TO: AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM: Michael A. Hursh, General Manager/Chief Executive Officer
SUBJECT: Realign Draft Service Scenarios
BRIEFING ITEM
AGENDA PLANNING REQUEST: ☐
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Title
Consider receiving a report on the proposed draft service scenarios for Realign and associated public engagement.
Staff Contact:
Ramakrishna Pochiraju, Executive Director of Planning & Engineering
Beverly Greene, Executive Director of External Affairs, Marketing & Communications
Body
STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE:
Goal - Convenient and Reliable Service
Initiative - Service Quality
The proposed resource constrained and unconstrained (visionary) scenarios aim to maximize service, enhanced service quality, and provide convenient and reliable service.
BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with introducing draft service plan scenarios and seeking comments to help inform the Realign planning process.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
The Realign planning effort combines a comprehensive review of existing service, robust public and stakeholder engagement, and market research and analysis to craft a new service network for the District that responds to the changing travel needs of the communities we serve. This report provides an overview of the proposed draft service scenarios. These scenarios were developed based on the following Board-approved Guiding Principles:
Equity: Provide bus service that prioritizes mobility for communities who need it the most.
Intent: This principle is intended to provide the greatest level of service where concentrations of the greatest mobility need exist, focusing resources within an expanded list of Equity Priority Communities within the AC Transit service area.
Evaluation: Service alternatives will be evaluated against the Equity principle through measures that address 1) Equity Priority Communities served; and 2) access to key destinations supporting Equity Priority Communities.
For Equity Priority Communities, evaluation measures will address changes to service levels in terms of frequency, span, and coverage. This analysis will be completed at various scales to show differences across the service area.
For access to destinations, evaluation measures will address changes to service levels for key destinations that support Equity Priority Communities. This analysis will also address the quality of transit service connecting Equity Priority Communities with key destinations.
Reliability: Provide bus service that is reliable and predictable.
Intent: This principle is intended to provide adequate operating resources to ensure that trips that are scheduled are operated and service delivered is reliable.
Evaluation: Scale scheduled service levels to real-world operator availability and budget sufficient time in schedules and in recovery time to account for real-world travel conditions and restroom access needs. This may require service reductions.
Frequency: Provide frequent service to the most people. The importance of frequency will vary by location and will be balanced against geographic coverage and community needs.
Intent: This principle is intended to provide the highest frequency service where the greatest demand exists.
Evaluation: Service alternatives will be evaluated against the Frequency principle based on access to the high-frequency network.
Evaluation measures will address the number of residents and jobs with access to the high-frequency network. This evaluation will also quantify the number of residents and jobs that would experience increased or reduced service compared to existing conditions for different times of day and on weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays.
Overview of Draft Service Scenarios
The scenarios detailed below represent the initial draft service recommendations based on extensive analysis of the existing system, demographics, travel and ridership patterns, the customer & community survey, and feedback received from engagement. These scenarios reflect the Board-adopted Guiding Principles. There are two resource-neutral scenarios and one unconstrained vision scenario that reflects what’s possible if there are operators, buses, and funding available for expansion beyond current levels of 1.9 million platform hours, 1,208 operators, and 413 peak buses (about 85 percent of pre-pandemic service levels). The line recommendations in each scenario are numbered according to the first letter of the scenario (“B” for Balanced Coverage, “F” for Frequent Service) followed by the line number. None of the scenarios propose changes to Supplementary service to schools (i.e., 600-series lines). Also note, no changes are proposed for the paratransit service area offered by East Bay Paratransit in the cost neutral scenarios and any expansion of coverage in the Unconstrained Vision Scenario would be required to include expansion of paratransit coverage.
• Balanced Coverage Scenario: This scenario focuses on expanding coverage in some areas and adjusting routes to improve service reliability. Service levels remain at the same level as today. The more significant changes in this scenario include: San Pablo would be served by two lines operating every 15 minutes, instead of three at uneven intervals. Proposed lines B6 and B51 would rearrange how service is provided on College, University, Broadway, and Telegraph. Line 33 would be replaced by changes to lines B18 and B88 (proposed route numbering for purposed of this plan). Service along Mission Blvd would be provided by proposed lines B10 and B299 instead of Line 99. Service would be added on Adeline and Alcatraz streets and a new line would connect Fruitvale BART with the Oakland Hills. In addition, a new one-demand service zone for either flex service or a Transportation Network Company (TNC) partnership is proposed for the Warm Springs area of Fremont.
• Frequent Service Scenario: This scenario sets a 30-minute minimum frequency system-wide as a baseline. Total service levels remain at the same level as today. The more significant changes in this scenario include: Increasing frequent local service on many lines, along with the same changes to trunk lines proposed in the Balanced Coverage Scenario. In addition, a new one-demand service zone for either flex service or a TNC partnership is proposed for the Warm Springs area of Fremont. Service would be eliminated on lines 19 and 376 with partial loss of coverage in areas served by lines 34, 56, and 65. These line eliminations allow for the significant improvement in frequency and service levels on the rest of the system.
• Unconstrained Vision Scenario: This scenario represents how the service would look with a significant increase in funding. It would require a substantial increase in operators and fleet, as well as the construction of multiple new operating facilities if implemented in full. The more significant changes in this scenario include: Increasing frequency on major corridors to better than 10 minutes, and five minutes in some cases. Significant expansion of the Transbay network, including service to Treasure Island. Expanded coverage throughout the network and multiple new on-demand flex service zones or a Transportation Network Company (TNC) partnerships. As additional resources become available, the District will consider implementing elements of this scenario.
A summary of the recommendations in each scenario can be found in Attachment 1. Individual line profiles - including maps and service characteristics - can be found on the project website at actransit.org/realign. The table below summarizes the number of local (non-Transbay, non-Supplementary) lines in each scenario by headway.
|
Headway |
Existing Network |
Balanced Coverage Scenario |
Frequent Service Scenario |
Unconstrained Vision Scenario |
|
10 minutes or less |
2 lines * |
3 lines * |
4 lines |
20 lines |
|
10 - 15 minutes |
9 lines |
8 lines |
10 lines |
17 lines |
|
15 - 30 minutes |
28 lines |
34 lines |
39 lines |
26 lines |
|
Over 30 minutes |
23 lines |
14 lines |
0 lines |
0 lines |
|
Total |
62 lines |
59 lines ** |
53 lines |
63 lines |
*Some corridors like San Pablo Avenue and Macarthur are served by multiple lines and have a combined headway better than 10 minutes but are not counted as such here.
**The decrease in total regular local lines in this scenario is due to the combination or consolidation of lines (ex: 33, 51s, 72s)
Community and Board Engagement on Draft Service Scenarios
Phase 3 engagement will solicit specific input on draft scenarios from as many communities and stakeholders as possible and will run between November 1 through December 13, 2023. Outreach activities will solicit and document input from a broad range of audiences throughout the AC Transit service area. A District-wide virtual workshop and community pop-ups will be directed towards the general public while Community Based Organization (CBO)-led events, pop-ins, and Lived Experience Advisory Group (LEAG) meetings will focus on CBOs and their members/communities. These outreach activities will be complemented by presentations to city councils and commissions within the AC Transit service area.
We continue to work with our 10 CBO partners, along with our list of more than 1,100 community contacts who serve the East Bay. Realign CBO Partners are:
|
CBO Partners |
Ward |
Base Demographics |
|
Black Cultural Zone |
2,3 |
African American |
|
Cherryland Community Association |
4 |
Unincorporated Alameda County, Latinx |
|
Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL) |
1,2,3,4,5 |
Disability community |
|
Genesis |
2,3,4 |
Seniors, youth, faith-based, transportation advocacy |
|
Glad Tidings Community Church |
4,5 |
Faith-based, African American , Latinx |
|
La Familia |
1,2,3,4,5 |
Low-income, Latinx, African American |
|
Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce |
2 |
Chinese & Chinese American Community |
|
The Latina Center |
1 |
Low-income, Latinx |
|
The United Seniors of Oakland & Alameda County |
1,2,3,4 |
Seniors |
|
Trybe |
2,3 |
Faith-based, African American |
Each CBO brings their extensive networks and are trusted sources in their respective communities. In this phase, we will partner with CBOs to host a series of information and open house events throughout the district, and the CBOs will continue to support Realign as messengers using their existing communication channels to help inform and drive community members to participate and provide input. They will also provide important feedback as we move through the Realign process.
Phase 3 engagement will continue to leverage the District’s digital communication channels, which include the project webpage, eNews, and social media, to inform stakeholders and the public about opportunities to provide input on the draft scenarios. The project webpage will continue to serve as a central location for outreach information. In this phase, the project webpage will include individual route profiles, an interactive mapping and feedback tool, and information about upcoming opportunities to provide input (i.e., pop-up locations, CBO-led events, council presentations, and a district-wide virtual workshop). In addition to use of digital communication channels, staff will also use print materials to share information. Print collateral will include informational materials on coaches, exterior ads on coaches, ads in local newspapers and at-stop signage. Staff is also working with local libraries to set up multilingual resource books and feedback forms at libraries throughout the service area.
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
A key advantage of having the board review the draft service scenarios is to gather critical input on the line recommendations included within each scenario. This also officially kicks off the public engagement window for these scenarios. The line recommendations are drafts. Board and public feedback is encouraged as the recommendations will be revised into a single preferred scenario that may draw from multiple scenarios based on what staff hear during the public engagement process on these initial drafts.
Staff has not identified any disadvantages with bringing these scenarios to the Board and beginning public engagement to gather feedback on them. Tradeoffs for each scenario are described in this report.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
When developing these scenarios, staff considered a cost-neutral option that would expand coverage beyond where it is today, but doing so would have a significant impact on ridership, which has begun to recover well on the current network. As such, staff determined that options for expanding coverage would be included in the Unconstrained Vision Scenario. Staff expects significant feedback on the line recommendations within the scenarios and for the next Phase - Draft Preferred Scenario - the Realign team will pull recommendations from all three scenarios to include within a single scenario for additional public engagement.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION/POLICIES:
SR 22-502 Network Redesign Timeline Update and Procurement Approval
SR 23-250 Realign Network Plan Update
SR 23-250a Realign Network Plan Update
SR 23-250b Realign Network Plan Update
SR 23-375 AC Transit Workshop on Existing Conditions and Draft Guiding Principles
SR 23-250c Realign Network Plan Update and Revised Guiding Principles Approval
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Realign Service Scenario Presentation
2. Draft Realign Service Scenario Summary Matrices
3. Equity Priority Communities
Prepared by:
David Berman, Senior Transportation Planner
In Collaboration with:
Diann Castleberry, External Affairs Representative
Michael Eshleman, Service Planning Manager
Jonathan Bair, Communications Manager
Approved/Reviewed by:
Robert del Rosario, Director of Services Development and Planning
Nichele Laynes, Director of Marketing & Communications
Claudia Burgos, Director of Legislative Affairs & Community Relations
Beverly Greene, Executive Director of External Affairs, Marketing & Communications
Ramakrishna Pochiraju, Executive Director of Planning & Engineering