direction and operation of FACILITY, including but not limited to the posting of parking regulations. .

4. STRIPING

DISTRICT shall install and maintain all striping and pavement markings required for the direction and operation of the FACILITY traffic.

5. LIGHTING

DISTRICT shall be responsible for the replacement of damaged or malfunctioning electrical installations required for public safety. However, STATE shall be responsible for repairing all lighting and electrical failures or damages that occur due to STATE’s improper design or installation or due to a failure by STATE to maintain such installations in working order prior to the effective date of this Agreement. DISTRICT will inspect FACILITY and list all such maintenance issues within thirty (30) days of execution of this Agreement.

6. SAFETY DEVICES

DISTRICT shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair, replacement, and cleaning of safety devices located within the FACILITY, including gates, fences, and markers. However, STATE shall be responsible for repairing and cleaning all safety devices to a level acceptable to the DISTRICT prior to the effective date of this Agreement. DISTRICT shall inspect and list all safety devices requiring repair or cleaning within thirty (30) days of execution of this Agreement.

7. LANDSCAPING AND GARBAGE COLLECTION

STATE shall be responsible for landscaping and garbage collection services at FACILITY as presently being provided pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Richmond and STATE which agreement is attached hereto and made a part hereof.

8. SECURITY

DISTRICT shall provide staff personnel at the FACILITY from approximately 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. weekdays The staff personnel shall monitor the FACILITY and report any suspicious or criminal activity and parking violations to the appropriate authorities. DISTRICT shall provide and install a prefabricated shelter and a portable toilet facility for the use of staff personnel at no cost to STATE. The presence of staff personnel at the FACILITY shall not imply any assumption of liability by DISTRICT for any injury, damage, or any other loss to

3

04-CC-80-6.2

vehicles, property, or persons unless directly caused by DISTRICT staff or its authorized contractors. STATE shall retain its responsibility for the investigation and reporting of Part I crimes.

9. BUS SHELTERS AND BENCHES

DISTRICT or its approved Contractor may install bus shelters and benches in the bus waiting area of the FACILITY for use by its passengers, and shall maintain these shelters and the surrounding areas in a neat and clean condition. DISTRICT or its approved Contractor may also provide and maintain electrical connections to these shelters for the purposes of providing lighting and/or transit information displays. DISTRICT or its approved Contractor shall arrange and pay for any necessary electrical permits from the appropriate utilities. Any advertising display panels located on the bus shelters shall be oriented such that they are not visible from any federal-aid interstate highway in accordance with state and federal regulations.

E. PARKING FEE COLLECTION AND USE

1. COLLECTION RIGHTS

DISTRICT’S operation of FACILITY is intended to be cost neutral to DISTRICT. STATE shall allow DISTRICT to establish a reasonable parking fee to be collected from users of the FACILITY for the purpose of recovering DISTRICT’S direct and indirect costs of operating the FACILITY as more particularly described in Paragraph 2 below.

2. FEE AMOUNT AND USE

The parking fee shall be collected on a daily basis, and all parking spaces, with the exception of one space reserved for AC Transit Supervisors, shall be made available to the general public on first-come, first-served basis. The amount of the daily fee shall be set by mutualagreement between STATE and DISTRICT. The initial fee shall be based upon DISTRICT’s best estimate of the annual direct and indirect costs of operating the FACILITY as required under the terms of this Agreement. . The amount of the daily fee shall be re-evaluated by DISTRICT and STATE on an annual basis and adjusted based on the actual documented costs of performing the activities associated with this Agreement.

3. ACCOUNTING

DISTRICT shall maintain a separate accounting, hereinafter referred to as the “Richmond Parkway Transit Center Parking Fee Account” (the “Parking Fee Account”), for all parking fees collected at the FACILITY. Funds in the Parking Fee Account shall only be used to offset costs and expenses related to operation of the FACILITY. . DISTRICT agrees to maintain all receipts, invoices, pay stubs, and any other applicable documentation relating to the cost of FACILITY operation and charged against the Parking Fee Account for a period of three years and to provide copies of said documentation to STATE upon reasonable request.

4

04-CC-80-6.2

4. PARKING REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT METHODS

STATE and DISTRICT shall mutually develop and approve a set of parking regulations for the FACILITY which shall be enforceable per the California Vehicle Code by authorized personnel of any governmental body with legal jurisdiction over the FACILITY.

5. FEE COLLECTION

DISTRICT shall provide and maintain all equipment and personnel required to collect the parking fees, including ticket machines and any associated protective housing, entry and exit gates (if required), regulatory signs, and electric and telephone connections.

F. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties who are not parties to this Agreement or to affect the legal liability of either party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the maintenance of State highways or the FACILITY different from the standard of care imposed by law.

2. It is understood and agreed that neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by DISTRICT under or in connection with any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to DISTRICT under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, DISTRICT shall defend, indemnify and save harmless STATE and all STATE officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from anything done or omitted to be done by DISTRICT under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to DISTRICT under this Agreement.

3. It is understood and agreed that neither DISTRICT nor any DISTRICT officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, STATE shall defend, indemnify and save harmless DISTRICT and all DISTRICT officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement.

G. EFFECTIVE DATE AND RIGHT TO TERMINATE

5

04-CC-80-6.2

This Agreement shall be effective upon the date of its execution by STATE, Either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason by giving 60 days written notice to the other party.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written.

ALAMEDA – CONTRA COSTA STATE OF CALIFORNIATRANSIT DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

__________________________________ ____________________________________ RICK FERNANDEZ Date JEFF MORALES Date General Manager Director of Transportation

Attest:

_________________________________ By__________________________________ Clerk for DISTRICT Date BART DESAI Date Deputy District Director Maintenance Approved as to form:

_________________________________ ___________________________________ DISTRICT Counsel Date Attorney Date

Department of Transportation

6

Documents

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT GM Memo No. 08-017 Board of Directors ... · Board of Directors Financing Corporation SUBJECT: ... Considering the operation or ownership of park and ride centers