AC TRANSIT DISTRICT GM Memo No. 08-058 Board of Directors Executive Summary Meeting Date: March 12, 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 Receiving Update on the East Oakland Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Information Only Briefing Item Recommended Motion Fiscal Impact: None Background/Discussion: This memo was requested by Director Harper to provide the Board with an update on the Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) process. This memo and presentation focuses on the Central and East Oakland CBTP, as it has recently been presented to the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA). The presentation also provides an overview of AC Transit needs identified in the four CBTPs completed in Alameda County. CBTP Background: The CBTP process was initiated and funded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in 2002. The plans were intended to help low-income communities prioritize transportation investments. The plans were also intended to address environmental justice issues highlighted in MTC’s Environmental Justice Report for the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan. MTC identified 25 areas of concern region-wide, five of which are in the AC Transit District: Richmond, South/West Berkeley, West Oakland, East Oakland, and Central Alameda County. Recently, MTC added the City of Alameda as another area for study.

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. 08-058 Meeting Date: March 12, 2008 Page 2 of 2

County Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) are responsible for preparing the CBTPs, in consultation with community groups, cities, affected counties and transit agencies. In the AC Transit District, the Alameda County CMA has overseen the preparation of the four plans in Alameda County. All five plans in Alameda and Contra Costa County are now complete, and the City of Alameda plan will be underway shortly. AC Transit staff has been an active participant in the development of all the CBTPs in the service area. CMA staff will be in attendance at the Planning Committee meeting to present the Central and East Oakland CBTP, provide a summary of AC Transit needs identified in the four CBTPs completed in Alameda County, and answer questions from the Board. Prior Relevant Board Actions/Policies: GM 07-236: Receive report on CBTP Attachments: Attachment A: CMA Board Report on Central East Oakland CBTP Attachment B: Executive Summary—Central East Oakland CBTP Approved by: Rick Fernandez, General Manager Nancy Skowbo, Deputy General Manager Service Development Prepared by: Tina Spencer, Manager Long Range Planning Date Prepared: February 29, 2008

GM Memo 08-058 Attachment A

January 24, 2008 Agenda Item 7.3

Memorandum Date: January 14, 2008 To: CMA Board From: Plans and Programs Committee Subject: Central and East Oakland Community Based Transportation Plan Action Requested It is requested that the Board accept the Central and East Oakland Community Based Transportation Plan. A copy of the Executive Summary is attached. The full report was distributed to the Board in the January Plans and Programs Committee packet. It is also available on the CMA website. A final report will be sent to the Board once it is printed. CMA staff will present an overview of the plan process and recommendations at the Board meeting. The Plan identifies and prioritizes transportation needs and solutions in Central and East Oakland. It is based on input from community outreach and the Technical Advisory Committee. The Plan includes ranked solutions and strategies, and identifies conceptual cost estimates, potential fund sources, and project sponsors for each of the transportation solutions. This area was selected by MTC as one of five pilot projects in Alameda County to focus on identifying the needs of low income communities and include the results in a Community Based Transportation Plan. Next Steps The Plan will be finalized and distributed. Discussion Background The Central and East Oakland Community Based Transportation Plan is the result of a series of community meetings and surveys conducted in 2007 to identify transportation solutions to improve mobility in West Oakland. The Plan was designed to build upon the findings of MTC’s 2001 Lifeline Transportation Network Report, which outlined a safety net of transit routes for low income people. Likewise, MTC’s Environmental Justice Report for the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan also identified the need to support local planning efforts in low income communities throughout the region. MTC selected and funded the Central and East Oakland Community Based Transportation Plan as one of five pilot projects in Alameda County. The

Alameda County CMA Board January 24, 2007 Page 2 Central County CBTP was completed in 2004, West Oakland was completed in 2006, South and West Berkeley was completed in 2007, and Alameda CBTP will be completed by the end of 2008. Outreach Summary The outreach process was participatory and community-based. Four community-based organizations (CBOs) distributed and collected 1,500 surveys in three languages throughout the plan area. Meetings were held with focus groups representing youth, seniors, and people with disabilities. Three community meetings were held to provide input to prioritizing the transportation solutions to best serve the needs of the area’s residents. The CBO partners including East Bay Asian Youth Coalition, Spanish Speaking Unity Council, Allen Temple and Urban Habitat represented a cross-section of ages and ethnicities found throughout the 240,000-resident project area. The plan process also included input from the six Oakland City Council District offices representing the plan area. Additionally, meetings were held with a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which represented the City of Oakland, AC Transit, BART and paratransit groups. The City Council provided input to ensure an effective community outreach process. The TAC served as a sounding board regarding project design and accuracy of plan content. Strategy Evaluation and Prioritization Summary Transportation improvement strategies were developed by the consultant team and reviewed by the TAC. Strategies were developed to directly address the community identified needs and transportation gaps. The overall ranking of transportation strategies for Central and East Oakland is based on an evaluation of the following four criteria:

¨ Community ¨ Transportation Benefits ¨ Financial ¨ Implementation

Each project was ranked according to the four criteria and given a high, medium or low ranking. Based on this evaluation, the strategies were given a cumulative ranking reflecting the overall community support, transportation benefit, financial feasibility and capacity of relevant agencies to implement the project. Evaluation of each solution for addressing transportation gaps in Central and East Oakland has taken into account the potential funding sources available for implementation. In some cases, potential funding sources—such as Lifeline Transportation Program funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)—are identified as part of the evaluation discussion. However, even where strategies are well-suited to particular funding sources, projects will be subject to competitive funding processes. It is important to note that project ranking is an inherently subjective process that can only reflect the best knowledge at this time regarding project feasibility, potential benefits, and community support (as determined from outreach results). Summary of the Results of the Community Based Transportation Plan The following transportation needs and solutions were scored by the community through surveys, by attendees from three community meetings, and the TAC members to account for

Alameda County CMA Board January 24, 2007 Page 3 project feasibility, including institutional ability to forward the project. Below is the list of identified projects discussed in further detail in the attached Draft Plan. The consultant team also identified project sponsors, costs and potential fund sources for each of the solutions.

C e n t r a l a n d e a s t Oa k l a n d

D E S I G N , C O M M U N I T Y & E N V I R O N M E N TD E S I G N , C O M M U N I T Y & E N V I R O N M E N T

Alameda County Congestion Management Agency December, 2007

Final

Community-Based transportation plan

GM Memo 08-058 Attachment B

C e n t r a l a n d e a s t Oa k l a n d

Community Based transportation plan

D E S I G N , C O M M U N I T Y & E N V I R O N M E N T

1625 SHATTUCK AVENUE, SUITE 300

BERKELEY, CAL IFORNIA 94709

TEL : 510 848 3815

FAX: 510 848 4315

Final

December, 2007Alameda County Congestion Management Agency

in assoc iat ion wi thNelson\Nygaard Consu l t ing

Submitted to

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-1

A. Introduction The Central and East Oakland Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) is the result of technical analysis and a series of community meetings and surveys conducted in 2007 to identify transportation solutions to im-prove mobility in West Central and East Oakland. The Plan was designed to address the findings of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) 2001 Lifeline Transportation Network Report and MTC’s Environ-mental Justice Report for the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan. Both re-ports identified the need to support local planning efforts in low-income communities throughout the region. MTC funded the Central and East Oak-land Community-Based Transportation Plan as one of five projects in Ala-meda County. This plan was completed by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. B. Overview of Approach The community-based approach identified barriers to mobility—problems in reaching shops, schools, jobs, medical services and other key destinations—and designed local solutions to these barriers. The planning process also worked to link community organizations to transportation funding agencies and transportation planners on an ongoing basis. The project area was defined beginning with MTC’s census analysis com-pleted as a part of the Lifeline Transportation Network Report and revised in consultation with the City of Oakland Council members and staff. The re-sulting Central and East Oakland project area is bounded by Interstate 580 and Hillmont Drive to the east, the waterfront and Hegenberger Road to the west, Lake Merritt and downtown Oakland to the north, and the City of San Leandro to the south (see Figure 3-1). It covers an area of 14.7 square miles (9,408 acres), or approximately one-quarter of the land area in the City of Oakland. The project area is home to over half of the City’s residents. In 2000, the population of the project area was 208,028 residents or 64,321

A L A M E D A C O U N T Y C O N G E S T I O N M A N A G E M E N T A G E N C Y

C E N T R A L A N D E A S T O A K L A N D C O M M U N I T Y - B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

ES-2

households. The City of Oakland population was 399,484 residents or 150,790 households. The plan built on previous transportation plans and studies in Central and East Oakland. The project team reviewed previously prepared transportation plans and studies relevant to the project area including those prepared by the City of Oakland, AC Transit, BART, and Alameda County. Projects identi-fied in these previous studies provided a starting point for strategies to address community-identified transportation gaps. The project team worked closely with local community-based organizations including the Spanish Speaking Unity Council, East Bay Asian Youth Col-laborative, Allen Temple, Urban Habitat and a Technical Advisory Commit-tee (TAC) composed of local transportation agency representatives and City of Oakland staff. These groups provided important input on community outreach, project design and implementation strategies. C. Overview of Process The Central and East Oakland CBTP was created in four key phases that were conducted in 2007. 1. Existing Plan Review The first phase included review of previous planning efforts in Central and East Oakland to identify strategies that had strong community support but had not yet been fully implemented. For example, a variety of City of Oak-land streetscape projects, Caltrans-funded community-based transportation projects, BART access plans, and AC Transit service plans informed this pro-ject. 2. Community Outreach Survey and Discussions With assistance from Urban Habitat, Spanish Speaking Unity Council, East Bay Asian Youth Collaborative, and Allen Temple, the project team surveyed

A L A M E D A C O U N T Y C O N G E S T I O N M A N A G E M E N T A G E N C Y

C E N T R A L A N D E A S T O A K L A N D C O M M U N I T Y - B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

ES-3

1,462 Central and East Oakland residents on their transportation needs and potential solutions to address these needs. The list of possible solutions for the survey was based on the plan recommendations described above. While the limited Community-Based Transportation Plan budget precluded a truly random and statistically valid survey, the team obtained a broad sample of opinions at various neighborhood locations including schools, senior cen-ters, shopping areas and key transportation facilities such as AC Transit bus stops nearby BART stations, and major AC Transit transfer facilities such as the Eastmont Transit Center. The survey results were analyzed by mode and geographic neighborhood. For each mode, the survey analysis identified key issues that the community identified as needing to be addressed. Chapter 5 of this report presents the survey and outreach results in detail with findings by transportation mode and geographic area. Following the outreach analysis, the project team presented community out-reach results to Oakland City Council members and staff to confirm findings and provide an opportunity for input on potential strategies. City Council members and staff provided guidance on strategy development, the project prioritization methodology, and appropriate meeting venues for strategy re-view and prioritization public workshops. 3. Technical Review and Project Development Following completion of the survey outreach analysis and review with Oak-land City Council members and staff, the project team developed preliminary strategies. These preliminary strategies were reviewed in detail with likely implementing agencies through the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC included AC Transit, BART, City of Oakland Public Works, City of Oakland Redevelopment, and City of Oakland Paratransit for the Elderly and Disabled (OPED) Alameda County Transportation Improvement Au-thority (ACTIA), and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. Following TAC review, the draft solutions were taken to a series of

A L A M E D A C O U N T Y C O N G E S T I O N M A N A G E M E N T A G E N C Y

C E N T R A L A N D E A S T O A K L A N D C O M M U N I T Y - B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

ES-4

public meetings in the Central and East Oakland Project Area for review and prioritization as described below. 4. Project Prioritization a. Strategy Ranking The overall ranking of transportation strategies for Central and East Oakland is based on an evaluation of the following four criteria: ♦ Community: Level of community support, serves greatest need, serves needs

of diverse community ♦ Transportation Benefits: Number of beneficiaries, number of problems

solved, measurable solutions ♦ Financial: Overall cost, cost per beneficiary, funding availability and sus-

tainability ♦ Implementation: Implementation time-frame and staging

These evaluation criteria were developed based on similar approach used in other CBTPs and as approved by the Technical Advisory Committee for the Central and East Oakland CBTP. Table ES-1 presents the definitions of the prioritization criteria. b. Community Review and Prioritization In addition to the ranking performed by the project team, three community prioritization workshops were held in November of 2007. These meetings presented the draft strategies to community members for review and prioriti-zation. The project team summarized outreach results and draft strategies and attendees participated in a dot-voting exercise, ranking each of the existing draft strategies and recommended alternative strategies where needed. The strategy ranking was completed based on a synthesis of the criteria-based ranking and the community prioritization input. The outcome of this proc-ess is presented in the following section describing the recommended projects.

A L A M E D A C O U N T Y C O N G E S T I O N M A N A G E M E N T A G E N C Y

C E N T R A L A N D E A S T O A K L A N D C O M M U N I T Y - B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

ES-5

TABLE ES-1 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES

Evaluation Category Definition Community

Level of community support, serves greatest need, serves needs of diverse community

High ranking High community support and serves greatest need

Medium ranking Moderate community support and serves greatest need

Low ranking Low community support

Transportation Benefits

Number of beneficiaries, number of problems solved, measurable solutions

High ranking Large number of residents benefit, solves multiple prob-lems

Medium ranking Moderate number of residents benefit, solves multiple problems

Low ranking Small number of residents benefit, solves one problem

Financial

Overall cost, cost per beneficiary, funding availability and sustainability

High ranking Low cost to implement (under $50,000), cost effective and financially feasible

Medium ranking Medium cost to implement ($50,000-$150,000), moder-ately cost effective and feasible

Low ranking High cost to implement ($150,000+), high cost per bene-ficiary

Implementation

Implementation time-frame and staging

High ranking Short term (1-2 years), or capable of being implemented in stages

Medium ranking Medium term (3-4 years)

Low ranking Long term (5+ years), may require large upfront fixed costs

A L A M E D A C O U N T Y C O N G E S T I O N M A N A G E M E N T A G E N C Y

C E N T R A L A N D E A S T O A K L A N D C O M M U N I T Y - B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

ES-6

D. Transportation Strategies The recommended transportation strategies respond directly to the commu-nity-identified needs documented through the outreach process. Each strat-egy was also analyzed by potential implementing agencies through the TAC Table ES-2 presents identified needs, strategies, and overall rankings according to the prioritization criteria. E. Funding and Implementation The final chapter in this Plan provides synopses of various funding sources relevant to planning and/or implementation of Central and East Oakland transportation strategies. Sources of public sector funding have been roughly categorized into three groups: federal, State, and local/regional programs. This section focuses primarily on funds available through grant programs though other sources such as sales tax or private sector contributions can be used to support relevant activities such as transit operations in Alameda County.1 Table ES-3 presents likely funding sources for each major project identified in this plan.

1 For example, AC Transit and BART receive property and sales tax reve-

nues in support of operations.

A L A M E D A C O U N T Y C O N G E S T I O N M A N A G E M E N T A G E N C Y

C E N T R A L A N D E A S T O A K L A N D C O M M U N I T Y - B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

ES-7

TABLE ES-2 OVERALL RANKING FOR STRATEGIES

Ranking

Top Needs Strategy C T F I Overall BUS ♦ Safety at bus stops ♦ Experience at bus

stops ♦ Safety at BART

Streetscape and bus stop improvements ♦ Along transit corridors ♦ At BART stations ♦ Existing CEDA streetscape improvement

projects

H H M-H M-H H

BUS ♦ Time of trip ♦ Frequency of service

Provide nighttime service on AC Transit Route 14 H H L M M-H

BUS ♦ Time of trip ♦ Frequency of service

Reinstate AC Transit Route 98 night and weekend service H M-H L M M

BART/BUS ♦ Information

availability

Transit information strategies: ♦ Produce and distribute existing multilin-

gual BART and AC Transit Information in the Fruitvale and San Antonio neighborhoods

♦ Create and distribute an Oakland Transit Brochure (in English, Spanish and Chi-nese)

♦ Place signs or stickers listing the phone numbers for multilingual transit assistance on bus stop poles in Fruitvale and San Antonio

L-M L-M H H M-H

Offer pay-as-you-go monthly discount passes on BART and AC Transit L M M M M BART/BUS

♦ Cost of ticket Offer a joint AC Transit-BART discount pass to low income residents H H L M M-H

BUS ♦ Transfer window and cost

Extend AC Transit transfer window H L-M M H M-H

Notes: C: Community M-H: Medium-High T: Transportation Benefits M: Medium F: Financial L-M: Low-Medium I: Implementation L: Low H: High

A L A M E D A C O U N T Y C O N G E S T I O N M A N A G E M E N T A G E N C Y

C E N T R A L A N D E A S T O A K L A N D C O M M U N I T Y - B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

TABLE ES-2 OVERALL RANKING FOR STRATEGIES (CONTINUED)

ES-8

Ranking

Top Needs Strategy C T F I Overall PARATRANSIT ♦ Paratransit cost and

availability

Provide additional OPED round trips in vans and taxis H L-M L H M

PARATRANSIT ♦ Paratransit cost and

availability Provide OPED service for group trips L-M L-M M H M

BICYCLE ♦ Speed of traffic/safety ♦ Street and intersec-

tion crossings ♦ Pavement quality

Signing and striping and/or lane conversion projects to improve bicycle connections to BART stations ♦ Class 3A Bicycle Route on East 12th Street

from Fruitvale Ave to 40th Ave ♦ Class 2 Bicycle Lane on San Leandro Street

from 66th Ave to 85th Ave ♦ Class 2 Bicycle Lane on Camden Street and

Havenscourt Blvd from MacArthur Blvd to International Blvd

♦ Class 2 Bicycle Lane on Fruitvale Ave from Foothill Blvd to East 12th Street

L L-M M H M

Coliseum BART to Bay Trail Connector Path M M L L M

BICYCLE ♦ Speed of

traffic/traffic safety

Bicycle Programs ♦ Offer Road I Courses to residents in the

project area ♦ Provide funding for Cycles of Change

program

L M H H M

VEHICLE OWNER-SHIP ♦ Low-rate of vehicle

ownership

Subsidized Car Sharing L-M L M M L-M

Notes: C: Community M-H: Medium-High T: Transportation Benefits M: Medium F: Financial L-M: Low-Medium I: Implementation L: Low H: High

A L A M E D A C O U N T Y C O N G E S T I O N M A N A G E M E N T A G E N C Y

C E N T R A L A N D E A S T O A K L A N D C O M M U N I T Y - B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

ES-9

TABLE ES-3 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECT TYPE

Project(s) Key Potential Funding Sources

PEDESTRIAN?BUS Streetscape and Bus Stop Improvements/BART Station Access Improvements

♦ Section 5307 Transit Enhancements ♦ Measure B ♦ Transportation Fund for Clean Air ♦ Lifeline Transportation Program ♦ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Im-

provement Program ♦ Safe Routes to Transit ♦ Transportation for Livable Communities ♦ City Capital Budget ♦ Community Development Funds/Community

Development Block Grant ♦ Private Sector Contributions

AC Transit Bus Operations Strategies

♦ Ongoing sources of AC Transit operating fund-ing (Transportation Development Act, sales and property tax revenues, Measure B, Meas-ure 2)

♦ Lifeline Transportation Program (includes Job Access and Reverse Commute funds and State Transit Assistance funds)

♦ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Im-provement Program

Transit Information Strategies

♦ Section 5307 Transit Enhancements ♦ Transportation Fund for Clean Air ♦ Lifeline Transportation Program ♦ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Im-

provement Program ♦ Private Sector Contributions

Transit Affordability Strate-gies

Funding sources will need to be determined. Fare subsidy is not easily funded through existing pro-grams, including the Lifeline Transportation Pro-gram, given restrictions on use of funds. New funding streams will need to be created to support this strategy.

A L A M E D A C O U N T Y C O N G E S T I O N M A N A G E M E N T A G E N C Y

C E N T R A L A N D E A S T O A K L A N D C O M M U N I T Y - B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

TABLE ES-3 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECT TYPE (CONTINUED)

ES-10

Project(s) Key Potential Funding Sources

Expand Oakland Paratransit for the Elderly and Disabled (OPED) service and East Bay Paratransit Service

♦ Measure B base program and Gap Grant pro-gram

♦ Potentially Lifeline Transportation Program ♦ Potentially Section 5317 (New Freedom Pro-

gram) ♦ ACTIA Paratransit Program Funds

Bicycle Strategies

♦ STP Transportation Enhancements ♦ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Im-

provement Program ♦ Hazard Elimination Safety Program ♦ Office of Traffic Safety Grants ♦ TDA Article 3 ♦ Measure B ♦ Lifeline Transportation Program ♦ Transportation Fund for Clean Air ♦ Safe Routes to School ♦ Safe Routes to Transit ♦ Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Program ♦ Transportation for Livable Communities ♦ City Capital Budget ♦ Community Development

Funds/Community Development Block Grant

Subsidized Car Sharing ♦ Lifeline Transportation Program

Handout: GM 08-058

AC Transit Priority Transportation Solutions Recommended inAlameda County Community Based Transportation Plans (CBTPs)

Project Cost Community BasedTransportation Plan

(CBTP)Capital Projects

Bus Shelters (40 total) $215,000 Central CountyCBTP

Bus Stop Improvements(along transit corridors, atBART stations)

$500,00 perblock (cost notseparated forbus stops)

Central & E.Oakland CBTP

Community Shuttle $350,000 pervehicle forshuttle (+operating);

W. Oakland CBTP

Bus Shelter and Bus StopImprovements

$700 to$3,000/stop,shelter

South and WestBerkeley CBTP

Transit Operations ProjectsBART Access Evening Shuttle $120,000/year W. Oakland CBTPFrequency & SpanImprovements

$663,000 to$1.5million/year

South and W.Berkeley CBTP

9 Frequency Improvements $796,000 to$2.5million/year

South and W.Berkeley CBTP

Adjustments to transit service(to Rtes 77, 84, 93, 97, 99 andnew door-to-door service for S.Hayward and BayfairBART)

$9,047,000/year Central CountyCBTP

Frequency improvements(nighttime service on Rte. 14;reinstate Rte 98 night andweekend service)

$650,000/year

+$550,000/year

Central & E.Oakland CBTP

Project Cost Community BasedTransportation Plan(CBTP)

Transit SubsidiesYouth transit $75-

100,000/yrW. Oakland

ProgramsTransit Window –Extendtime, wk-ends

Costunknown, tobedetermined

S. and W. BerkeleyCBTP

Alternatives to TransitSubsidies:1) pay as you go monthlydiscount pass; 2) joint ACTransit/BART discount passfor low income residents, 3)extend AC Transit transferwindow on wk-ends

Costunknown,TBD

Central & E. OaklandCBTP

Bus Real time ArrivalInformation

$100,000 to$200,000

S. & W. Berkeley CBTP

Transportation Informationon Cable TV (adapt existingvideo)

$6,000 Central County CBTP

Multilingual information (upto 10 languages)

$15,000 Central County CBTP

Information availability:1) Multilingual information inFruitvale and San Antonioneighborhoods; 2) OaklandTransit brochure in English,Spanish & Chinese; 3) signsor stickers on bus stop polesin Fruitvale and San Antoniolisting phone #s formultilingual transit assistance

$7,500(creating andprinting) +$600(printingstickers)

Central & E. OaklandCBTP

Notes:1) No purchase of additional buses was requested in the plans.Bus frequency improvements identified in the Plans stated that they would primarily focus onextending hours (such as adding evening hours). The cost estimates in the Plans assumes thiswould not require purchase of additional buses.

2) Although transit subsidies were expressed as a top priority need by the communities in thePlans, they were not included in all of the short priority lists due to the high cost of subsidies andthe difficulty in obtaining funds that could be used for subsidies.