Hermosa Beach City Council
July 22, 2025

260
Finally, BEBs are much quieter than conventional ICE buses. Operators should be aware of this and that pedestrians or people around the bus may not be aware of its presence. Agencies have also stated that due to the vehicle’s lack of noise, some operators forget to turn off the bus after parking, another component to add to operator training and safety procedures.

8.5.1.3 Maintenance Needs
Early information suggests that ZEBs may require less preventative maintenance than their non-ZEB counterparts since they have fewer moving parts. However, not enough data currently exists to provide detailed insights into long-term maintenance practices for large-scale ZEB deployment in North America.

One early finding is that spare parts may not be readily available, so one maintenance consideration is to coordinate with the OEMs and component manufacturers to develop spare parts inventories and understand lead times for spare parts. This means it will be important for BCT to coordinate spare parts procurement needed for ongoing BEB maintenance sooner rather than later so maintenance can be completed without interruption.

In terms of preventative maintenance, BEB propulsion systems are more efficient than internal combustion engines and thus can result in less wear and tear. Without the ICE and exhaust, there are 30% fewer mechanical parts on a BEB. BEBs also do not require oil changes and the use of regenerative braking can help to extend the useful life of brake pads. Early studies from King County Metro show that the highest percentage of maintenance costs for BEBs came from the cab, body, and accessories system. It is recommended that BCT require OEMs to provide a list of activities, time intervals, skills needed, and required parts needed to complete each preventative maintenance task for BEBs.

Many current BEBs also contain onboard communication systems, which are helpful in providing detailed bus performance data and reporting error messages, which can assist maintenance personnel in quickly identifying and diagnosing maintenance issues.

8.5.1.4 Charging Needs
BEB recharging is substantially different than fueling a CNG or other fossil fuel bus. As part of the recommendations, plug-in chargers (120 kW) are proposed for BEB charging at the main operations and maintenance facility. Once BEBs return to the yard and are parked, a service line technician would plug in the dispenser to recharge the bus. Smart charging software, described in Section 8.5.2.1, would monitor and control overall charging levels to balance energy needs with overall power demand. These systems help ensure that BEBs are charged but that this charging is spread out to avoid large surges in power demand.

Zero-Emission Bus Analysis
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 261
Figure 8-16: A BEB Plugged into a Charger in Lancaster, CA (Antelope Valley Transit Authority) 197

8.5.2 Supporting Technology
Technology for ZEBs will help BCT manage the fleet and its investment in zero-emission propulsion.

First, for BEBs, charge management or smart charging technology is imperative to manage electrical demand to curb potentially costly demand charges and mitigate the maximum power requirements of bus charging. Second, fleet tracking software typically provided by an OEM will help track useful analytics related to the fleet and operations to help BCT make informed decisions. The City and transit operations contractor will need to coordinate oversight and management of the systems to ensure costeffective use of power.

8.5.2.1 Smart Charging
To optimize BEB charging by minimizing charging during peak times of the day and to restrain the total power demand required for a BEB fleet, transit agencies deploy smart charging. Smart charging refers to software, artificial intelligence, and switching processes that control when and how much charging occurs, based on factors such as time of day, number of connected BEBs, and SOC of each BEB. This requires chargers that are capable of being controlled as well as a software platform that can effectively aggregate and manage these chargers. A best practice is to select chargers where the manufacturers are participants in the Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP), a consortium of over 50 members focused on bringing standardization to the communications of chargers with their network platform. 197 Image credit: https://www.govtech.com/fs/calif-transit-district-operates-first-all-electric-bus-fleet

262
A simple example of smart charging is when buses A, B, and C have 440 kWh battery packs all return to the bus yard with a SOC of about 25%, and all are plugged in in the order they arrived (A, B, C, though within a few minutes of each other). Without smart charging, they would typically get charged sequentially based on arrival time or based on SOC, if the charge time is 2.2 hours, then A is charged first in about 2.2 hours, moving on to B where charging is complete after 4.4 hours from arrival, and C completes at the 6.6 hour mark. However, if bus C is scheduled for dispatch after three hours, it would not be fully charged and ready to leave on time.

This is solved by a smart charging system that ‘knows’ bus C is to be dispatched first and therefore would get the priority charging in the first 2.2 hours, so it is ready in time for its ‘hour three’ rollout.

Another implementation of smart charging mitigates energy demand when possible. For example, if two buses are each connected to their own 150 kW charger and they both need 300 kWh of energy, if the buses do not need to be dispatched for five hours, the system will only charge one bus at a time, thus generating a demand of only 150 kW, while still fully charging both buses in four hours. However, if both buses need to be deployed in two hours, the system will charge both simultaneously as needed to make a rollout. A smart charging system helps optimize costs by looking for opportunities to avoid or minimize charging during the most expensive times of day to curb potential demand charges.

Well-planned and coordinated smart charging can significantly reduce the electric utility demand by timing when and how much charging each bus receives. Estimations on the ideal number of chargers are critical to the successful implementation of smart charging strategies.

There are a number of offerings in the industry for smart charging, charger management, and fleet management from companies such as (in alphabetical order) AMPLY Power, Evenergi, I/O Systems, Siemens, and ViriCiti. Additionally, the charger manufacturers all have their own native charge management software and platforms. These platforms have management functionality and integration that often exceeds the abilities of the other platforms providing data and functionality similar to that of the third-party systems; particularly in the yard when BEBs are connected to the chargers. However, the third-party platforms tend to provide more robust data streams while the BEBs are enroute, including real-time information on SOC and usage rates. These platforms can cost well over $100 per bus per month, depending on the number of buses, and type of package procured.

Three leading charge management system (CMS) providers have been evaluated as shown in Table 8-9.

Information within this table was provided by the providers. Please note that this table is for informational purposes and to provide high-level information about the differences between different CMSs. The information in this table is reflective of this current point in time. Prior to procurement, the features and criteria should be verified with the provider. Note that Viriciti was purchased by ChargePoint in 2021, the stated intent is to operate Viriciti separately from ChargePoint. A Buy America evaluation will be required for these providers.

Zero-Emission Bus Analysis
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 263
Table 8-9: Charge Management System Vendor Comparison
Item
No. Criteria Description Amply Power - OMEGA Viriciti - Agnostic Management Platform ChargePoint - CMS
1 Number of installations
(facilities) with multiple highvoltage direct current chargers utilizing the software
14 More than 300 300+
2 Quantify uptime % of cloud base
service

99.99% 99.99% 99.99%
3 What networking protocols or
modes are supported, i.e., wired
Ethernet, cellular, other
Hardwired ethernet is recommended,
and cellular and facility WIFI are
supported
Cellular is recommended, wired
Ethernet, and WIFI are supported
Cellular
4 OCPP 1.6 compatibility Yes Yes Yes
5 OCPP 2.0 compatibility Yes Yes Yes
6 List available data fields that can
be reported (such as starting
and ending SoC, bus ID,
charging power, …)
• SOC: start and end of charging
session, SOC all the time
whether a bus is plugged in,
parked, or in the field.
• Rate of charge (kW) of each
charger port.
• Bus ID at all times whether a
bus is plugged in.
• Location of a bus (in depot, in
field, etc.)
• Charging session:
-Energy dispensed
-Duration of charging,
Reports:
• Uptime, downtime, and
offline chargers (in hours,
percentage, and total for a
group)
• Energy Reports (in kWh and
hours of duration)
Transactions:
• -Charger OEM, Charger
Name, Connector type,
Connector/port number (1 or
2)
• Vehicle Name/Number
• Start Time and End Time

264
Item
No. Criteria Description Amply Power - OMEGA Viriciti - Agnostic Management Platform ChargePoint - CMS
• Power and energy consumed at
electrical meter and dispensed
at each charger port.
• Charger health:
-Available
-Faulted
-Maintenance needed,
etc.
• Start SOC and End SOC
• Power
• -Reason for ending charge
session
• -Duration of charging
session
• kWh charged
• Range at start of transaction
• Range at the end of the
transaction
• Graphic representation of
Power, SOC, and Energy
throughout each transaction
• Complete list of charging
transactions (equipped with
the data previously stated)
• Complete list of user logs
and documentation of user
interactions.
7 OpenADR2.0b or better
common signals
Yes. In addition to OpenADR, also
support custom DR integrations including
CPower and Leap Energy.

No information available Yes
8 Support Network Time Protocol
(NTP/UTC) time synchronization
Yes Yes Yes

Zero-Emission Bus Analysis
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 265
Item
No. Criteria Description Amply Power - OMEGA Viriciti - Agnostic Management Platform ChargePoint - CMS
9 Describe software security
features for system integrity and
reliability
AMPLY has implemented security
procedures at multiple levels for
protecting customer information:
• AMPLY databases are encrypted
using industry-standard AES-256
encryption
• Both the database and application
are running inside a VPC which has
tightly managed access using IAM
• The database is accessible only to
the application nodes
• No passwords are stored in the
database and authentication is done
using AWS Cognito
• Authorization is tightly managed as
part of the lower layers of the Amply
software framework
• Credentials are not stored in the
database or code and are managed
via the AWS systems manager
• Software packages and
dependencies are regularly
reviewed for security vulnerabilities
• Cloud infrastructure, roles & security
groups are regularly reviewed to
ensure security
No information available ISO 27000:2015
10 Capable of remote software
upgrades
Yes – automatic, over-the-air updates Yes – Updates through the Cloud Yes

266
Item
No. Criteria Description Amply Power - OMEGA Viriciti - Agnostic Management Platform ChargePoint - CMS
11 Is the user interface web-based
or is any local app or software
required
Web-based user interface accessible
from any web-enabled device
Operates through a cloud-based
platform which can be accessed
through any web browser on a
computer or mobile device. Web base
only.

Web-based
12 Ability to set a charge-power
limit to reduce energy charges
while also maximizing bus
availability
Yes. Pause or curtail charging sessions
during peak energy costs. Optimized
charging during off-peak or vehicle dwell
times to achieve target SOC by defined
roll-out times.

Yes, customizable application that
allows the user to create and
manipulate charging parameters as
needs or schedules change.

Yes
13 Ability to set charging to
minimize demand charges while
also maximizing bus availability
Demand (kW) management and
reduction to achieve roll-out but will
spread out charging. Sequential,
dynamics, and parallel charging capable
Yes, customizable application that
allows the user to create and
manipulate charging parameters as
needs or schedules change.

Yes
14 Ability to recognize bus stall and
bus numbers and evaluate
charge needs by block and state
of charge (i.e., park
management)
Yes Yes Yes
15 Manual override (computer/HMI
input) for selection of (bus)
charging sequence
Yes. A manual override button located
within the UI accessible by a specific
user is creditable. Override can also be
performed by email, phone call, or ticket
request.

Yes, users can manually prioritize
groups of chargers or single chargers
in order to meet the demand as
needed.

Yes
16 Describe desktop output/reports
for charge telematics • Energy Report - net (panel) load, modeled load (assuming no CMS),
• Uptime, Downtime, and Offline
chargers (in hours, percentage,
and total for a group)
No response

Zero-Emission Bus Analysis
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 267
Item
No. Criteria Description Amply Power - OMEGA Viriciti - Agnostic Management Platform ChargePoint - CMS
aggregate and individual charger
load
• Charge Detail Records - plug-in and
session start & stop times, session
duration, session energy, vehicle
start & end soc, vehicle ID
• Health Records - % normal, faulted,
offline, and uptime for EVSEs,
controllers, system & software
components
• Vehicle Logs - Geo location and
SOC information
• Charge Ready Transport - CRT
formatted report for PG&E, SCE,
and other Utilities Fleet Ready
Programs
• Energy Reports (in kWh and
hours of duration)
• Complete list of charging
transactions (equipped with the
data previously stated)
• Complete list of user logs and
documentation of user
interactions.
17 Is there a local controller to
preserve the same control
functionality in case cloud
connectivity fails (e.g., WIFI
outage)?
Yes, AMPLY Site Controller (ASC) is
installed at the electrical main and is
connected to the breaker. CTs will meter
3- phases of power for real-time demand
management. ASC can be hardwired to
each EVSE via CAT6 to send OCPP
directly to the charger. If CMS cellular
connection is temporarily down, ASC has
programmed commands to continue
charging until a cellular connection is
restored.

Two signals are sent with all
communications to the charger, the
set parameter, and a failsafe value. If
the connection is disrupted for any
reason or duration of time, the
charger will revert to the failsafe value
until connectivity is reestablished.

Yes

268
Item
No. Criteria Description Amply Power - OMEGA Viriciti - Agnostic Management Platform ChargePoint - CMS
18 Other features criteria, or
comments OMEGA supports algorithmic
optimization across a wide set of use
cases in addition to TOU energy
management including load
management, tariff-based optimization
across usage, demand and subscription
charges, factoring in unmanaged loads,
and demand response signals from
OpenADR and other providers. It also
offers flexible alerting and notifications
for EVSE faults and other conditions.
• Provided system built to scale. If
charging needs to change or if a
new OEM is desired, the system
is able to monitor any charging
infrastructure (assuming that
charger OEM is OCPP
compliant) and easily exchange
chargers in the system.
• Through an API, there is the
ability to integrate with other
planning or ITCMS platforms to
optimize planning.
• Other features may include our
agnostic telematics system,
which is capable of monitoring
any vehicle OEM and operates
off the same platform as the
charger monitoring infrastructure
- decreasing operational
complexity by reducing software
applications and increasing
visibility into energy
usage/expenditure.

No response

Zero-Emission Bus Analysis
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 269

8.5.2.2 Fleet Tracking Software
Software like Fleetwatch provides agencies with the ability to track vehicle mileage, work orders, fleet maintenance, consumables, and other items. However, with more complex technologies like BEBs, it becomes crucial to monitor elements such as the status of batteries, and energy consumption on a bus in order to track its performance and understand how to improve fuel efficiency. Many OEMs offer fleet tracking software. While AVLs and APCs will continue to play important roles in operations planning, the tracking of fuel consumption and fuel economy will start to form important key performance metrics for fleet management as well as help inform operations planning.

The screenshot below is an example of New Flyer’s tool (New Flyer Connect 360, Figure 8-17 and Lightning eMotors, Figure 8-18), but other OEMs also offer similar tools (like ViriCiti) depending on an agency’s preference.

Figure 8-17: Example of New Flyer Connect 360 198
198 https://www.newflyer.com/tools/new-flyer-connect/

270
Figure 8-18: Example of Lightning eMotors daily summary report At a minimum, the fleet tracking software should track a vehicle’s SOC, energy consumption, distance traveled, and hours online. Tracking these key performance indicators (KPIs) can help compare a vehicle’s performance on different routes, under different ambient conditions, and even by different operators.

When looking at other transit agencies, AVTA operates a nearly 100% BEB fleet of over 50 vehicles; they collect and report the following information at monthly board meetings:
• ZEB vs. non-ZEB miles traveled
• ZEB vs. non-ZEB maintenance cost per mile
• ZEB vs. non-ZEB fuel/energy costs by month ($ per kWh vs. $ per gallon) • ZEB vs. non-ZEB fuel/energy cost per mile
• Average fuel consumption/fuel economy per month
• Total ZEB vs. non-ZEB fuel and maintenance costs per month • The mean distance between failures
• ZEB vs. non-ZEB fleet availability

Zero-Emission Bus Analysis
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 271
The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) is currently testing BEBs from three different OEMs and is tracking the following KPIs for its BEBs to compare with its ICE buses (Figure 8-19).

Figure 8-19: Example of TTC eBus KPIs. 199
All BEB equipment should be connected to BCT’s current data collection software, networks, and integrated with any existing data collection architecture. All data should be transmitted across secure VPN technology and encrypted.

Beyond the BEB itself, charger data should be collected as well, such as the percentage of battery charge status and kWh rate of charge. Furthermore, it will be important for BCT to track utility usage data from SCE to understand energy and power demand and costs.

8.5.3 Workforce Considerations
The deployment of a new propulsion technology will require new training regimes for operators and maintenance staff. This section describes some key training considerations as well as the implications of the adoption of BEBs.

8.5.3.1 Training
BEB manufacturers have basic training modules for bus operators and maintenance technicians that are typically included in the purchase price of the vehicle, with additional training modules and programs available for purchase. It will be important for BCT maintenance leadership to work with staff and the maintenance technician union to understand how best to approach training for BEBs, and whether in addition to basic training from OEMs, further training is needed.

The recommendations for minimum required training for operators and maintenance technicians are as follows:
199
https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/Commission_meetings/2018/June_12/Reports/27_Green_ Bus_Technology_Plan_Update.pdf

272
• BEB operator training (total 56 hours)
o Operator drive training (four sessions, four hours each) o Operator vehicle/system orientation (20 sessions, two hours each) • BEB Maintenance technician training (total 304 hours) o Preventative maintenance training (four sessions, eight hours each) o Electrical/electronic training (six sessions, eight hours each) o Multiplex training (four sessions, each session consisting of three eight-hour days) o HVAC training (four sessions, four hours each)
o Brake training (four sessions, four hours each)
o Energy Storage System (ESS), lithium-ion battery, and energy management hardware and software training (six sessions, eight hours each)
o Electric drive/transmission training (six sessions, eight hours each) Acquiring the following tools and safety materials should be a top priority to ensure successful in-house ZEB maintenance and management.
• Operational training module
• High voltage interface box
• Virtual training module
• High-voltage insulated tools
• Insulated PPE
• Electrical safety hooks
• Arc flash clothing
Table 8-10 below provides a framework of potential training methods and strategies to bolster BCT’s workforce development and successfully transition to a 100% ZEB fleet.

Table 8-10: Potential Training Methods
Plan Description
Train-the-trainer
Small numbers of staff are trained and subsequently train colleagues. This maintains institutional knowledge while reducing the need for external training.

Bus vendor training and fueling
vendor
OEM training provides critical, equipment-specific operations and maintenance information. Prior to implementing ZEB technology, BCT staff will work with the OEMs to ensure all employees complete the necessary training.

Retraining & refresher training Entry-level, intermediate, and advanced continuous learning opportunities will be offered to all BCT staff.

California Transit Training
Consortium (CTTC)
CTTC offers transit maintenance workforce development courses for transit agency staff.

ZEB training from other transit
agencies
BCT should leverage the experience of agencies that were early ZEB adopters, such as the ZEB University program offered by AC Transit.

National Transit Institute (NTI)
training
NTI offers zero-emissions courses such as ZEB management and benchmarking and performance.

Local partnerships and
collaborations
BCT could work with local schools to showcase potential careers in bus and facilities management to students.

Zero-Emission Bus Analysis
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 273
Plan Description
Professional associations
Associations such as the Zero Emission Bus Resource Alliance offer opportunities for sharing and lessons learned across transit agencies.

The priority in maintenance needs will be the issue of safety in dealing with high-voltage systems. All maintenance personnel in the garage, whether performing servicing, inspection, or repairs or those in other routines (e.g., plugging and unplugging BEBs) must be educated on the characteristics of this technology. One essential component is the provision and mandate of additional personal protective equipment (PPE) beyond that which is required by automotive garage workplace legislated standards or BCT’s policies. Examples of such apparel include high voltage insulated work gloves, flame retardant clothing, insulated safety footwear, face shields, special insulated hand tools, plus grounding of apparatus that staff may be using. Also, procedures in dealing with accidents and injuries must be established with instructions and warning signs posted.

Current BEBs also contain on-board communication systems, which are helpful in providing detailed bus performance data and report error messages, which can assist maintenance personnel in quickly identifying and diagnosing maintenance issues.

Beyond training related to the operations of the BEB and depot chargers, training will be required for the operators to properly execute on-route charging. This would include training on properly aligning the bus under the pantograph, deploying the charger, and ensuring charging is efficient. The allowable margin of error for bus-charger alignment is small, and improper alignment will result in a missed charge.

Maintenance technicians will also need training on repairing and servicing pantograph chargers.

Finally, it is highly recommended that all local fire and emergency response departments be given training as to the layout, componentry, safety devices, and other features of BEBs. This should reoccur every few years, but the specific frequency can be dependent on agency discretion. In addition, agencywide orientation to familiarize the agency staff with the new technology should also be conducted prior to the deployment of the first BEBs.

8.5.3.2 Implications of BEBs on Workforce
As previously mentioned, early information suggests that BEBs may require less preventative maintenance than their CNG counterparts since they have fewer moving parts. However, BEBs are so new and there are so few in service that there is not enough data to provide detailed insights into longterm maintenance practices for large-scale BEB deployments in North America.

Because BEBs have fewer moving components that can malfunction and require replacement, repair, and general maintenance, transit agencies could theoretically save on maintenance costs because: 1) fewer parts could break and need replacement (capital) and 2) less labor is needed to maintain the vehicles (operating). From the workforce side, there are broader concerns about possible staff reductions. A lower level of maintenance could lead to a possible reduction in the number of maintenance staff required to maintain an all-BEB fleet vs. a traditional ICE fleet.

Nonetheless, while a future 100% fleet of BEBs may require a smaller complement of maintenance staff, during the transition period, it is highly improbable that a reduction in staff would be warranted. First, CNG technicians would be required until the last CNG bus is retired; based on the transition schedules explored in this report, the earliest time point would be 2039. Second, existing staff can be trained on BEBs to maximize staff retention. As BEB pilots have demonstrated, the learning curve for maintenance as well as the continuing maturity of the technology means that a robust maintenance program is still needed. Indeed, preventative maintenance is still required for a BEB fleet, and experience from a pilot of BEBs revealed comparable labor hours required for work orders across fleets of BEBs, and ICE buses.

274
Looking further into the future, it is challenging to predict staffing levels for BEBs. As technology matures and becomes more sophisticated, technicians will need to be trained not only on machinery but also on components that require computer and diagnostic skills.

If realized, one potential strategy to manage lower workforce needs is through natural attrition tied to BCT’s implementation schedule for transitioning to ZEBs.

8.5.4 Providing Service in Disadvantaged Communities
CARB defines Section F of the rollout plan as “Providing Service in Disadvantaged Communities” based on disadvantaged communities as identified by CalEnviroScreen, an online mapping tool developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The tool identifies (at the census tract level) the state’s most pollution-burdened and vulnerable communities based on geographic, socioeconomic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria.

ICT provisions require that transit agencies describe how they are planning to deploy ZEBs in disadvantaged communities by outlining the location of the disadvantaged community (census tract) where the ZEB will be deployed, how many ZEBs, and in what year the ZEBs will be deployed.

In addition, identifying disadvantaged communities is beneficial to transit agencies when applying for different funding sources, specifically sources that can help BCT fund their ZEB transition. Some funding sources (such as the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program, and Low Carbon Transit Operations Program) have requirements to identify disadvantaged communities under CalEnviroScreen criteria as part of the application or have special funding reserved for specific projects within disadvantaged communities. More information can be found in Section 11.5, Potential Funding Sources.

Figure 8-20 shows that overall, the pollution burden in the Beach Cities is low, and the pollution burden worsens as you move further inland. Line 109 touches two census tracts in the Inglewood/Hawthorne area that are defined as disadvantaged. While not on the map, the proposed future Manhattan Beach Blvd service does not traverse any disadvantaged communities. Based on this information, BCT can make the largest positive impact with their ZEB transition by prioritizing ZEB deployment along Line 109.

Zero-Emission Bus Analysis
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 275
Figure 8-20: CalEnviroScreen Disadvantaged Communities (2021) 200

276

8.5.5 GHG Impacts
Based on the ZEBDecide modeling of GHGs, BCT’s CNG fleet emits 1,658.6 tons of GHGs in a year. 201 In contrast, the future BEB fleet will only emit 218.8 tons annually; while tailpipe emissions of BEBs are nil, residual GHGs result from the carbon intensity of the electric grid. As modeled, a complete BEB fleet can reduce BCT’s GHG footprint by 1,413 tons annually, or by 87%. Table 8-11 shows the annual emissions of the fleet as well as a breakdown of annual emissions per vehicle and Figure 8-21 presents a comparison of annual emissions between the two fleets.

Table 8-11: Annual Emission in Tons of CO2 per year for BFT’s Fleet by Service Type CNG Fleet BEB Fleet
Fleet tailpipe emissions (ton
CO2/year) 1,021.1 -
Upstream emissions
(ton CO2/year) 637.5 218.8
Total Ton CO2/year 1,658.6 218.8
Figure 8-21: Annual Emissions Comparison
Using the EPA GHG equivalent calculator 202, we used the annual emissions that will be displaced by the BEB fleet to create relative comparisons to the benefits. As presented in Figure 8-22, implementing a BEB fleet will eliminate emissions equivalent to removing 304 passenger vehicles per year or reducing the need to plant 1,672 acres of trees to capture carbon emissions. 200 Data source: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 201 All GHG calculations are presented in tons (not metric tons) of CO2 equivalent, which is calculated using the shortterm 20-year global warming potential of CO2, methane, black carbon, and particulate matter. 202 https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator 637.5
233.1
1021.1

0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0 1600.0 1800.0 CNG fleet
BEB Fleet
Tons CO2/year
BCT Annual GHG emissions fleet comparison
Upstream emissions Tailpipe emissions

Zero-Emission Bus Analysis
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 277
Figure 8-22: Equivalent Benefits of Implementing a BEB Fleet at BCT

8.5.6 Procurement Guidance
Currently, BCT operates a fleet of buses, cutaways, and vans, and this same fleet composition will be carried over through the ZEB transition, with some minor changes. BEB options for vans, cutaways, and smaller buses (those less than 40 ft in length) are more limited, and by extension, procurement options are more limited as well.

For 30-ft to 35-ft heavy-duty transit bus options, Gillig manufactures a 30-ft and 35-ft model equipped with a 444-kWh battery. Other well-known OEMs such as New Flyer and Proterra produce vehicles in 35-ft configuration with 490-525 kWh batteries. Finally, BYD, ElDorado National, and GreenPower also produce BEBs in 35-ft configurations with a variety of battery sizes. Table 8-12 below provides an overview of some 30-35-ft BEBs. The New Flyer and Proterra vehicles are on the state’s Department of General Services master contract for vehicles that BCT can purchase without having to develop specifications or go out for bid.

For heavy-duty buses, BCT should specify two rear-mounted charging ports accepting a minimum charging rate of 60 kW (200 ADC) at 480 VDC or greater via SAE J1772 to maximize flexibility when parking and charging the vehicles, as well as SAE J3105-compliant charge bars on the roof of the buses, to enable fast overhead pantograph charging.

These vehicles are summarized in Table 8-12.

278
Table 8-12: Summary of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Options
Make and
model
Battery
size
(kWh)
Notes Example Vehicle Photos
BYD
K7M-ER
K8M
266
(30-ft)
352
(35-ft)
Eligible for a $120,000
HVIP voucher.

Supports DC and AC
charging, and on-route
charging.

Available in 30-ft and 35-ft.

Gillig Low
Floor BEB 444
Eligible for a $120,000
HVIP voucher.

Available in 30-ft and 35-ft.

El Dorado
(ENC)
Axess EVOBE
492
(32-ft)
738
(35-ft)
Available in 32-ft and 35-ft
models.

Enabled for on-route
charging.

New Flyer
Xcelsior

CHARGE NG
435
Eligible for a $120,000
HVIP voucher.

Available in 35-ft.

Enabled for on-route
charging.

Arboc
Specialty
Vehicles
Equess
CHARGE
350
(30-ft)
437
(35-ft)
Available in 30-ft and 35-ft
models.

Plug-in capabilities only.

Zero-Emission Bus Analysis
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 279
Make and
model
Battery
size
(kWh)
Notes Example Vehicle Photos
Proterra ZX5 492
Eligible for a $120,000
HVIP voucher.

Available in 35-ft.

Optional on-route charging
capability.

Current options for cutaways are more limited, but there is a clear and growing need for more ZE cutaways with larger batteries and longer ranges as more agencies that operate demand-response services and these vehicle types begin to transition to ZE. Currently, two BE cutaways are on the market but neither have yet been Altoona-tested. It is assumed that, due to the growing number of ZE cutaways on the market in the past few years, options will continue to emerge and improve, such as through larger batteries with longer ranges as well as improved battery and fuel efficiency.

The Lightning Systems E450 Shuttle Bus has a 129-kWh battery with a range of up to 120 miles. The vehicle is eligible for a $60,000 incentive per vehicle under the Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) 203. Another cutaway available for a $60,000 HVIP voucher is the GreenPower EV Star+ with a battery size of 118 kWh and a stated range of up to 150 miles 204. Finally, the Optimal-EV S1LF is a low-floor cutaway with a 113-kWh battery and a 125-mile range. The vehicle utilizes Proterra’s battery management system.

Currently, only the GreenPower EV Star+ is listed in the CalACT/MBTA Purchasing Cooperative, but as more agencies begin to purchase BEBs, it is expected that more vehicles will be added. BCT should specify two rear-mounted charging ports accepting a minimum charging rate of 60 kW (200 ADC) at 480 VDC or greater via SAE J1772 to maximize flexibility when parking and charging the vehicles.

As part of the fleet modeling and optimization process, it was also determined that BCT will transition to a mixed fleet of vans and cutaways for the WAVE service (specifically to achieve a mix of more vans and fewer cutaways than the current mix), to help right-size the fleet to demand. BE van options include the Ford eTransit van, which can be outfitted to accommodate six ambulatory passengers with one wheelchair position, four ambulatory passengers with two wheelchair positions, or three ambulatory passengers with three wheelchair positions. There is also the GreenPower EV Star passenger van, which can seat up to 19 ambulatory passengers or nine ambulatory passengers with two wheelchair positions.

As with cutaways, it is assumed that more BE van options will be available in the future.

Some example vehicles are summarized in Table 8-13, but these are only illustrative examples. BCT should participate in a competitive tendering process for its fleet procurement and use programs like the CalACT/MBTA Purchasing Cooperative, and State Department of General Services (DGS), or participate in joint procurements with other transit agencies, to streamline procurement. BCT should also leverage APTA’s Standard Bus Procurement Request for Proposal which contains language about charger 203 https://californiahvip.org/vehicles/lightning-systems-lev110e-bus-ford-e-450-with-lightning-powertrain/ 204 https://californiahvip.org/vehicles/greenpower-ev-star-plus/

280
specifications, data logging and telematics, and other information that would be useful to include for vehicle and charger procurements 205.

Table 8-13: Summary of Medium-Duty Vehicle Options
Vehicle
type
ZEB
type
Make and
model
Battery
size
(kWh)
Range
(miles) Notes Example Vehicle Photos
Cutaway
BE
Lightning
Systems E450
Shuttle Bus
129 120
Eligible for a $60,000
HVIP voucher.

Supports both Level 2
and DC fast chargers.

BE GreenPower
EV Star+ 118 150
Eligible for a $60,000
HVIP voucher.

Supports both Level 2
and DC fast chargers.

BE Optimal-EV
S1LF 113 125
A low-floor vehicle
with an ADAcompliant entry ramp.

Uses Proterra battery
management
systems.

Supports both Level 2
and DC fast chargers.

Passenger
Van BE
Lightning
Systems
Electric Zero
Emission
Transit
Passenger
Van
80-120 140-
170
Eligible for a $45,000
HVIP voucher.

Low-floor vehicle and
CARB certified.

Uses Proterra battery
management
systems.

Supports both Level 2
and DC fast chargers.
205 https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/standards/procurement/apta-bts-bpg-gl-001-13/

Zero-Emission Bus Analysis
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 281
Vehicle
type
ZEB
type
Make and
model
Battery
size
(kWh)
Range
(miles) Notes Example Vehicle Photos
Passenger
Van BE
GreenPower
EV Star
Battery
Electric Bus
118 150
Eligible for a $60,000
HVIP voucher.

Supports both Level 2
and DC fast chargers.

8.5.7 Battery Degradation
Battery degradation is unavoidable due to battery use and charging/recharging cycles. To some extent, the magnitude and rate of degradation can be controlled by the user.

Following the recommendations of the manufacturer becomes especially important to preserve the battery life. This includes charging the battery to a maximum of 90% SOC and not allowing the battery to dip below 10% SOC. Furthermore, avoiding fast charging (below 300 kW) can help extend the lifespan of the batteries.

Nevertheless, natural battery degradation will always occur, and vehicle manufacturers are offering extended warranties in their purchase agreements to account for battery degradation of 20% of its nameplate capacity. Battery replacements for cutaways and passenger vans are also assumed to be available but might not be necessary to go beyond the warranty given the shorter utilization cycle of these vehicles. Actual experience may differ, and BCT will need to work with its vendors to understand warranty terms. For the heavy-duty buses that are in service for longer lifetimes, the assumption is that at least one battery replacement near the midlife would be needed, and as such, BCT should purchase an extended warranty to cover that replacement. Any further battery replacements would be postwarranty expenses.

8.5.8 Other Considerations
Finally, because a ZEB transition and implementation is an agency-wide endeavor that also includes the need to actively consider utilities as a stakeholder and partner, an agency-wide approach is required.

Clearly, any discussions around changes associated with BEBs will need to include the union representing the bus operators and maintenance technicians due to the large role they will play in the success of the ZEB transition and implementation. Overall, a successful strategy for BCT could be to form a steering committee or task force composed of staff from each major functional department and union representation to help ensure the impact of ZEBs is fully considered for each. Having the task force name a leader who acts as a champion for the ZEB conversion within the agency and to external stakeholders is another good idea. External communication will be critical during the transition to ensure customers are made aware of changes to bus operations. ZEB conversion also offers an excellent marketing opportunity for BCT to promote its climate commitments.

282
9 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING

9.1 Infrastructure Needs
This section provides an overview of the high-level space needs program, conceptual site master plan, and ZEB infrastructure needed for the 23-vehicle fleet as well as the new OMF. A detailed space needs program will be required in order to proceed with an actual design for a new facility. This scope can be provided either during or after the environmental review processes (California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)) but is highly recommended to be completed prior to finalizing a detailed master plan for the new facility which may ultimately impact the environmental analysis, requiring an amendment to one or both of the CEQA and NEPA reporting.

9.1.1 Operations and Maintenance Facility

9.1.1.1 Space Needs Program
As previously noted, the existing operations and maintenance building and bus parking area is too small and in need of replacement to sustain the agency’s operation. The primary difference between the existing and the proposed facilities is the new facility would be purpose-built for transit operations and maintenance functions – accommodating proper building systems, working clearance, and safe/efficient workspaces for all staff. The new facility would also include the administration department which is currently housed offsite from the OMF. As evident in Table 9-1 below, the current facility at about 6,000 sq. ft. is undersized for the current operations. A new facility where all functions can be housed at a single facility will improve collaboration and efficiencies for BCT’s operations. Refer to Appendix C: Space Needs Program for further information on the individual spaces and their functions.

Table 9-1: Proposed Building Areas
Department Proposed
Areas
Notes
Maintenance 7,626 Three maintenance bays, shops, storage, etc.

Operations 1,698 Ops offices, dispatch suites, operator lockers, etc.

Administration 2,116 Offices, workstations, conference rooms, etc.

Wash Bays 1,440 Manual wash bay
Shared Spaces 2,460 Restrooms, lockers, break room, training room, etc.

Building Utilities 924 Electrical, mechanical, IT, custodial rooms Total: 16,264 *Values are in square feet unless noted otherwise.

To reduce the overall impact on the existing park-and-ride lot, the OMF is proposed to be a two-story building to reduce the overall footprint of the facility. However, this is a more expensive solution due to the nature of the building being more complicated and requiring stairs and an elevator. BCT and the City of Redondo Beach (City) may wish to consider the pros and cons of this approach for the future design phases for the facility.

Table 9-2 outlines the various parking needs for revenue, non-revenue, and employee vehicles. These areas equate to the largest program areas for any transit operations and maintenance facility as illustrated in Table 9-3 below. Since space is a significant premium at the BCT OMF location, employee parking is proposed as being ‘outside the fence’ of the facility as a part of the park-and-ride lot.

Infrastructure Planning
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 283
The fleet quantities are based on the projections in Section 8.2, Table 8-7, but the non-revenue and employee parking quantities are based on general rule-of-thumb estimates for similar-sized operations.

Future detailed space needs programming should consider shift overlaps, peak visitor demands, and general staffing projections to right-size the future parking needs at a new facility.

Table 9-2: Proposed Parking Sizes and Quantities
Vehicle Type Space
Standard Quantity Notes
30’ Fixed-Route Bus 14’ x 35’ 15
Revenue fleet = 23 vehicles Cutaway Bus 206 14’ x 30’ 3 Passenger Van 10’ x 20’ 5
Non-Revenue 10’ x 20’ 3 Parking for relief vehicles, maintenance trucks, etc.

Employee Parking 9’ x 18’ 56 Includes visitor, accessible, and employee electric vehicle spaces
Table 9-3 summarizes the potential site area needs for a new bus operations and maintenance facility for BCT’s projected fleet and assumed space needs. The existing facility, at 35,700 sq. ft., is only about 75% of the projected needed size of the new facility of 45,700 sq. ft. This number could vary depending on specific site conditions, construction budgets, preference on building setbacks, and desire for the potential for additional growth beyond the horizon of this study. Regardless, the need for additional space is clear based on this discrepancy between the existing site and the future needs of the agency.

Table 9-3: Proposed Site Areas
Area Proposed Area Notes
Buildings Total 16,264 Table 9-1 above
Fleet & Non-Revenue
Vehicle Parking
16,555 Summation of parking quantity in
Table 9-2. Parking areas plus 50% grossing factor for
circulation aisles, etc.

Employee Parking 16,695 Summation of parking quantity in Table 9-2. Parking areas plus 50% grossing factor for
circulation aisles, etc.

Misc. Exterior Spaces 4,135 The estimated area includes space for future expansion.

Grand Total: ~ 54,000 = ~ 1.23 acres
Values are in square feet unless noted otherwise.

The proposed site area size should be considered as an approximation for a new facility of the programmatic requirements noted herein. Various design options may result in slightly different outcomes for the final space needs and facility size. Planning for future growth beyond the horizon of this study should also be carefully considered so the agency is not short on space for another 15 to 20 years without any opportunity for expansion.
206 Total revenue fleet of 23 reflects the increase in fleet size from 20 to 23 due to the recommended service plan and ZEB preferred fleet composition.

284

9.1.1.2 Conceptual Master Plan Layout of New Facility
One of the first steps in establishing a viable property is to evaluate the zoning of the parcel(s) proposed for a new facility. The property is zoned I-1: Industrial. Fortunately, the existing facility and property are already in a zone suitable for use as a vehicle maintenance facility and a conditional use permit or other administrative process should not be required for the permitting of the new facility.

The area of the property where the new OMF is proposed is an open parking lot in the southwest corner (see Figure 9-1 below) with little to no existing infrastructure to displace. There do not appear to be any underground or above-ground utilities in this area and this portion of the site should be relatively simple to construct a new facility within.

Figure 9-1: Existing Conditions Site Plan for Transit Center & Existing Operations & Maintenance Facility However, it is not within the scope of this study to provide a detailed site assessment of the existing conditions so a detailed site survey and existing condition investigation should be provided prior to the detailed design of the new facility. The proposed conceptual site plan in Figure 9-2 considers the use of the southwest corner of the park-and-ride lot for several reasons:
• To allow for simple phasing of construction of the new facility while the existing facility and parkand-ride lot are in use during the entire duration of construction. • The proposed approach moves the industrial nature of the bus facility away from the public street. • The location reduces the potential for unforeseen conditions within the existing site since the proposed area appears to not have any negative existing conditions.

Infrastructure Planning
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 285
• The location allows for potential future phasing of a parking structure to the north of the OMF and adjacent to the transit center for park-and-rider users. • This location will keep the bus facility and bus traffic as close as possible to the entry/exit drive without preventing park-and-ride vehicle access through the site.

Figure 9-2: Conceptual Master Plan for New Operations & Maintenance Facility The conceptual site plan in Figure 9-2 is for illustrative purposes only and is one of many approaches to implementing a new bus facility at the specified property. This particular layout utilizes approximately 43,800 sq. ft. (about one acre), less than the programmed site area of about 54,000 sq. ft. recommended in Table 9-3 above largely because the facility is proposed as a two-level building.

286
Figure 9-3: Enlarged Plan for New Operations & Maintenance Facility The proposed layout considers employee parking to be outside the actual OMF boundary. The fenced-in OMF will contain parking for the transit fleet, non-revenue vehicles, and accessible employee/visitor spaces. Adequate space is allocated for the vehicle charging equipment and the associated electrical infrastructure that would also be required. This equipment would include charging cabinets, switchgear, transformer, backup generator, and/or battery-energy storage system. The master plan also considers the potential for photovoltaic solar canopies over the bus parking to aid in offsetting demand from the electrical grid. As previously noted, the building is proposed to be two floors to reduce the overall impact on the site. The administration, operations, and shared spaces would be on the second floor over about two-thirds of the ground floor maintenance level.

In order to maximize the parking capacity of the park-and-ride lot and following the demolition of the existing bus facility, the parking lot could be reconfigured and restriped per Figure 9-4 below. The existing lot accommodates 320 total parking spaces. The new OMF would remove about 133 spaces, but the removal of the existing OMF would allow for about 83 new parking spaces. The final net parking total would be about 270 spaces, a reduction of about 50 spaces from the current condition. For a 270-space parking lot, eight accessible spaces are needed with one of which being van accessible, 54 spaces would need to be clean-air/EV capable with 14 of those with electric vehicle charging stations per CalGreen table 5.106.5.3.1.

Infrastructure Planning
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 287
Figure 9-4: Enlarged Plan of Potential Park-and-Ride Lot Modifications In order to offset the reduction in the park-and-ride lot capacity due to the new OMF, a new parking structure could be constructed on a portion of the lot. Figure 9-5 below illustrates the potential footprint of a continuous ramp parking structure that could accommodate about 124 spaces per above-grade-level and about 100 spaces at grade. The remainder of the surface parking lot would allow for about 114 spaces. Therefore, in order to get the total parking capacity back to the current 320 total spaces, the parking structure would need to be one full level above grade (100 + 124 + 114 = 338 spaces). For additional levels of parking, 124 spaces can be added for each level. Therefore, a three-level structure would provide about 462 spaces and a four-level structure would provide about 586 spaces (number of levels includes ground level).

When constructing a parking structure at the property, the City may wish to consider additional improvements to the park-and-ride lot. For illustrative purposes, landscape islands and stormwater swales are shown in Figure 9-5 to account for the potential space this could require.

288
Figure 9-5: Enlarged Plan of Potential New Park-and-Ride Parking Structure A detailed space needs programming and a final master planning phase is highly recommended to develop the specific requirements of a new facility for BCT and to explore all potential options for utilization of any property prior to proceeding with environmental studies or detailed design. See further discussion on this topic in Section 9.2.

Full-size site plans of the above Figures are included in Appendix D: Site Plans.

9.1.2 ZEB Infrastructure & Bus Yard
This section outlines the proposed facility modifications for BEB implementation at BCT’s bus operations and maintenance facility. The master plan concept has been developed proposing ground-mounted dispensers. There is sufficient space for ground-mounted dispensers as opposed to overhead charging dispensers for highly space-constrained locations. Given the relatively small size of the facility, maximizing flexibility and avoiding conflicts on the property are critical. The charging cabinets and electrical utility equipment should be located in an aggregated area, away from bus parking and along the edge of the property. Charging dispensers would be located at the head of the parking stalls, requiring only a couple of additional feet to be added to each parking space.

Since the current fueling systems used by BCT are currently offsite, there is no need to phase out and remove the fueling equipment as the fleet shifts to BEB vehicles. Phasing of the BEB charging system infrastructure installation will be relatively simple and can be carried out with minimal impacts on continued operations. As operators currently fuel the vehicles at the offsite location, work rules do not preclude operators from ‘fueling’ (charging) and as such, operators (or bus services, depending on when the bus needs to be charged) would be responsible for plugging in buses for charging each day.

9.1.2.1 Proposed ZEB Facility Improvements
The following summarizes the proposed improvements for the ground-mounted dispensers needed to charge the proposed transit fleet. While the site planning configuration depicted in Figure 9-3 above is

Infrastructure Planning
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 289
the proposed configuration for the new facility, the following proposed improvements can provide guidance for BCT for any potential facility configuration:
• A new 1,500 kVA transformer and 2,500 A switchgear to provide adequate power to the facility, along with associated equipment pads and bollards.
• A new 1,500 kW generator with a 270-gallon belly tank for diesel fuel storage in order to support 100% service for one day; the current calculation assumes fuel is needed for approximately one day of outage. Doubling the tank size will provide the capacity to fully charge the fleet for two days of service. The generator would ideally be located within the charging equipment/utility yard to be as close as possible to the electrical switchgear supporting the chargers. • An automatic transfer switch between generator and switchgear. • Charging equipment:
o Option 1: A minimum of (12) 120-kW charger cabinets with a 1:2 charger-todispenser ratio (SAE J1772-compliant) to serve a maximum of (16) active (in revenue service) 30 ft. buses, three cutaways, and five passenger vans = (24) plug-in connectors.
o Option 2: A minimum of (24) 60-kW charger cabinets with a 1:1 charger-to-dispenser ratio (SAE J1772-compliant) to serve a maximum of (16) active (in revenue service) 30 ft. buses, three cutaways, and five passenger vans = (24) plug-in connectors. In this approach two charging cabinets can be paired together to deliver about 120 kW to one of two buses at a time, allowing for some additional flexibility. • Equipment pads and associated bollard protection around chargers and dispensers. • Power main feeder and sub feeders.
• Communication system panel/distribution cabinet and conduits to each charger. • Pavement replacement/repair for trenching associated with electrical distribution for locations where new electrical service and switchgear will be allocated will be required in portions of the site not otherwise improved with the new OMF.

9.1.2.2 Grid Connection Upgrades
The facility will require new electrical service connections from SCE. The utility will likely require that a service study be performed to identify any transmission or distribution system upgrades that may be needed to support the additional power demands from the bus chargers. It will be up to the utility to determine if the local power distribution system has the capacity to serve BCT’s new charging loads as well as any other planned loads in the area.

The recommendations here are focused on those infrastructure upgrades that are to be located on the facility property and do not include any required utility system upgrades that the service study may identify. The extent and timing of the system upgrades will determine the net cost to the agency.

Nevertheless, there is a possibility that the current transformer can support a small portion of the BEB fleet without major upgrades. To evaluate this, BCT would need to coordinate with SCE and conduct a load assessment for the current transformer to determine how many chargers can be connected as an interim step to deploy BEBs prior to completing major grid connection upgrades.

As described in Section 9.1.2.1 above, the proposed BEB charging system would require a new 1,500 kVA, 480 V, 3-phase service from SCE to serve the entire fleet. To access this level of service, it is anticipated that a new SCE service will be required and fed from the utility distribution lines running along

290
the adjacent public streets. The total BEB charging demand is significantly greater than the existing building electrical feeder capacity and it is typical to have a dedicated electrical feed for the charging equipment that is separate from the building feeder. This configuration simplifies operations and allows for dedicated BEB charging metering which can be necessary to take advantage of utility incentive rate structures.

9.1.2.3 SCE Charge Ready Transport Program
Supporting the transition to electric vehicles, the Charge Ready Transport (CRT) program operated by SCE can provide funding for the installation of infrastructure supporting the deployment of electric trucks, buses, and off-road equipment. Along with funding for infrastructure, SCE also provides logistics support for construction including site design and permitting. This program provides funding for all infrastructure up to the charging station, utility costs, and infrastructure on the customer side up to the charging station 207.

Charging infrastructure is split into utility side (transformer, meter, etc.) infrastructure, and consumer side (control panel, charging stations, etc.) infrastructure. Consumer-side construction of charging infrastructure can be done through SCE or managed in-house, whereas utility-side infrastructure is always constructed by SCE. Charger connections (dispensers) must be deployed on a 1:1 ratio with electric vehicles (EVs) using chargers approved by SCE and they will require a purchase commitment of any future vehicles if the infrastructure is set up ahead of time. The graphic below shows the process of SCE’s program.

Figure 9-6: SCE Charge Ready Program Flow Chart, Source: SCE 207 The program launched in 2019 for a five-year period; it is currently unknown if the program will still be in operation when BCT procures its first BEBs.

Infrastructure Planning
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 291
The SCE-Built Option (Figure 9-7) provides all the modifications from the utility side and the customer side (behind the meter), supplying all the needed grid upgrades and connections so that the customer only has to purchase the chargers and connect them. Additionally, the CRT program provides up to 50% rebates for the purchased chargers. However, this option requires the client to provide easements or entrance rights so that SCE can have direct and unrestrictive access to the property. The easement will be required for the duration of the owner’s obligation to the CRT Program and could potentially be quitclaimed back to the owner after the term of the program expires. Such entrance rights may represent a risk from a legal standpoint to certain clients. Furthermore, another risk is the limited options of approved charger vendors on the SCE list, for example, there are only a couple of vendors that provide a 2-to-1 charger-to-dispenser connection; higher ratios of chargers-to-dispensers are not currently on the preapproved list, and thus limits the configuration options and final design of the yard if using this approach.

Of significant importance and limitation, the SCE-Built approach is restrictive to adding additional distributed energy resource (DER) connections, such as a connection to on-site generators, solar photovoltaic, or battery (energy storage) systems to the SCE meter and switchgear. There are currently no exceptions to this in the SCE-Built option.

Figure 9-7: SCE-Built Infrastructure option for the CRT program Property of SCE
In the Customer-Built Option (Figure 9-8), SCE covers the infrastructure on the utility side, but the customer is responsible for all the behind-the-meter infrastructure. While the CRT program offers a reimbursement of the cost of up to 80%, the actual cost of the rebate is completely up to SCE. While this option will actually allow for the installation of DER supplemental equipment, it will not be covered by the CRT program and will require separate trenching and conduit. The same equipment vendor limitations apply for the customer-built option as described above.

292
Figure 9-8: Customer-Built option for the CRT program
Property of SCE
The general customer requirements of the CRT program are:
• Lease or purchase at least two medium or heavy-duty battery-powered EVs or convert at least two fossil-fuel vehicles to electric.
• Select, purchase, and install SCE-approved charging equipment in the quantity approved by SCE.
• Keep the charging equipment operational for at least ten years. • Provide data related to charging equipment usage for a minimum of five years. • Grant easement(s) depending on the built option, as described above.

As part of the program, SCE will:
• Perform on-site visits to evaluate the site’s electrical infrastructure needs. • Develop utility-side and customer-side of the meter cost estimates. • Design, secure permit, project manage, and install the necessary infrastructure depending on the selected built option.
• Install a separate meter dedicated to the EV charging infrastructure and waive customer demand charges through 2024 with commercial EV rates.
• Make final inspections once the charging equipment is installed.

9.1.2.4 Photovoltaic Systems
The potential for on-site power generation is another important consideration for BCT’s long-term resiliency and sustainability goals. BEBs require a large amount of power, more than could be generated even if the entire transit center property were to be covered in solar panels. However, the power demands for the building and the level of charging could be generated onsite through canopies over the bus parking, non-revenue vehicle parking, and on the rooftop of the new operations and maintenance facility.

The City could also consider solar canopies over the park-and-ride lot parking stalls to increase the generation potential for power for transit operations.

Infrastructure Planning
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 293
Since solar power can only be generated during the day, the system would likely need to be paired with a battery energy storage system (BESS) in order to hold that energy. The BESS would then be dispensed into buses during peak, heavy demand-charge times or simply at night when the buses are not in use.

These systems are expensive and capital-intensive but can be acquired through power purchase agreements and third-party vendors that install the infrastructure and equipment and then sell it back to the user(s).

An additional consideration in installing a PV system (with or without a BESS) is whether BCT intends to utilize SCE’s Charge Ready program as discussed in the section above. Only the Customer-Built option would allow for the inclusion of these systems.

9.1.2.5 Communication Infrastructure
Infrastructure for data communications within the charging system will include IP Ethernet wiring between each charger and its associated dispensers, as well as between each charger and a local data switch. The actual wiring will be a conventional Cat 6 Ethernet cable between devices or fiber, which would require a telecom cabinet. As the maximum length allowed for ethernet is 328 feet, the dispensers cannot be too far from their respective charger. Although longer distances are possible with fiber optic cable, the DC power cables that need to run parallel with the ethernet cables begin to have problems with voltage drop at this distance, so 328 feet is a recommended limit.

Once the ethernet lines from each charger are routed back to the facility’s data switch, the data can be contained within BCT’s local network and managed directly by the agency. Alternately, the data can be routed to a cloud-based system—as needed to provide smart charging and data aggregation—that is managed by a third party and/or is provided by the charger manufacturer. However, this would likely require coordination and approval of security and access, as it would necessitate outside entities operating within BCT’s local network. Additionally, is recommended for BCT to implement a Wi-Fi network in the bus yard for smart charging communication to buses while any other communication upgrade is occurring or as an alternative to traditional communications systems.

9.1.2.6 Fire Protection Considerations
With the implementation of BEBs, fire protection and life-safety concerns can be significant. However, due to the relatively new advent of these associated technologies, building and fire protection codes have not specifically addressed most of these concerns. NFPA 855 ‘Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems’ is a standard that can potentially be applied to BEB storage, but this particular standard is excessive relative to the capacity of the batteries onboard buses and considering all of BCT’s buses are stored outside. The need for enhanced fire protection systems has not been determined as a baseline requirement for BEB implementation and would be left up to the discretion of the local fire marshal and the local building officials. The need for additional fire lanes or fire ‘breaks’ within long continuous rows of bus parking may need to be discussed with the local fire department but is unlikely considering the size of the fleet stored onsite and the relatively open nature of the site with drive aisles between all of the bus parking.

If BCT decides to install photovoltaic solar canopies above the bus parking stalls, an NFPA 13-compliant automatic sprinkler system could be required because the canopy has a ‘use’ underneath it as defined by the California Fire Code.

Furthermore, all modifications to the facility should be reviewed with the local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs), in particular the local fire marshal. Fire truck access to the site and hydrant access will need to be reviewed and approved by the pertinent AHJs prior to the implementation of any additional infrastructure for charging equipment or solar canopies. However, since the site is designed for bus

294
movements, fire truck access is relatively straightforward and should be accommodated without significant changes to the facility.

In summary, no fire protection systems are required for minimal BEB implementation but considerations for covered canopies could trigger additional fire protection system upgrades to the facilities.

9.1.2.7 Fall Protection and Safety Infrastructure Considerations Fall protection systems are recommended for any vehicle maintenance and inspection shop but considering that BCT will have a mixed vehicle fleet for some time, it is unlikely that one system will be able to meet all of the agency’s needs. Fall protection systems would be required to safely access the rooftops of buses for potential battery inspection and maintenance since it is likely that the batteries will be mounted on the roofs of some of these vehicles.

9.1.2.8 Emergency Backup Planning
Transit agencies need to consider the portion of service (and thus of their BEB fleet) that will be deployed or operated during grid-outage conditions. Redondo Beach is not typically subject to emergency public safety power shutoffs so the backup planning would largely need to consider unplanned and/or scheduled power outages. Considerable planning needs to be addressed to ensure that vehicles can charge during shutdowns to maintain transit service.

For the purposes of the site planning, Stantec assumed backup power would be provided via a dieselfired 1,500 kW generator with a storage capacity for 270 gallons of diesel in order to serve one revenue day at 100% service levels 208. A separate generator may be considered to provide backup power to the operations and maintenance facility or a larger generator could be provided to back up both the OMF and the charging equipment. See Figure 9-9 for an example generator installation.

Figure 9-9: Typical Stationary Back-Up Diesel Generator with Belly Tank Fuel Storage If BCT wishes to operate for more days during an emergency, the size of the generator will stay the same, but the required quantity of fuel will scale linearly. The total amount of fuel required to be stored onsite will depend on the anticipated duration of the utility electrical outage and the amount of time 208 Propane or natural gas generators are possible but uncommon, particularly at this size. A generator sized to backup a house can easily run on propose or natural gas, but this is very uncommon for a 1500 kW generator. It's also less resilient because in a major disaster the natural gas utility may be disrupted.

Infrastructure Planning
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 295
required to receive a fuel delivery of diesel fuel, as well as on environmental regulations and local policies.

Adequate space has been planned for in the conceptual master plan for either a new permanent generator or accommodation for a mobile generator with a load bank connection. The generator would be placed relatively close to its respective distribution panel. If permanent generators are installed, bollards should be installed surrounding the entire electrical equipment yard, but if a mobile generator is chosen as the preferred method of backup power, then the protective elements should be removable or installed in a manner to allows a mobile generator to be parked near the load bank cabinet to minimize the connection cable distance.

A permanent generator on-site will require an additional permit from the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) and will have annual limitations on the duration it is allowed to run. However, a temporary mobile generator that has been certified by the CARB would not require a permit by the AQMD but will have further restrictions on when it can be used such as actual or imminent blackouts. Under any scenario, BCT should consider close coordination with both the AQMD and CARB as part of any plan to install a generator at the facility.

While diesel-fired generators will provide emergency backup power, another potential avenue for resiliency is through renewables, such as solar energy generated through photovoltaics (PV) as noted above. Several agencies have deployed solar PV assets to generate renewable energy to power their facilities. With the adoption of a BEB fleet, additional harvesting of solar PV energy, together with storage of this energy in a battery electric storage system (BESS), can be used to charge a portion of the fleet with energy that does not come ‘from the grid’. As such, this strategy could be used to diminish some of the costs associated with charging, particularly during peak time-of-use periods. However, these additional assets are capital-intensive and require favorable energy policies to compensate such facilities for the additional services a BESS can provide.

Nevertheless, solar arrays and stationary batteries have limitations. The power generated with solar PV arrays will likely account for a small portion of the energy requirements of a BEB fleet, and in the case of stationary batteries, once they have been discharged to charge a BEB, they need to be recharged, which typically takes several hours. In the event of an emergency, relying solely on solar energy is impractical. As such, deploying complementary fossil fuel-powered generators is necessary to generate the power required to charge a BEB fleet.

296

9.2 Future Planning and Design Needs

9.2.1 Facility Design & Permitting Needs
In order to implement the proposed improvements for the new operations and maintenance facility, BCT and the City will need to procure professional consulting and design services to complete the environmental review processes, design the new facility, and support BCT through the construction of the project.

First, given the size of the proposed project, both CEQA and NEPA clearances will be required prior to beginning the final design of the new OMF and should be considered for the next step of the project. Any professional consulting services solicited by BCT should be provided by an environmental planning firm experienced in the CEQA/NEPA processes specifically for transit operations and maintenance facilities.

The City and BCT may choose to use the conceptual master plan provided herein as the starting point for the environmental review process or include scope for the environmental consultant to revalidate the program and site plan approach at the time of starting the environmental review process. Regardless, the environmental documentation should be focused on the general size of the facility, quantity of vehicles, and general siting of the proposed improvements. Detailed specifics about building orientation or exact figures on the program should not be dictated in the environmental documentation so that the final design is not overly constrained by the environmental approvals. While amendments can be submitted to the final approved clearances, that process takes additional time and budget and could be avoided.

Following the CEQA clearance for the project, the design and engineering process can commence. There is minimal risk in commencing the design after CEQA is completed and the project is submitted for NEPA review. The City and BCT will need to hire a complete team for architectural and engineering (A&E) services for the new OMF – the design team. It is recommended that the solicitation be based on qualifications for experience with designing similar transit operations and maintenance facilities. The design services should include all of the following disciplines: overall project management; architectural; landscape architecture; civil, structural, electrical, lighting, plumbing, fire protection, and mechanical engineering; security, IT, audio-visual, and communication systems design; electric vehicle charging equipment design, and cost estimating services. In addition, geotechnical engineering and surveying will also be required. These services could be procured along with the environmental review process, the A&E professional services, or be separate from either procurement. Ideally, the geotechnical and survey are not carried out by the design team and are directly sourced by the City since these are documentation of existing conditions. BCT will also need to procure professional commissioning services as required by the California Energy Code and CalGreen Code. The commissioning agent can be a part of the design team contract but for a project of this size, they are not permitted to be the same staff as the design team working on the project. The A&E services should include scope from re-validating the space needs program through the preparation of construction documents, bid support services, and construction support services.

The design team should be responsible for managing the entire design and permitting process through plan check review and approval by the City and all other AHJs. As a City project, the permitting process could be assumed to be slightly more streamlined, but the design team should ultimately be responsible for gaining all required project clearances from the planning, building, public works, and fire departments; air pollution control district if a generator is involved; and any other AHJ’s that may be eventually involved with the project. Most, if not all, of these entities will be identified in the CEQA process for the project. At the end of the permitting process, the design team’s management of the overall project will generally shift to the construction manager when the project transitions to the bid and award phase.

To support the City and BCT during the construction of the facility and act on behalf of all of the City’s interests, construction management (CM) services should be procured prior to the project being issued for construction bids and can be solicited early on in the process to support the City with writing contract

Infrastructure Planning
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 297
requirements, front-end project specifications, providing constructability review, etc. at the City’s discretion. CM services are vital to a project having dedicated staff responsible for the day-to-day management of the generator contractor’s submittals, change orders, construction schedule, payment applications, etc.

Lastly, the City and BCT will need to issue for bid the construction of the facility. This is a fairly standard process by which the City advertises the project plans, specifications, etc. for construction bids. It is recommended that bidders be qualified with experience with similar public facility projects, with a preference for transit or public works maintenance and operations facilities. Additionally, experience with Buy America Act (BA) compliance would be helpful to ensure the general contractor and their subcontractors understand the unique requirements of BA compliance in the likelihood that the project will have some federal funding involved.

The timeframe for the proposed services and implementation are outlined in Section 10.

298
10 PHASED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The coordinated implementation plan in Table 10-1 presents a comprehensive plan for implementing the five-year service plan, ZEB transition, and facility construction. The timeline of the plan goes through 2040 to reflect a full transition to ZE operations.

Table 10-1: Coordinated implementation plan, 2024-2040 209 Year Element Action Item Responsible Party/
Parties Implementation Details
2024
Bus Facility
Procure professional environmental
support services for CEQA and
NEPA clearances for the new OMF
by the end of 2024.

BCT, Redondo Beach
City Council
BCT should assume the CEQA and
NEPA processes will take about 12
to 18 months in total. Design of
new facility can commence
following CEQA clearance (about 6
- 9 months).

Fleet
Procurement
Fleet Procurement:
1 CNG bus (30 ft)
BCT, Redondo Beach
City Council Estimated capital cost: $533,000
Service
Planning/
Operations
Line 102: routing changes to absorb
the portion of Line 109 between
Redondo Beach Pier and Riviera
Village.

Line 109: routing changes to
straighten alignment around Plaza
El Segundo and Manhattan Village
Mall, and terminate line at Redondo
Beach Pier. One month prior to
routing changes, install signs at any
stops that will be closed stating the
stop will no longer be in service, and
providing information on the new
closest stops.

Manhattan Beach Blvd Line: assess
conditions and placement of Metro
Line 126 bus stops and identify
needs in coordination with the City
of Manhattan Beach for stops within
their jurisdiction. This process
should incorporate Transit Amenities
Policies as outlined in BCT's Title VI
Program.

At least 30 days prior to the
implementation of service changes,
BCT will hold public hearings and
solicit feedback from the public on
proposed service changes following
all guidelines outlined in BCT's
Public Participation Process
(Community Outreach Plan).

BCT, Redondo Beach
Police Department
(Parking Enforcement),
Torrance Transit, other
relevant City
departments, Manhattan
Beach
-BCT should coordinate with
Torrance Transit regarding routing
changes around the Pier to ensure
that schedules are coordinated to
facilitate seamless transfers.
-BCT will need to coordinate with
relevant City departments to
ensure sufficient space for buses is
provided at the Pier, including
coordinating with Parking
Enforcement to mitigate potential
issues of illegal parking preventing
BCT vehicles from accessing the
space.
-One month prior to service
changes, BCT should conduct
robust outreach to customers and
areas that might be affected,
including flyers on buses and at
relevant stops.
-BCT should work with other City
departments (such as the
Department of Community
Development, Community Services
Department, etc.) to expand
outreach capabilities.
-BCT website should be updated
as service changes are
implemented.
-BCT maps and schedules should
be updated as service changes are
implemented.
2025
Fleet
Procurement
Fleet Procurement:
3 CNG buses (30 ft)
BCT, Redondo Beach
City Council Estimated capital cost: $1,632,000
Service
Planning/
Operations
Line 102: increase weekday service
to every 33 minutes all day
Line 109: implement routing
changes to serve the Airport Metro
BCT, other relevant City
departments, Manhattan
Beach
-BCT should examine schedules of
other operators that will be serving
the Airport Metro Connector Station
to understand if schedules can be
209 Estimated capital costs in 2023$. Information on capital cost sources provided in Appendix E: Financial Considerations and Inputs and Appendix F: Cost Estimate.

Phased Implementation Plan
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 299
Year Element Action Item Responsible Party/
Parties Implementation Details
Connector Station and Automated
People Mover at LAX
At least 30 days prior to the
implementation of service changes,
BCT will hold public hearings and
solicit feedback from the public on
proposed service changes following
all guidelines outlined in BCT's
Public Participation Process
(Community Outreach Plan).
better coordinated to facilitate
transfers.
-BCT should work in coordination
with Manhattan Beach to install
required bus stop infrastructure for
stops within Manhattan Beach city
limits.
-One month prior to service
changes, BCT should conduct
robust outreach to customers and
areas that might be affected,
including flyers on buses and at
relevant stops.
-BCT should work with other City
departments (such as the
Department of Community
Development, Community Services
Department, etc.) to expand
outreach capabilities.
-BCT website should be updated
as service changes are
implemented.
-BCT maps and schedules should
be updated as service changes are
implemented.
2026
Bus Facility
Procure professional architectural
and engineering services for the
design of the new facility and site
improvements at the beginning of
2026.

BCT, Redondo Beach
City Council
Design process should begin with
detailed programming and master
planning tasks to resume and
validate the proposed space needs
program and conceptual master
plan. Design and permitting for new
facility can be expected to take
about 12 to 18 months, but can
commence following project
approval from CEQA.

Service
Planning/
Operations
Line 102: Sunday service schedule
improved to match Saturday
schedule (all day service around
every 40 minutes).

Manhattan Beach Blvd Line: finalize
installation of bus stop
infrastructure, conduct dry runs and
operator training on new route, and
launch service in summer 2026.

At least 30 days prior to the
implementation of service changes,
BCT will hold public hearings and
solicit feedback from the public on
proposed service changes following
all guidelines outlined in BCT's
Public Participation Process
(Community Outreach Plan).

BCT, Transportation
Concepts, other relevant
City departments,
relevant stakeholders to
help promote the launch
of the Manhattan Beach
Blvd service (Manhattan
Beach Department of
Parks and Recreation,
Manhattan Beach
Chamber of Commerce,
Redondo Beach
Performing Arts Center,
Downtown Manhattan
Beach Business +
Professional
Association, etc.)
-Transportation Concepts/O&M
Contractor should execute dry runs
of the Manhattan Beach Blvd
alignment to confirm run time and
develop schedules, complete
runcutting, and paddles.
-BCT should work with various
stakeholders in the months leading
up to the launch to continue to
advertise the service. After service
launch, collect data on ridership
and performance as well as public
feedback on rider satisfaction.
-One month prior to service
changes, BCT should conduct
robust outreach to customers and
areas that might be affected,
including flyers on buses and at
relevant stops.
-BCT should work with other City
departments (such as the
Department of Community
Development, Community Services
Department, etc.) to expand
outreach capabilities.
-BCT website should be updated
as service changes are
implemented.

300
Year Element Action Item Responsible Party/
Parties Implementation Details
-BCT maps and schedules should
be updated as service changes are
implemented.
2027
Bus Facility
Issue for bid and award mid-2027:

Construction Management Services
for the new Bus OMF (if City doesn't
have on-call contracts or other
means by which to procure CM
services.

Issue for bid and award mid to end
of 2027: Construction contract for
the new Bus OMF.

BCT, Redondo Beach
City Council
CM services should be procured
first to aid in solicitation of general
contractors for the construction of
the new BMF.

Fleet
Procurement
Fleet Procurement:
2 CNG buses (30 ft)
BCT, Redondo Beach
City Council
Estimated capital cost:
$1,135,123
Service
Planning/
Operations
Line 109: implement 35-minute
weekday service during AM and PM
peaks (7-9am and 4-6pm)
Manhattan Beach Blvd Line:
continue to monitor performance
and adjust schedules as necessary.

Begin to collect data to determine
whether service should be
expanded year-round. BCT should
do this on a continuous basis.

BCT, other relevant City
departments
-One month prior to service
changes, BCT should conduct
robust outreach to customers and
areas that might be affected,
including flyers on buses and at
relevant stops.
-BCT should work with other City
departments (such as the
Department of Community
Development, Community Services
Department, etc.) to expand
outreach capabilities.
-BCT website should be updated
as service changes are
implemented.
-BCT maps and schedules should
be updated as service changes are
implemented.
2028
Bus Facility
Early 2028, begin construction on
new Bus Operations and
Maintenance Facility (OMF).

BCT
Estimate construction period 18
months from award of contract to
final commissioning of the facility.

City should allow for contingency in
schedule for unexpected delays,
etc. so that facility can be opened
in time for arrival of first electric
vehicles.

Fleet
Procurement
Fleet Procurement:
1 CNG van
BCT, Redondo Beach
City Council
Estimated capital cost:
$63,320
2029
Bus Facility -
ZEB
If the program is still active, apply for
participation in the SCE Charge
Ready Transport Program for
charging infrastructure installation.

Vehicles must arrive on site within
18 months from the time the
application was submitted.

BCT, SCE
Application will need to be
coordinated with new OMF design
and construction.

Fleet
Procurement -
ZEB
Fleet Procurement:
1 BE bus (30 ft)
4 BE vans
BCT, Redondo Beach
City Council Estimated capital cost: $1,871,781
2030 Bus Facility
New Bus OMF to be completed.

BCT to move contractor and
operations into new facility.

BCT
OMF will need to be completed and
commissioned prior to arrival of
first BEB in order to allow for
installation of charging equipment
and coordination with SCE if
utilizing SCE's Charge Ready
Transport program (if the program
is still available in the future).

Phased Implementation Plan
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 301
Year Element Action Item Responsible Party/
Parties Implementation Details
Fleet
Procurement -
ZEB
Fleet Procurement:
3 BE cutaways
BCT, Redondo Beach
City Council Estimated capital cost: $870,651
2031 Bus Facility
Demolition of existing bus
maintenance facility and realignment
of park-and-ride parking lot.

BCT
City may choose alternative
approach to expanding park-andride lot, but it can be assumed that the existing facility will not be
suitable for long term use by other
functions. The existing building is
well beyond its useful life in 2023.
2032 N/A N/A N/A N/A
2033 N/A N/A N/A N/A
2034
Fleet
Procurement -
ZEB
Fleet Procurement:
8 BE buses (30 ft)
BCT, Redondo Beach
City Council Estimated capital cost: $8,443,000
2035 ZEB
Deployment
Battery replacement for one 30 ft
bus BCT
No additional cost; cost included in
vehicle purchase price extended
warranty.
2036 N/A N/A N/A N/A
2037
Fleet
Procurement -
ZEB
Fleet Procurement:
1 BE bus (30 ft)
1 BE van
BCT, Redondo Beach
City Council Estimated capital cost: $1,372,000
2038
Fleet
Procurement -
ZEB
Fleet Procurement:
4 BE buses (30 ft)
4 BE vans
BCT, Redondo Beach
City Council Estimated capital cost: $5,589,000
2039
Fleet
Procurement -
ZEB
Fleet Procurement:
3 BE cutaways
BCT, Redondo Beach
City Council Estimated capital cost: $1,024,000
2040
Fleet
Procurement -
ZEB
Fleet Procurement:
1 BE bus (30 ft)
BCT, Redondo Beach
City Council Estimated capital cost: $1,178,000
ZEB
Deployment Battery replacement for eight 30 ft
buses BCT
No additional cost; cost included in
vehicle purchase price extended
warranty.

To further assist the City in navigating the implementation of this plan, a Gantt chart has been developed which highlights key milestone dates (Figure 10-1). Please refer to Table 10-1 for more information.

302
Figure 10-1: Implementation Plan Schedule

Financial Plan
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 303
11 FINANCIAL PLAN
This section describes the financial plan that monetizes the service and capital plans for the short-range transit planning horizon. In general, the five-year financial plan forecast assumes sufficient operating and capital funding to expand service levels, cover future capital needs, and expand staffing and/or services.

More information about the assumptions and inputs used in this section can be found in Appendix E:

Financial Considerations and Inputs.

11.1 Operating Costs
To project operating costs, past budgets were analyzed to understand cost trending, and current contract rates were reviewed with BCT staff. The operating costs presented here are based on the following key assumptions:
• BCT will continue paying a hired operations and maintenance (O&M) contractor for both fixedroute and DAR services. • BCT will continue paying a fixed monthly fee, as well as an hourly rate per revenue hour.

The analysis is focused on the contract values per fiscal year (FY) that the City would pay an O&M contractor; the forecasts below do not capture other costs, such as City administration time and/or other ancillary costs not directly related to revenue service delivery.

Table 11-1 provides the key cost inputs for costs per revenue hours and the fixed monthly costs, as well as the annual revenue hours of the proposed five-year service plan.

Table 11-1: Operating Cost Estimates for the Five-Year Service Plan Plan Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Fiscal Year 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28
Fixed Monthly Rate $103,502 $108,574 $114,002 $121,982 $130,521 Fixed Hourly Rate $48.57 $50.95 $53.50 $57.24 $61.25
Annual Revenue Hours 47,186 47,186 49,560 50,319 50,319 Total Operating Cost $3,533,848 $3,707,007 $4,019,360 $4,344,162 $4,648,253 The City will issue an RFP for service for a new contract period to begin in July 2026 (Plan Year 4). After this, it is expected that costs and associated wages will be higher subject to the RFP process. It is estimated that this will be at least a 7% increase compared to the previous year, which is reflected in the table.

Overall, the plan sees a moderate increase (12%) in revenue hours in year 1 from current service levels largely to account for routing adjustments particularly for the extension of Line 102 to serve the Redondo Beach Transit Center. Costs are also expected to increase as the hourly and monthly rates are adjusted each year of the contract to account for inflation. With additional service added in year 5, it is expected that the contractor operating costs will top $4.6 million, which is about 32% more in operating costs compared to current operating costs for about 23% more revenue service hours.

304
We note that the City’s approved budget in FY21-22 was over $180 million, and the FY27-28 transit service budget would constitute about 3% of the City’s total budget from FY21-22. 210

11.2 Capital Costs
The major capital costs for the timeframe of the five-year service planning period are replacement vehicles (both ICE and ZEB), the acquisition of equipment for the transition to ZE vehicles, as well as facility modifications. As per CARB’s ICT regulation, small agencies like BCT must begin acquiring ZEBs in 2026, but due to the number of vehicles BCT needs to buy in 2027 and 2028 and accounting for the 25% ZEB purchase requirement, BCT will start purchasing ZEBs in 2029 and still be in compliance 211.

11.2.1 Fleet
Table 11-2 highlights the replacement capital costs of vehicles through the five-year service plan horizon.

This time frame will see BCT replace four 30-ft CNG buses with four new 30-ft buses, and expand the fleet with two additional 30-ft CNG buses in 2027. The full fleet replacement schedule can be found in Section 8.4.

Table 11-2: Capital Investment for Buses During the Five-Year Service Plan Horizon Capital Item
FY23-24 FY24-25 FY25-26 FY26-27 FY27-28
(Yr 1) (Yr 2) (Yr 3) (Yr 4) (Yr 5)
CNG 30-ft bus $532,569 $1,631,890 $- $1,135,123 $-
CNG Van $- $- $- $- $63,320
BEB 30-ft $- $- $- $- $-
BEB Cutaway $- $- $- $- $-
BEB Van $- $- $- $- $-
Total $532,569 $1,631,890 $- $1,135,123 $63,320
To help with longer-term fleet capital planning, Table 11-3 shows the forecasted capital expenditures for the fleet plan in Section 8.4 through 2040 when we predict BCT’s fleet will be 100% ZEBs. 210 Note that the operating budget for BCT is not solely paid for by the City of Redondo Beach, but rather is funded partly by the City, partly by the City of Hermosa Beach, as well as a blend of federal, state, and local grants/programs/measures.
211 In 2027 and 2028, BCT is purchasing two vehicles in 2027 and one vehicle in 2028. When considering the 25% ZEB purchase regulation in force from 2026 through 2028, when accounting for rounding, 25% of vehicles purchased in each of these years is less than one bus. As such BCT is able to purchase conventional buses in these years while remaining compliant with the ICT regulation, as per CARB’s guidance.

Financial Plan
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 305
Table 11-3: Capital Investment for Buses, FY28-29 Through FY39-40 Capital Item
FY28-29 FY29-30 FY30-31 FY31-32 FY32-33 FY33-34 FY34-35 FY35-36 FY36-37 FY37-38 FY38-39 FY39-40 (Yr 6) (Yr 7) (Yr 8) (Yr 9) (Yr 10) (Yr 11) (Yr 12) (Yr 13) (Yr 14) (Yr 15) (Yr 16) (Yr 17) CNG 30-ft bus $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $-
BEB 30-ft $973,238 $- $- $- $- $8,442,831 $- $- $1,114,412 $4,540,708 $- $1,178,393 BEB Cutaway $- $870,651 $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $1,023,529 $- BEB Van $898,542 $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $257,220 $1,048,052 $- $- Total $1,871,781 $870,651 $- $- $- $8,442,831 $- $- $1,371,632 $5,588,761 $1,023,529 $1,178,393

306
The total cumulative capital cost for the fleet through 2040 is over $23.6 million. Note that the cumulative capital expense presented in this section does not capture the cost of operating service, and does not consider any rebates, vouchers, credits, or other alternative financing methods. Therefore, there may be opportunities to offset the cost of investment for this ZEB fleet.

11.2.2 Facility and Infrastructure
To support the successful deployment of the ZEB fleet, significant upgrades, and facility modifications are needed, including BEB chargers and dispensers, a new transformer and switchgear, in addition to a completely new building for operations and maintenance function and a reorganization of the yard. More details can be found in Section 9.

With regard to infrastructure costs, Stantec’s cost estimator Jacobus and Yuang, Inc. developed rough order of magnitude cost estimates based on the facility plans. Table 11-4 provides a summary view of the expected costs, and the full cost estimate can be found in Appendix F: Cost Estimate.

Table 11-4: Total Opinion of Probable Cost with Escalation Plus Equipment Cost and Soft Costs Site Costs
Site Demolition $450,351
Park & Ride Lot/Employee Parking $604,309
OMF Sitework $8,153,797
Admin-Ops & Maintenance Facility $9,139,965
Escalation $3,957,755
Equipment Costs
Maintenance/Bus Wash Equipment $1,000,000
Escalation $423,843
Soft Costs
Architectural/Engineering Fees $3,559,503
Environmental Consulting (CEQA/NEPA) $177,975
Construction Contingency $1,186,501
Construction Management $1,898,402
Surveys, etc. $1,186,501
Total Opinion of Probable Cost with
Escalation, Equipment, and Soft Costs $31,738,902
Based on the high-level cost estimate, we estimate that BCT could spend $31.7 million on facility upgrades between 2023 and 2028. As described in Section 9.2, BCT needs to develop more detailed design drawings based on the concept developed by Stantec and with detailed drawings, BCT can get a more accurate cost estimate.

11.3 Financial Plan Summary
The table below summarizes estimated operating and capital costs for BCT over the 5-year service planning period. Please note that only bus procurement is included in capital costs, as the capital cost estimates for facilities and infrastructure are high-level, and BCT needs to develop more detailed design drawings to derive a more accurate cost estimate for facility and infrastructure construction.

Financial Plan
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 307
Table 11-5: Financial Plan Summary
Plan Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Fiscal Year 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28
Total Operating Cost $3,533,848 $3,707,007 $4,019,360 $4,344,162 $4,648,253 Total Capital Costs $532,569 $1,631,890 $- $1,135,123 $63,320 Total $4,066,417 $5,338,897 $4,019,360 $5,479,285 $4,711,573

11.4 Other Cost Considerations
While the ZEB fleet transition and facility modifications and infrastructure upgrades will account for the largest capital cost expenditures, and the expansion of service over the five-year service plan horizon is modest, other recommendations are expected to trigger costs to BCT, but with less certainty than the ZEB fleet. Here, we outline the key elements that BCT should evaluate further.

11.4.1 Bus Stop Amenities
As revealed by our analysis and ride alongs, BCT should work with its partners in the different municipalities where it operates buses to explore opportunities to improve bus stop amenities. Bus stop amenities include poles with signs (highlighting route names, frequencies or timetables, and maps), benches, shelters, ADA platforms, bulb-outs, and digital signs with real-time arrival predictions. It is recommended that benches be installed at stops that represent the top 30% ridership locations and shelters at stops that represent the top 15% ridership locations. However, as BCT does not have direct jurisdiction over any rights-of-way, BCT will need to work closely with its partner municipalities to evaluate the ability to upgrade any bus stops.

For the Redondo Beach Pier bus stop, BCT and the City should evaluate the capacity to support additional BCT buses in coordination with other public transit services, and general public use of the Torrance Circle area. There is significant potential as a ‘showpiece’ stop with more robust infrastructure as a new bus transfer location, Improved amenities such as shading, network information, real-time arrivals, and additional seating, In accordance with the Pier’s design scheme.

Moreover, with the proposed introduction of the new summer beach bus route along Manhattan Beach Blvd, BCT will need to evaluate bus stop locations and install new bus stops along the route alignment.

Fortunately, as Metro previously operated Line 126 along much of the alignment proposed for the beach route, BCT can evaluate the old Line 126 bus stop locations and any leftover equipment for re-use, if any still exists. BCT will need to coordinate with Manhattan Beach to install furniture within Manhattan Beach city limits.

11.4.2 Technology
Apart from the real-time arrival information collected and shared with its riders, BCT’s customer-facing and internal technology is rather limited. During this study, we identified several needs and opportunities for additional technology deployment to improve the customer experience, as well as improve planning and operations.

308
• Advanced scheduling software. BCT’s current O&M contractor uses legacy scheduling software for both fixed-route and dial-a-ride services; moreover, the O&M contractor uses a subcontractor to develop blocking and runcuts, as well as bus schedules. The outcome is a slow, unresponsive process that makes testing or implementing changes slow and inefficient. As an indirect cost, BCT should require that in future bids for O&M contractors, vendors demonstrate the use of modern transit planning software that can optimize schedules quickly, test multiple scenarios, and result in efficient dial-a-ride manifests. • Automatic passenger counters (APCs). BCT would benefit from APCs installed on its fleet to allow for accurate data capture of passenger boardings and alightings by a bus stop, by the time of day, and by the day of the week. APC data will help build a more complete portrait of where ridership is heavier, which stops are unused, and what times of day see greater demand than others. Leveraging the power of APC data to track passenger loads will help BCT better adjust service levels depending on demand. BCT carries out manual ride counts which are timeconsuming, and as such, infrequent and provide a static snapshot, that while helpful, isn’t as robust as the data collected by APC. APCs will modernize BCT’s ability to perform NTD data collection and move away from the manual random sampling method that is currently in use. As BCT begins to acquire new vehicles to renew the fleet, BCT should also include APCs as part of the bus specifications. Costs for APCs vary by vendor and system, and generally include hardware and software costs; BCT can reach out to transit agency peers throughout Los Angeles to understand comparable costs and lessons learned for other agencies deploying APCs.

11.4.3 Additional Staffing and Capacity
BCT’s administrative staff is lean and nimble. Staff work across multiple projects and functions with an allhands approach. Based on the recommendations and discussion with BCT staff, we envision the need for additional staff or capacity for the following purposes:
• Managing and implementing the ZEB transition. With many moving parts, including bus acquisitions, facility planning, and construction management, as well as liaising with city partners and SCE, the deployment of ZEBs will require more staff time. Indeed, as learned through BCT’s experience with the construction at the RBTC, construction management has become more and more time-consuming. Ensuring that the ZEB transition takes place according to schedule, ongoing management of ZEB facilities, utility coordination, and management, oversight of the ZEB fleet and maintenance needs, and capital planning for ZEB-related needs will require constant oversight that is outside of the bandwidth of BCT’s small and nimble team. Hiring a new dedicated City staff member to plan and manage ZEB facilities and oversee fleet activities related to utility management and vehicle maintenance is recommended. • Marketing and communications. Sometimes, people don’t ride transit service because they aren’t aware of the services and its benefits, the destinations it serves, or maybe have heard negative things from others about the service. Raising the BCT brand equity in the community is crucial to supporting BCT’s mission. Our surveys and stakeholder engagement found that knowledge about BCT services was lacking within the communities. Comments ranged from not knowing anything about public transit to “I don’t know how to find out about the bus.” In particular, WAVE has plenty of spare capacity so rider travel training and other outreach and engagement activities are needed to grow ridership. As such, we recommend that BCT update its marketing and communications strategy, and this could be achieved internally or by hiring a marketing firm to develop a strategic plan. Regardless of who develops the plan, the implementation will fall on BCT staff and additional staff time will be required.

Financial Plan
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 309

11.5 Potential Funding Sources
Table 11-6 provides an overview of potential funding sources for BCT as it moves through the implementation of the five-year service plan and ZEB transition. BCT receives funding for operations through a variety of local and state sources, which are allocated through the FAP. More recently, BCT has received Federal COVID Relief funding for operations to help mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic, but these funds were allocated on a one-time basis.

For capital expenditures, BCT has historically used a variety of sources including allocated FTA 5307 funds, and local matches provided by Local Return funds from Proposition A and Measure R Clean Fuel Capital that are allocated to BCT using the FAP methodology. Other funding sources, including State Transit Assistance (STA) and SB1 State of Good Repair (SGR) funds, have been used for capital expenses in the past. As ZEBs are more expensive compared to BCT’s current CNG fleet, BCT will need to explore other funding sources, including competitive grant funding, to help fund the ZEB transition. This is also true for required charging infrastructure and associated electrical upgrades.

An * is used to denote which funding sources require the identification of disadvantaged communities based on CalEnviroScreen.

Table 11-6: Potential funding sources
Funding Source Funding Name Competitive
or Formula
Capital or
Operating Description Potential Applications Potential Funding Federal (FTA/FHWA)
Flexible Funding Programs – Surface
Transportation Block Grant Program 212 Formula Capital
Provides funding that may be used by states
and localities for a wide range of projects to
preserve and improve the conditions and
performance of surface transportation, including
highway, transit, intercity bus, bicycle, and
pedestrian projects 213
Can be used across a wide variety of transit
capital projects including transit centers.

As part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, has
designated over $14 billion annually each year
between 2023 and 2026.

Urbanized Area (UZA) Formula Grants
(Section 5307) 214 Formula
Capital for regions
with a population
greater than 200k;
can be used for
operating with
approval from FTA.
5307 grant funding makes federal resources
available to urbanized areas (populations
greater than 50k) for transit capital and
operating assistance.

Local match required. 215
For agencies with a UZA population of less than
200,000, grant funding is eligible for operating
assistance. For populations that surpass the
200,000 UZA threshold, these funds can only
be used for capital uses.

Eligible capital uses include capital investments
in bus and bus-related activities such as
replacement, overhaul, and rebuilding of buses.

Agencies can allocate these funds for the
purchase of ZEBs.

Under the UZA category, BCT uses the majority
of these funds for capital purchases and is
subject to Capital Allocation Procedure.
80% of eligible net capital project cost, 90% of
vehicle-related equipment required for ADA or
CAA compliance, 50% of net operating project
cost
State of Good Repair Grants (Section
5337) 216 Formula Capital
Provides capital assistance for maintenance,
replacement, and rehabilitation projects of highintensity fixed guideway and bus systems to help transit agencies maintain assets in a state
of good repair.

Local match required.

Signals and communications, power equipment
and substations, passenger stations and
terminals, security equipment and systems,
maintenance facilities and equipment,
operational support equipment, including
computer hardware and software; transit asset
management plans.

In the past, BCT has used these funds for
capital improvements at the Transit Operations
Facility.
80% of eligible net capital project costs.
212 Flexible Funding Programs - Surface Transportation Block Grant Program - 23 USC 133 | FTA (dot.gov) 213 STBG - Federal-aid Programs - Federal-aid Programs and Special Funding - Federal Highway Administration (dot.gov) 214 Urbanized Area Formula Grants - 5307 | FTA (dot.gov) 215 FTA Urbanized Area Formula Program Section 5307 grant fact sheet (dot.gov) 216 State of Good Repair Grants - 5337 | FTA (dot.gov)

310
Funding Source Funding Name Competitive
or Formula
Capital or
Operating Description Potential Applications Potential Funding Enhanced Mobility of Seniors &
Individuals with Disabilities (Section
5310) 217
Formula Both
Assisting private non-profit groups in meeting
the transportation needs of older adults and
people with disabilities when the transportation
service provided is unavailable, insufficient, or
inappropriate to meet these needs.

Funding based on each state’s share of
population. 218
Purchase of new buses, vans, wheelchair lifts,
ramps, and mobility management programs.
80% of eligible capital costs, 50% for operating
expenses, 100% of the eligible 10% program
administration costs
Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities
Formula Program (Section 5339a) 219 Formula Capital
Capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, and
purchase buses, vans, and related equipment,
and to construct bus-related facilities, including
technological changes or innovations to modify
low or no-emission vehicles or facilities. 220
BCT uses these funds for the purchase of new
buses and related infrastructure and facility
equipment.
80% of the net capital project cost.
85% of total transit bus cost.
90% of net project cost for leasing or acquiring
low-no bus-related equipment and facilities.

Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities
(Discretionary Program)
(Section 5339b) 221
Competitive Capital Funds vehicle purchases and upgrades to or new bus-related facilities. 222
Purchase of new buses and related
infrastructure and facility equipment, and
upgrades to new bus-related facilities.

In FY2023, the FTA announced the availability
of $470 million in grants.

Low- or No-Emission Bus Grants
(Section 5339c) 223 Competitive Capital
Purchase or lease of zero-emission and lowemission transit buses as well as acquisition, construction, and leasing of required supporting
facilities 224
Purchase of ZEBs and related infrastructure
and related activities to support the ZEB
transition, including construction costs.
85% of total transit bus cost.
90% of net project cost for leasing or acquiring
low-no bus-related equipment and facilities.

0.5% of a request for workforce development
training

0.5% for training at the National Training
Institute.

In FY2023, the FTA announced the availability
of $1.2 billion in grants
217 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors & Individuals with Disabilities - Section 5310 | FTA (dot.gov) 218 Section 5310 | NADTC 219 Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Formula Program - 5339(a) | FTA (dot.gov) 220 Fact Sheet: Grants for Bus and Bus Facilities Section 5339 (dot.gov) 221 Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program | FTA (dot.gov) 222 Low or No Emission and Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Competitive Programs FY2023 Notice of Funding Opportunity | FTA (dot.gov) 223 Low or No Emission Vehicle Program - 5339(c) | FTA (dot.gov) 224 Low or No Emission and Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Competitive Programs FY2023 Notice of Funding Opportunity | FTA (dot.gov)

Financial Plan
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 311
Funding Source Funding Name Competitive
or Formula
Capital or
Operating Description Potential Applications Potential Funding Charging and Fueling Infrastructure
Discretionary Grant Program 225 Competitive Capital
The Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI)
Discretionary Grant Program is a competitive
grant program to strategically deploy publicly
accessible electric vehicle charging
infrastructure as well as hydrogen, propane,
and natural gas fueling infrastructure along
designated Alternative Fuel Corridors or in
other publicly accessible locations.

At least 50 percent of CFI funding must be used
for a community grant program where priority is
given to projects that expand access to EV
charging and alternative fueling infrastructure
within rural areas, low- and moderate-income
neighborhoods, and communities with a low
ratio of private parking spaces.

Can be used to install charging infrastructure,
but must be publicly accessible, so this program
may not be applicable for BCT.

Both tracks of the Charging and Fueling
Infrastructure Grant Program provide $1.25
billion for a total of $2.5 billion over 5 years.

This first round of funding makes $700 million
from Fiscal Years 2022 and 2023 funding
available. 20% local match required.

Innovative Coordinated Access and
Mobility Pilot Program (ICAM) 226 Competitive Capital
This program provides competitive funding to
support innovative projects for the
transportation disadvantaged that will improve
the coordination of transportation services and
non-emergency medical transportation
services.

Local match required. 227
Eligible activities include deploying mobility
management strategies, vehicle purchase, and
purchase of IT equipment.

No minimum or maximum grant award
80% federal funding of project costs
Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program
(Section 3005b) 228 Competitive Capital
Expediting delivery of new fixed guideway
capital projects, small start projects, or core
capacity improvement projects. These projects
must utilize public-private partnerships and be
operated and maintained by employees of an
existing public transportation provider.

Funds can be used to help expedite a number
of capital projects given they meet the
requirements laid out in the description.

The program will cover 25% of the project cost.

The FTA has proposed $450 million in funding
for FY2023.

Public Transportation Innovation (Section
5312) 229 Competitive Both
Provides funding to develop innovative
products and services assisting transit agencies
in better meeting the needs of their customers 230
Research, development, demonstration and
deployment projects, and evaluation of
technology of significance to public transit. 231
Funds are allocated on a discretionary basis.

The FTA website will update when this grant
opportunity becomes available.
225 https://www.transportation.gov/rural/grant-toolkit/charging-and-fueling-infrastructure-grant-program 226 Innovative Coordinated Access and Mobility Grants | FTA (dot.gov) 227 Fact Sheet: Innovative Coordinated Access & Mobility Pilot Program | FTA (dot.gov) 228 Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program - Section 3005(b) | FTA (dot.gov) 229 Public Transportation Innovation - 5312 | FTA (dot.gov) 230 Transit Cooperative Research Program - 5312(i) | FTA (dot.gov) 231 Public Transportation Innovation Section 5312 Fact Sheet (dot.gov)

312
Funding Source Funding Name Competitive
or Formula
Capital or
Operating Description Potential Applications Potential Funding Accelerating Innovative Mobility (AIM)
Program 232 Competitive Both
AIM will drive innovation by promoting forwardthinking approaches to improve transit financing, planning, system design, and
service. The AIM Initiative also supports
innovative approaches to advance strategies
that promote accessibility, including equitable
and equivalent accessibility for all travelers.

Local match required.

Eligible activities include all activities leading to
the development and testing of innovative
mobility, such as planning and developing
business models, obtaining equipment and
service, acquiring or developing software and
hardware to implement the project, operating or
implementing the new service model, and
evaluating project results.

In FY2020, a total of $14 million was
administered.

Workforce Development Initiative 233
Competitive
Cooperative
Agreement
Operating
Provides resources and support for public
transit agencies to recruit, retain, and train
transit workers to ensure the transit industry
has the workforce needed for today and in the
future.
20% local match requirement for recipients.

Recipients may derive that match through inkind activities not funded by the Federal government and match from other Federal
agencies as noted in the Coordinated Council
on Access and Mobility resources on match.

Technical Assistance and Workforce
Development Program projects = No local
match.

Cooperative agreements with transit agencies
to develop innovative workforce projects.

Reports and information on the results of those
projects.

Meetings and conferences to gather information
about public transit agencies.

A new transit workforce technical assistance
program.

Funds from this program can be used to help
recruit new bus operators and train existing
operators and maintenance staff on zeroemission technologies to help retain and develop BCT’s existing workforce.

Federal (DOT)
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with
Sustainability and Equity (RAISE)
Grants 234
Competitive Capital
Formerly TIGER and BUILD, RAISE is a
discretionary grant program aimed at
supporting investment in infrastructure.

RAISE funding supports planning and capital
investments in roads and bridges. Transit, rail,
ports, and intermodal transportation.

Local match required.

Can be used for capital expenditures to improve
transit such as vehicle purchases and dedicated
bus lanes.

FY2023 includes $1.5 billion for RAISE grants
Transportation Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation Act (TIFIA) 235 Credit/Loan Capital
The TIFIA program provides credit assistance
for qualified projects of regional and national
significance, including for the construction of
new transit operations and maintenance
facilities. The credit program is designed to fill
market gaps and leverage substantial private
co-investment through supplemental,
subordinate investment in critical improvements
to the nation’s transportation system. 236
TIFIA is a credit assistance and loan program
that transit agencies can use to fund the
construction of new transit facilities to support
the ZEB transition. TIFIA provides low-interest
rates, flexible amortization (up to 35 years
repayment period, deferrable for five years after
substantial project completion), no pre-payment
penalty, and interest does not accrue until
proceeds are drawn.

TIFIA can be used to fund up to 49% of total
project costs. Applicants must submit a detailed
letter of interest to the DOT, and the project
must be included in the STIP to be eligible.
232 Accelerating Innovative Mobility | FTA (dot.gov)
233 Workforce Development Initiative | FTA (dot.gov)
234 RAISE Discretionary Grants | US Department of Transportation 235 Program Overview | Build America (transportation.gov) 236 TIFIA Credit Program Overview | Build America (transportation.gov)

Financial Plan
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 313
Funding Source Funding Name Competitive
or Formula
Capital or
Operating Description Potential Applications Potential Funding State
SB1 (State of Good Repair) Program 237 Formula Capital
Provide additional revenues for transit
infrastructure repair and service
improvements. 238
These formula funds are eligible for transit
maintenance, rehabs, and capital projects.

Agencies can choose to dedicate these funds to
the purchase of ZEBs to continue the ZEB
transition.

BCT is currently utilizing these funds for capital
improvements at the Transit Operations Facility.

Funding is based on service area population
and farebox revenues.

Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus
Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) 239 Voucher Capital
The voucher program created in 2009 aimed at
reducing the purchase cost of zero-emission
vehicles.

A transit agency would decide on a vehicle,
contact the vendor directly, and then the vendor
would apply for the voucher. 240
Purchase of zero-emission vehicles for an
agency’s transition to a zero-emission fleet.

Portion of $65.6 million of funding for public
transit buses
Transportation Development Act (TDA) –
Local Transportation Fund (LTF) 241 Formula Both
LTF is derived from ¼ percent of the statewide
general sales tax on diesel fuel and returned to
the county in which it was collected. 242
Available to fund costs associated with
operating public transit, including operations,
capital projects, administration and planning,
and transit-related research and development
projects.

BCT uses TDA funds for operating expenses
utilizing the Public Transportation
Modernization, Improvement, and Service
Enhancement Account and the Transit System
Safety, Security, and Disaster Response
Account.

Formula funding based on diesel fuel sales tax.

State Transit Assistance (STA) Formula Both
Statewide sales tax on gasoline and diesel,
STA provides funding allocated to Municipal
transit operators.

Funds can be used for public transportation,
transportation planning, and community transit.

This includes operating and capital expenses.

BCT receives formula funds proportional to the
previous year’s operator revenues. Funds are
allocated through LA Metro’s FAP.

State/South Coast
AQMD
Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality
Standards Attainment Program (Carl
Moyer Program) 243
Formula Capital
Funding to help procure low- and zero-emission
vehicles and equipment.

In 2022, the application window was open from
July 25-August 31.

Local match required. 244
Purchase of zero-emission vehicles for an
agency’s transition to a zero-emission fleet.

Transit buses are eligible for up to $80,000 in
funding.

State/CARB/
Caltrans
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program
(LCTOP) 245* Formula Capital
LCTOP is a formula funding transit agencies
commonly used for operations. Funding comes
from 5% and 10% of the annual Cap and Trade
auction.

Many agencies are already recipients of these
funds and can use these funds to purchase
ZEBs and related equipment.

In FY2020, the average award per agency for
LCTOP funding was $912,000.
237 2022 State of Good Repair Program Guidelines (ca.gov) 238 State of Good Repair | Caltrans
239 California Air Resources Board and CALSTART reopen incentives for clean trucks and buses | California Air Resources Board 240 Home - Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project | California HVIP 241 Transportation Development Act | Caltrans
242 TDA Program Presentation (ca.gov)
243 Carl Moyer Program | California Air Resources Board 244 South Coast AQMD - Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment (Carl Moyer) Program (aqmd.gov) 245 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) | Caltrans

314
Funding Source Funding Name Competitive
or Formula
Capital or
Operating Description Potential Applications Potential Funding State/CARB/
Caltrans
Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program
(TIRCP) 246* Competitive Capital
TIRCP provides grants from the Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) to fund
transformative capital improvements that will
modernize California’s intercity, commuter, and
urban rail systems, and bus and ferry transit
systems, to significantly reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases, vehicle miles traveled, and
congestion.

This program funds a wide variety of projects
that support new or expanded bus and rail
services, improve multimodal facilities, and can
include equipment, fueling, maintenance, and
other costs as long as the project helps to
reduce GHGs.

The five cycles of TIRCP funding have awarded
$6.6 billion in funding to nearly 100 projects
throughout California.

State/CARB
Sustainable Transportation Equity
Project (STEP) Implementation Planning
& Capacity Building 247
Competitive Both
Address community residents’ transportation
needs, increase access to key destinations,
and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
funding planning, clean transportation, and
supporting projects.

Implementation: Local match of 20% required
Planning & Capacity Building: No local
contribution required
Purchase of vehicles and related equipment
and infrastructure to reduce GHGs.

In the past, CARB has awarded a total of $44.5
million through the STEP program. CARB is
currently working with stakeholders to
determine the future of STEP going forward.

State/CARB/Air
Pollution Control
District
Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation
Trust 248 Both Capital
Mitigate the excess nitrogen oxide (NOx)
emissions caused by VW's use of illegal
emissions testing defeat devices in certain VW
diesel vehicles.

Funds allocated to Zero-Emission Transit,
School, and Shuttle Buses are overseen by the
San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District. 249
Purchase of zero-emission vehicles for an
agency’s transition to a zero-emission fleet.
$20 million of the $65 million first installment set
aside for Zero-Emission Transit, School, and
Shuttle Buses remain.

The second installment of $65 million is now
available.

California Pollution
Control Financing
Authority (CPCFA)
Medium-Heavy-Duty (MHD) Zero
Emission Vehicle Financing Program 250 Competitive Capital The CPCFA is developing a purchasing
assistance program for MHD ZEV fleets. This
will provide financial support and technical
assistance to fleet managers deploying ZEV
fleets. The program was noted to be
established by January 1, 2023, but no further
information is available at this time. BCT should
continue to monitor this opportunity as more
information becomes available.

SB 373 aims to provide financing tools and nonfinancial support tools for operators of mediumand heavy-duty fleets to transition their fleets to zero-emission vehicles.

Funding has not been established; BCT should
continue to monitor.

LA Metro Formula
Allocation Procedure
(FAP)
Local Sales Tax Revenues Formula Both
Funds from Proposition A and C and Measures
R and M are derived from local sales tax and
returned to municipal transit operators as Local
Return.

Funds are used for operations based on
proposition/measure requirements. Some FAP
funds can be used for capital if not designated
toward operations.

Proposition A funds can be used for local match
requirements for vehicle procurement.

These funds are allocated through LA Metro
based on population, formula (fare units), or at
the discretion of the LA Metro Board.

Local Return, Prop A
Transit Funds
Jurisdiction Contributions (Hermosa
Beach, Manhattan Beach, and El
Segundo)
Formula Both
Cities included in BCT’s jurisdiction contribute
the Local Return transit funds received through
Proposition A to Redondo Beach.

These funds are used for operating expenses
but can be used for capital if not needed for
operations.
5% of Proposition A funds are earmarked for
projects that promote integrated public
transportation. BCT uses these for WAVE
demand response service.

Jurisdiction Contributions account for 4% of
Line 109 operating costs.
246 Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program | CalSTA 247 Planning and Capacity Building, Clean Mobility in Schools (CMIS), and the Sustainable Transportation Equity Project (STEP) | California Air Resources Board 248 Materials | Valley Air District
249 Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust (californiavwtrust.org) 250 2021 - Senate Bill 372 (Leyva, Connie), Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fleet Purchasing Assistance Program: Zero-Emission Vehicles (Chaptered) | California Air Resources Board

Financial Plan
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study 315
Funding Source Funding Name Competitive
or Formula
Capital or
Operating Description Potential Applications Potential Funding Administered by CARB Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS
credits) 251 N/A N/A
LCFS credits are not necessarily funding to be
applied for; rather, they are offset credits that
are traded (through a broker) to reduce
operating costs.

Once ZEBs are acquired and operating,
agencies can collect LCFS and ‘sell’ them to
reduce the operating costs of ZEBs.

Both hydrogen and electricity used as fuels are
eligible for LCFS credits. Credit prices range,
but the average credit price between 2016 and
2019 was between $65 and $200 per credit,
with an average of $10,000 per vehicle.

Administered by CARB Transportation Development Credits 252 N/A N/A Although they are not funds for projects,
Transportation Development Credits, also
called “Toll Credits”, satisfy the federal
government requirement to match federal funds
253
Toll credits provide a credit toward a project’s
local share for certain expenditures with toll
revenues. FHWA oversees the toll credits within
each state.

The Local Share is 20% and ranges from region
to region.

Southern California
Edison (SCE) Charge Ready Transport (CRT) 254 N/A Capital Infrastructure
SCE provides utility distribution service
upgrades to support the installation of charging
equipment and provides rebates to participants
for the purchase and installation of approved
EV charging equipment. The program launched
in 2019 for a five-year period; it is currently
unknown if the program will still be in operation
when BCT procures its first BEBs.
[Can be used for facility electrical upgrades and
charging equipment rebates]
SCE customers must lease or purchase a
minimum of two EVs, purchase and install SCEapproved charging equipment, and maintain charging equipment for at least five to 10 years.

Data sharing requirement for five years as well
as grant easements depending on the build
option.

SCE will cover the costs leading up to the
vehicle charger. In addition to infrastructure
costs, SCE offers vouchers for the installation
of approved chargers and equipment.
251 LCFS Credit Generation Opportunities | California Air Resources Board 252 Transportation Development Credits (Toll Credits) For Federal Transit Administration Projects (ca.gov) 253 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CREDITS (TOLL CREDITS) SECTION 5311 Rural Transit Program (ca.gov) 254 Charge Ready Transport Program (sce.com)

316
One chief source of capital funding for ZEBs is the Low or No Emission (Low-No) and Bus and Bus Facility grants. In December 2021, the FTA released a Dear Colleague letter outlining new requirements for Low-No and Bus and Bus Facility grant applications. The letter details the requirement for a ZeroEmission Fleet Transition Plan in response to amendments in the statutory provisions for these programs as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The FTA Zero-Emission Fleet Transition plan includes six major elements, presented in Table 11-7. Moving forward, to qualify for these funding opportunities, a transit agency must include a transition plan with these elements. BCT can use much of the material in this report and the ICT Plan to apply for this important source of federal funding 255.

Table 11-7: FTA Zero-Emission Fleet Transition Plan Requirements Element Description
1: Long-Term Fleet Plan and Application
Request
Demonstrate a long-term fleet management plan with a strategy for how the applicant intends to use the current application and future acquisitions.
2: Current and Future Resources to
Meet Transition
Address the availability of current and future resources to meet costs for the transition and implementation
3: Policy and Legislative Impacts Consider policy and legislation impacting relevant technologies. 4: Facility Evaluation and Needs for
Technology Transition
Include an evaluation of existing and future facilities and their relationship to the technology transition.
5: Utility Partnership Describe the partnership of the applicant with the utility or alternative fuel provider.
6: Workforce Training and Transition
Examine the impact of the transition on the applicant’s current workforce by identifying skill gaps, training needs, and retraining needs of the existing workers of the applicant to operate and maintain ZEVs and related infrastructure and avoid displacement of the existing workforce. 255 To view a list of winners and projects, please see https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/fy22-fta-bus-and-low-and-noemission-grant-awards

Next Steps
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study
12 NEXT STEPS
With this final TSS report that details the service plan, ZEB plan, and facility needs, BCT and the City’s next steps include adopting this plan and to begin the implementation, particularly proceeding with the next steps needed to (1) construct the new OMF and (2) prepare the Title VI requirements for outreach and public notice for routing and service changes proposed for Plan Year 1. By championing the recommendations proposed here, BCT and the City can help expand public transit accessibility and mobility around the South Bay, create healthier and more sustainable communities through transitioning to ZEBs, and set BCT up for long-term success through the construction of a new, purpose-built OMF.

318
13 APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY REPORT
See attached PDF.

319

Public Outreach Summary Report
April 2023
Prepared By:

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
320
This page left blank intentionally

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
321
Table of Contents
A. OVERVIEW 322
B. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 322
C. BRANDED COLLATERAL MATERIAL 323
D. WEBSITE 323
F. ONLINE SURVEYS 324
G. PUBLIC OUTREACH 327
H. TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP MEETING 328
J. COMMENTS LOG 330
I. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 332
APPENDIX 336

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
322
A. Overview
The City of Redondo Beach’s (“City”) Beach Cities Transit (“BCT”) Transit Services Study (“Study”) solicited public input and feedback to help develop recommendations for improving Short- and Long-Range Service Plans and Strategic Planning with Zero Emission Bus Implementation. BCT provides fixed-route and dial-a-ride services (with dial-a-ride services branded as the WAVE) to the Beach Cities area of Los Angeles County. Public outreach components of this Study focused on engaging bus and WAVE riders, transit service partners, and non-riders in and around Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, El Segundo, and near Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The following is a summary of the City’s public outreach and community collaboration efforts that took place throughout the Study.

B. Public Participation Plan
A kickoff meeting and early team check-ins enabled JCL to fine tune the outreach goals and deliverables for the Study before finalizing a detailed Public Participation Plan (PPP). Background data was collected from BCT related to the service areas, partner agencies, key stakeholder groups, and relevant news to assist with the development of the outreach approach. The PPP served as a blueprint document for public engagement to guide Team meetings, Database, Website, E-comms, Community Events and timelines.

The final draft of the document can be found in the Appendix.

Project Timeline
Public outreach for the Study began in Spring 2022 and concluded in Spring 2023, with a final technical report in Summer 2023. Two minor modifications were made to the original timeline during the course of the Study in order to maximize public participation:
1) The Study duration was extended
from Spring 2023 to Summer 2023 to
allow time for further technical
analysis.
2) A Public Town Hall Meeting that
was originally planned for Fall 2022
was exchanged for a Spring 2023
pop-up event at the 40th annual
“Springfest” in Redondo Beach,
where public reactions to the final
recommendations were solicited.

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
323
C. Branded Collateral Material
JCL applied the City’s style guidelines to develop vibrant collateral materials that reflected the intent and goals of the Study.

Fact Sheet Social Media Assets
Email Headers Print Ad
Website Presentations
Flyers Poster Boards
All materials were designed with a common ‘look and feel’ so audiences would recognize official communications of the Study. An overview fact sheet, available in English and Spanish, was used as the primary handout, which outlined the Study’s objective, timeline, and how to participate. Fact sheets were disseminated online (project website and social media), handed out at in-person community engagement
events, and included in focus group and technical working group presentations.

D. Website
JCL/Stantec built and hosted www.BCTServicesStudy.com in English and Spanish to serve as the central portal for all information. JCL conducted ongoing reviews and updates to remain in step with the developments of the Study. The website remains active for the duration of the Study to allow visitors to ‘Leave a Comment’ and opt-in to the database for ongoing general information from BCT. The site contained the following information:

Fact Sheet Survey
Maps
Timeline Leave a Comment
Contact Events

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
324
E. Notifications & Stakeholder Database
Public notifications for meetings and events began 3-4 weeks in advance via email (Constant Contact) and Social Media (Twitter). Relevant materials were made available for download and emailed to participants of virtual meetings.

Traditional outreach methods were utilized to ensure equal access to project information via e- blasts, collateral materials, website, electronic and printed surveys in English and Spanish, and available in non-digital print format upon request.

Stakeholder Database
A comprehensive and reliable database is critical to ensuring proper community outreach. The stakeholder database for BCT grew throughout the course of the Study with each meeting and community event. The database is included in the Appendix E: Final Stakeholder Database.

Local Government Schools
Hotels Chambers of Commerce
Businesses Advocacy Service
Transit Stakeholders Special Needs
F. BCT Survey Engagement
The primary focus of public outreach for this Study was a comprehensive survey to support the technical team’s efforts in assessing travel habits, needs, and interests of the traveling public. the survey was launched early in the Study process so that feedback from the community could be integrated into the service plans and recommendations. A total of 295 surveys for 280 validated surveys were collected online from June to August 2022, in addition to 337 transcribed comments and reactions to survey questions and display boards at live events, for a total of 632 “total responses”. The online survey was promoted through various online and media
sources, as well as e-blasted to known
stakeholders.

The survey (administered through Survey
Monkey) effectively captured important
feedback from BCT riders, WAVE riders, and nonriders that helped guide technical aspects of the study.

Analysis of the survey results offers insights into
ridership motives, perceptions, and
opportunities for improving and increasing BCT

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
325
and WAVE usage overall. Detailed survey analysis reports are in the Appendix.

Survey Findings
The online survey was broken into three subsets: BCT Transit Rider; WAVE Dial-A-Ride Customer; and NonRider. Based upon responses, it was determined that respondents were split, favoring riders, between Riders/Customers (154 of 280) who used BCT services in the past 3 years and non-Riders (126 of 280), who have not used any BCT services in the past 3 years. Questions posed to Riders/Customers pertained to methods, frequency, purpose, and preferences about their current experience in using BCT services.

Non-Riders were queried to determine their awareness, familiarity, and likelihood to use BCT services in the future. All respondents were asked to provide a home zip code, personal demographics, and their current transportation habits. The complete survey analysis is presented in Appendix F: BCT Survey Engagement (Rider Survey in Appendix F: Section 1.1, WAVE Rider Survey in Appendix F: Section 1.2, and Non-Rider Survey in Appendix F: Section 1.3).

BCT and WAVE Rider & Customer Satisfaction Highlights
A multi-part question on overall rider satisfaction was asked of BCT Riders and WAVE Users that allowed respondents to rate their range of contentment with service (see Appendix F: Figure 12; Figure 26). ● A strong majority of BCT fixed route respondents expressed that they were either Satisfied or Extremely Satisfied with times spent onboard the bus, value for fare paid, bus cleanliness and comfort, personal safety on the bus/at stops, and their overall experience. ● WAVE customers who completed the survey expressed general satisfaction with travel times and hours the WAVE service is available, while some respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the registration process for the service.

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
326
Non-Rider Feedback Highlight
A multi-part question posed, “What factors would encourage you to ride BCT more often?” to non-BCT Riders. In line with responses given during in-person engagement, the majority of respondents to the survey stated that having more information about BCT services was the determining factor (See Appendix F; Figure 33). Plus, 85% agreed or strongly agreed that public transit is an important service for the community (See Appendix F; Figure 32).

Demographic Information (Optional Questions)
Overall respondent demographics skewed female (60%), white or Caucasian (63%), and over 35 years old with under 35 (Under 18, 18-24, and 25-34) making up only 21% of respondents. Respondents overwhelmingly indicated household incomes greater than $75,000 with only 15% indicating a household income below $75,000. This largely aligns with the demographics of the overall service area, where the majority of South Bay residents are over 35 years of age (with a median age of 40), 66% of residents identifying as white or Caucasian, and median household income above $75,000 (specifically $125,000).

Comparative analysis of respondents relative to the demographics of census data against the City of Redondo Beach may be accomplished at https://www.city-data.com/city/Redondo-BeachCalifornia.html.

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
327
G. Public Outreach
Three virtual public Focus Group Meetings (3) were conducted over a three-week period in July 2022.

Participants were recruited through targeted outreach, social media, and invitations to organic stakeholders. During the 75-minute sessions, participants were presented with information related to existing BCT performance, as well as challenges and opportunities for public transit to be improved. The structure of the meetings was designed to capture the opinions and preferences of a diverse stakeholder group, including business groups, employees, commuters, seniors, students, parents, caregivers, communitybased organizations, and non-profit organizations.

Three live Pop-Up Engagements (3) engagements were conducted by study team members at the Metro C (Green) Line Douglas Station, Redondo Beach’s Farmers Market, and the 40th Annual Springfest ‘23 in Redondo Beach. These bilingual (English and Spanish) engagements included dedicated survey time with incentivized participation. The City of Redondo Beach also conducted five hyper focused engagements at senior cen`ters and Farmers Markets.

General Outreach Analysis
BCT’s ability to affect ridership by employing broader information and awareness campaigns was a common theme repeated through each channel of engagement during the study’s public outreach efforts. Focus group participants, pop-up attendees, and survey respondents made varying statements demonstrating their lack of knowledge services offered by BCT.
● "I would ride more if I had more information."
● "I would ride more if I felt more comfortable".
● "I would ride more if the bus went to more places.” – Respondents did not know the location of bus stops, tying back to lack of information and awareness. Example: A vast majority of the weekly Redondo Beach Farmers Market attendees interviewed were unaware of two bus stops there at venue.
● BCT riders who regularly use the bus lines expressed dismay about irregular service. NOTE: This observation must be measured against low post-COVID ridership. ● Bus stop amenities such as lighting, benches, and shelters are highly ranked enhancements identified by study participants in every channel of engagement. ● Older Adults are incredibly open to participating in mobility training for greater independence and improved quality of life.

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
328
Date Event # of Participants/
Responses
Collected
Purpose
5/20/2022 City Engagement:

Manhattan Beach Senior
Fair
7 comment cards Promote the BCT Survey and
engage with the Beach Cities
residents
7/12/22 Focus Group #1: Businesses 5 attendees Engage in a robust discussion with businesses and businesses groups
7/14/22 Pop-up:

Douglas C Line Station
88 comments &
reactions
Promote survey responses and
engage with transit users
7/19/22 Focus Group #2: Seniors,
Students, Caregivers
7 attendees Engage in a robust discussion with
seniors, students, and caregivers
7/20/2022 City Engagement:

Redondo Beach Senior
Open House, Veterans Park
1 comment cards Promote the BCT Survey and
engage with the Beach Cities
residents
7/21/22 Pop-up:

Redondo Beach Farmers
Market
74 comments &
reactions
Promote the BCT Survey and
engage with the Beach Cities
residents
7/22/2022 City Engagement:

Hermosa Beach Farmers
Market
21 comment cards Promote the BCT Survey and
engage with the Beach Cities
residents
7/26/22 Focus Group #3:

Organizations
8 attendees Engage in a robust discussion with
seniors and community
stakeholder groups
7/27/2022 City Engagement:

Redondo Beach Senior
Open House, Perry Park
7 comment cards Promote the BCT Survey and
engage with the Beach Cities
residents
8/11/2022 City Engagement:

El Segundo Farmers Market
8 comment cards Promote the BCT Survey and
engage with the Beach Cities
residents
4/15/23 Pop-up in lieu of Public
Meeting:

Redondo Beach Springfest
2023
91 comments &
reactions
Solicit public feedback to the final
Recommendations
H. Technical Working Group Meeting
In addition to gathering feedback from transit riders, the study engaged with a group of transit service operators to brainstorm future routes, stops and connection solutions that would promote optimal efficiency and the greatest success in the South Bay Region for providers and riders alike. The

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
329
Technical Working Group Meeting was held virtually on August 10, 2022. Chief among topics of discussion included presenting draft service recommendations for initial feedback, including routing changes to Line 102 and 109 and the proposed summer beach bus along Manhattan Beach Blvd. The session also discussed how to increase WAVE ridership and awareness. Technical Working Group participants provided a voice and perspective on their local communities and how BCT could better serve their communities to improve mobility, or how BCT can work with other transit agencies to improve overall mobility and accessibility in the South Bay.

The group formed to advise the study consisted of an 8- member group, representing transit agencies and municipalities in the region, including:
● City of Redondo Beach
● City of Manhattan Beach
● City of Hermosa Beach
● City of El Segundo
● Torrance Transit
● LA Metro
● GTrans
● Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (PVPTA)
A summary of the discussion grouped by discussion topic is presented below.

Fixed route key discussions
• Considerations for alternate routing of Line 102 were discussed to route trips leaving RBTC along Ripley past Adams Middle School. Ripley was determined to not be an ideal street for transit as it is a hilly residential collector. The Redondo Beach Council Member did indicate support for the proposal and support from constituents in that area.
• The proposed route realignment to Line 109 would no longer provide access to Plaza El Segundo as there is no stop along Sepulveda SB. The Metro representative provided insight on previous attempts by Metro to get a southbound stop along the west side of Sepulveda, across from Plaza El Segundo. Issues due to access to the oil refinery blocked the attempt. There was general support for this realignment considering ridership levels and the benefits of streamlining to the overall route, with the general consensus being that the positives from streamlining the route outweigh the negatives of removing these underutilized stops. • Additional context for the origins of the Line 109 detour along Rosecrans was provided by the Manhattan Beach representative. Originally requested to provide direct service to the Manhattan Village Mall and near the senior community on Parkview Ave, there was a consensus that the streamlining and elimination of this detour was warranted.
• Service recommendations for Line 102 to take over the southern portion of Line 109 from the Redondo Beach Pier to Riviera Village, with Line 109 terminating at the pier were proposed in this technical working group. The representative from Torrance Transit shared their operational experiences with multiple buses

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
330
serving the pier. Due to limited curb space at the pier, Torrance Transit experiences challenges with Lines 3 and 7 buses needing to maneuver within the limited space. Discussion of dedicating additional red curb was brought up as well as the operational importance of proper scheduling. Further explanation of this service change can be found in Section 7.2.1 of the Transit Services Study Final Report. • The proposed addition of an east-west route focused on beach service was discussed with this group.

Generally well received, the idea of a pilot with the potential for a permanent route was discussed. The service recommendation for this route can be found in Section 7.2.4.

WAVE key discussions
• Outreach and marketing of WAVE services were discussed at length in this working group. It was identified that if senior populations are widely unaware of the WAVE, it is the responsibility of Beach City partners to engage their local populations. Uncertainty of key partnerships between BCT/WAVE and organizations like Beach Cities Health District to promote LA Metro’s On the Move Riders Program was brought up. Discussion of outreach and engagement with WAVE-eligible residents can be found in Section 7.2.3 with further elaboration in Section 7.3.4.4.
• Considerations for expanding WAVE service to the general public as a late-night service were proposed. A representative from Hermosa Beach noted that an on-demand service would likely be popular on nights and weekends in downtown Hermosa Beach as a way to get home safely after a night out. The representative from PVPTA pointed out that evening service could avoid the challenges other all day ondemand services have run into with high demand from students after school. Further discussion of WAVE service considerations can be found in Section 7.3.3.2.

J. Comments Log
337 transcribed comments and reactions to survey questions and display boards were captured throughout the comment portion of the Study. Many of the comments amplified sentiments of the Study Team and Technical Working Group participants, largely related to a lack of awareness and education about BCT and the services they offer. All comments are noted in Appendix G.

Sampling of Summarized Comments

1. A Participant stated that more easily accessible printed materials available in businesses (grocery stores were mentioned) regarding BCT services and bus schedules would encourage them to consider using BCT more often.
a. See Section 6.4 in TSS 2 for recommendations related to enhancing public awareness.

2. A Participant, like some stated in pop-up events, mentioned just generally having better line connections to places they may consider going. The “limitation” of the routes prevent them from exploring the region more utilizing BCT.
a. See Section 5.4 in TSS 2 which discusses expanded services, and see Section 6.2 in TSS 2 for recommendations related to regional connectivity.

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
331

3. A Senior stakeholder discussed their desire to start using the service regularly - both fixed line and possibly Dial-a-Ride - in the future. When the stakeholder was given a description of “travel training”, they stated that they would find it beneficial and a training they would definitely use. a. See Sections 5.3 and 6.3.2 in TSS 2 for recommendations related to travel training.

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
332
I. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
On April 15, 2023, a pop-up engagement at the 40th Annual Springfest was the backdrop of the final public engagement to publicly announce the Study team’s final Recommendations. Stakeholders were provided with an opportunity to provide input on the Recommendations, ask questions, and comment by placing green and red dots on graphic boards and maps of the proposed changes. To incentivize participation, a prize wheel, a “selfie” photo station, and fun giveaways were offered. A total of 91 written comments and reactions were captured at the final public event, with several hundred more visitors who were exposed to BCT, with respect to marketing and general awareness. Final recommendations were posted to the project website for public comment. Eblasts and Twitter posts went out to the BCT database and followers to encourage the public to ‘Leave a Comment’.

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
333

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
334
Each recommendation and how it was received by the public is summarized below. • Recommendation A: re-route Line 109 to serve the LAX Automated People Mover and Airport Metro Connector Station in 2025 to provide a direct connection to LAX and other transit services at the new Connector Station. Out of 13 total reactions, 92% of responses support this recommendation.
• Recommendation B: straighten Line 109 along Rosecrans and Sepulveda around Manhattan Village Mall, to address rider requests for more direct service and a quicker travel time to LAX. This recommendation removes service to stops that see very few passenger boardings and still maintains access to The Pointe, Plaza El Segundo, and businesses along Rosecrans Ave. 100% of respondents at Springfest support this recommendation.
• Recommendation C: consider new summer bus service along Manhattan Beach Blvd., between the Redondo Beach C Line Station and Manhattan Beach Pier. This fills in a gap in service left after Metro discontinued Line 126, addresses requests from the public to provide service along Manhattan Beach Blvd., and serves many entertainment and recreational destinations like Polliwog Park and the Performing Arts Center. Reception from the public at Springfest was very supportive of this recommendation, with 27 total respondents, 100% of which support this recommendation. • Recommendation D: extend Line 102 south from Redondo Beach Pier to Riviera Village and reroute Line 109 to terminate at the Pier, creating a new transfer hub at the Pier which enables easier transfers between Line 102 and Line 109 and Torrance Transit. This also provides easier access to the Pier and Veterans Park Senior Center from Line 109, creates a one-seat ride for South Redondo students, and improves access to the newly opened RBTC and South Bay Galleria. 100% of respondents at Springfest support this recommendation.
• Recommendation E: maintain the WAVE DAR services for Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach with increased marketing and awareness (travel training) programs, as there were no substantial comments about the WAVE in previous outreach activities. The curb-to-curb system adequately services the cities. 59% of respondents support this recommendation.

Overall, these responses show a high level of support and excitement for implementing the proposed recommendations, while reactions to Recommendation E present an opportunity for more targeted outreach regarding the WAVE to understand specifically why there is more opposition to this recommendation compared to the other recommendations.

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
335
This page left blank intentionally

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report

APPENDIX
336

APPENDIX
A-1 Public Participation Plan
A-2 Branded Collateral Materials
A-3 Focus Group Presentation
A-4 Technical Working Group Presentation
A-5 Final Stakeholder Database (w/ highlighted participants) A-6 Survey Results
A-7 Transcribed Comments
A-8 Public Meeting Pop Up Project Boards

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-1: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN
337

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-1: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN
338

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-1: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN
339

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-1: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN
340

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-1: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN
341

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-1: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN
342

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-1: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN
343

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-1: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN
344

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-1: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN
345

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-2: BRANDED COLLATERAL MATERIALS
346

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-2: BRANDED COLLATERAL MATERIALS
347

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-2: BRANDED COLLATERAL MATERIALS
348

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-3: FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATION
349

FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATION

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-3: FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATION
350

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-3: FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATION
351

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-3: FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATION
352

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-3: FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATION
353

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-3: FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATION
354

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-3: FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATION
355

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-3: FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATION
356

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-3: FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATION
357

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-3: FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATION
358

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-3: FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATION
359

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-3: FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATION
360

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-3: FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATION
361

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-3: FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATION
362

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
363

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
364

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
365

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
366

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
367

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
368

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
369

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
370

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
371

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
372

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
373

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
374

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
375

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
376

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
377

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
378

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
379

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
380

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
381

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
382

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-4: TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION
383

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-5: FINAL STAKEHOLDER DATABASE
384
FINAL STAKEHOLDER DATABASE. Highlighted entries represent stakeholders who participated in outreach and engagement events and provided feedback.
• 1736 Family Crisis Center
• Alliance Health and Human Services
• Beach Cities Health District
• Behavioral Health Services, Inc.
• Best Western Plus Redondo Beach
• Breakwater Village
• Canyon Verde Adult Day Care
• Casa de Los Amigos
• City of El Segundo
• City of El Segundo Senior Housing
• City of Gardena - Community Development
• City of Gardena - Gtrans
• City of Gardena - Senior Housing
• City of Hawthorne - Planning Department
• City of Hermosa Beach
• City of Lawndale
• City of Los Angeles - Department of
Transportation
• City of Manhattan Beach
• City of Redondo Beach
• City of Redondo Beach - Beach Cities Transit
(Transp. Concepts)
• City of Redondo Beach - Community
Development
• City of Redondo Beach - Community
Services
• City of Torrance - Community Development
• City of Torrance - Torrance Transit
• El Segundo High School
• El Segundo Plaza Property Owner
• Galleria Mall Property Owner
• Harmony Court Apartments
• Heritage Pointe
• Hilton Garden Inn Redondo Beach
• Little Company of Mary Community Health
• Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (LACMTA)
• Los Angeles World Airports APMAutomated People Movers • Los Angeles World Airports Mobility Team
• Manhattan Village Mall Property Owner
• Mobility for People (ADA)
• North Redondo Beach Business Association
• Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems
• Options For Life Agency, LLC
• P.S. I Love You Foundation
• Pacific Coast Inn Redondo Beach
• Patricia Dreizler Continuation High School -
Redondo Beach
• Planned Parenthood So. Bay Center
• Portofino Hotel and Marina Redondo Beach
• Providence Family Medical Center
• Ramada Inn
• Raytheon- El Segundo
• Redondo Beach Hotel
• Redondo Beach Library Foundation (RBLF)
• Redondo Beach Unified School District
• Redondo Inn and Suites
• Redondo Pier Inn
• Riviera Village Business Improvement
District
• Roland R. Mindeman Senior Residence
• Seaside Villa
• Seasons Senior Apartments (Salvation
Army)
• Shade Hotel Redondo Beach
• Social Vocational Services, Inc.
• Sonesta Redondo Beach & Marina
• South Bay Adult Care Center
• South Bay Bicycle Coalition
• South Bay Children's Health Center
• South Bay Cities Council of Governments
• South Bay Coalition to End Homelessness
• South Bay Family Healthcare
• South Bay Latino Chamber of Commerce
• South Bay Workforce Investment Board
• South Bay YMCA - Gardena
• South Bay YMCA - Torrance
• South Bay Youth Project
• Sunrise Senior in Hermosa Beach
• The Point Property Owner
• Toyota Sports Center

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-5: FINAL STAKEHOLDER DATABASE
385
• Walk With Sally • Workforce Development - South Bay

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-6: BCT SURVEY ENGAGEMENT
386

SURVEY RESULTS

387
1 BCT Survey Engagement
From June through August of 2022, an online survey was conducted to gather responses and insights from BCT riders of fixed-route and the WAVE dial-a-ride service, as well as from non-riders in the South Bay.

Surveys were advertised in several ways, including digital and print media placements and direct emails to known stakeholders, as well as during eleven in-person engagement events across the South Bay.

Participants accessed the survey via a single link but were directed (through a logic tree) to one of three surveys that best suited their ridership profile; multiple surveys were also possible for people who ride both WAVE and fixed-route services. Of the 295 surveys collected, a total of 280 valid (completed) surveys were analyzed. Survey response counts are seen in Table 1. Slightly more than half of the respondents were BCT riders of the WAVE or fixed-route service, with the remaining respondents not BCT riders. Of the total rider responses, 143/154 or 93% were fixed-route and 7% were WAVE riders, which mirrors the breakdown of ridership across the two modes (97% of ridership in 20211 was on fixed-route, and 3% was on WAVE).

Table 1: Count of survey responses
Survey Type Count
Percent of
total surveys
Fixed-route rider survey responses 143 51%
WAVE survey responses 11 4%
Non-rider survey responses 126 45%
Total survey responses 280 100%
Total administered surveys 2952
Overall respondent demographics skewed female (60%), white or Caucasian (63%), and over 35 years old with under 35 (Under 18, 18-24, and 25-34) making up only 21% of respondents. Respondents overwhelmingly indicated household incomes greater than $75,000 with only 15% indicating a household income below $75,000. This largely aligns with the demographics of the overall service area, where the majority of South Bay residents are over 35 years of age (with a median age of 40), 66% of residents identify as white or Caucasian, and median household income above $75,000 (specifically $125,000).

Along with findings from the existing conditions analysis and findings from other outreach and engagement activities, these survey results helped to directly inform the recommended service plans and supporting 1 Based on 166,176 unlinked passenger trips as reported to NTD, 4,845 of which were taken on the WAVE 2 After validating survey response, not all surveys administered were included due to incomplete or partial responses. Of the 295 surveys administered, 15 were determined invalid for a total of 280 surveys included in analysis.

388
recommendations. More detail on how outreach and the survey informed the service plans and supporting recommendations can be found in the body of TSS #2.

1.1 BCT Rider Survey
The BCT rider survey collected 143 valid responses. Survey information collected included rider profiles, how riders use the system, their overall satisfaction with different elements, and where riders would like to see system improvements or changes.

1.1.1 RIDER PROFILE AND USE
Most BCT survey respondents are casual riders, only taking the bus less than once a month3. Figure 1 illustrates that most (58%) respondents ride infrequently (a few times a month or less than once a month) and could be considered casual riders. The primary trip purpose, shown in Figure 2 supports this finding.

The predominant trip purpose was leisure and recreational activities including entertainment, the beach, the gym, etc., as opposed to travel for work or school, where it is likely that riders would ride more frequently/regularly for these purposes. Respondents were also able to choose more than one trip purpose. 3 Please note that the information in this section only pertains to survey respondents and may not be reflective of all BCT riders; for example, these results do not reflect the significant portion of BCT riders who are students utilizing the Line 102 School Tripper service.

389
Figure 1: Ridership frequency among BCT riders (118 responses) Figure 2: Trip purpose when traveling on BCT (multiple selections, 107 responses) However, there is a notable portion of riders who frequently ride BCT services for work and school. Riders who indicated a higher frequency of BCT use (4+ days per week) were almost two times more likely to ride 14%
8% 8%
21%
37%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
4+ days per
week
2-3 days per
week
About once a
week
A few times a
month
Less than once
a month
Ridership frequency
3%
8%
15%
15%
21%
22%
31%
51%
52%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No answer
Other (please specify)
Medical/healthcare related
School
Visit family/friend
Work
Grocery shopping or other shopping errand
Recreation (go to the beach, gym, etc.)
Traveling to entertainment (restaurant/bar, movie)
Travel Purpose

390
to work and three times more likely to ride BCT to school. This 14% of high-frequency daily riders are reflected in Figure 3 where 12% of respondents who ride BCT do not have a vehicle “available” to them.

Figure 3: Vehicles per household of BCT riders (105 responses) While 12% may not have a vehicle “available” to them, there was a larger portion of BCT riders who do not have a driver's license. As Figure 4 indicates, 17% of BCT riders could be considered “captive transit riders,” without the proper documentation to drive. Drilling down into this population, the dependence on BCT service is starkly illustrated in Figure 5 with 56% of this non-driving population riding BCT four or more days a week.

Figure 4: Percent of BCT rider respondents with a driver’s license (105 responses) 12% 47% 30% 7% 4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Number of vehicles per household
None One Two Three or more Prefer not to say
Prefer not
to say
3%
Yes
80%
No
17%
Driver's license

391
Figure 5: Frequency of ridership among people without a driver's license (18 responses) Furthermore, the trip breakdown of the respondents without a driver’s license (Figure 6) reveals that recreation and entertainment remain the predominant use for BCT. Expectedly, this demographic utilizes the bus for trips to school at a higher rate which accounts for the student population on BCT. Taken together, the analysis here reveals that most riders mainly ride BCT occasionally for leisure purposes, but of the riders who ride the most frequently, these riders use the bus almost every day for school as well as to leisure destinations.
56%
6%
17%
6%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
4+ days per
week
2-3 days per
week
About once a
week
A few times a
month
Less than once
a month
Ridership frequency among people without a
driver's license

392
Figure 6: Trip purpose of riders without a driver’s license traveling on BCT (multiple selections, 18 responses) Most riders access the bus (Figure 7) by walking with smaller populations biking or transferring from other services. Ridership (Figure 8) is predominantly on Line 109 with 60% of respondents indicating that as their primary BCT route.

Figure 7: First/list mile modes (multiple selections, 107 responses) 0%
6%
17%
22%
28%
28%
44%
44%
56%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Other (please specify)
No answer
Medical/healthcare related
Work
Visit family/friend
Grocery shopping or other shopping errand
School
Traveling to entertainment (restaurant/bar, movie)
Recreation (go to the beach, gym, etc.)
Travel Purpose Without Drivers License
1%
2%
3%
6%
8%
10%
12%
89%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Mobility Device: Scooter
Mobility Device: Skateboard
Uber/Lyft
Drive
Transfer from Metro C Line (Green)
Transfer from other service
Bike
Walk
Means of travel for first/last mile

393
Figure 8: Primary route (130 responses)
A large portion of BCT riders also use other transit systems. Of the system options (Metro Bus, Metro Rail, Torrance Transit, LADOT, Commuter Express, GTrans, Lawndale Beat, Other (please specify) or None/NA), Metro Bus and Metro Rail were the most frequently used by respondents with 27% and 20%, respectively. Torrance Transit was also indicated frequently as a system used by BCT riders. Considering the service area of BCT, these three systems interface directly with BCT lines. Figure 9 shows that BCT riders who do use at least one other transit system represent 59% of respondents. Those who did not ride another system were the largest single response (41%).

Figure 9: Other systems used by BCT riders (multiple selections, 108 responses) Line 102
40%
Line 109
60%
Ridership
41%
18%
13% 15%
6% 4% 2% 1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
None/NA 1 other
system
2 other
systems
3 other
systems
4 other
systems
5 other
systems
6 other
systems
7 other
systems
Number of other systems used by BCT
Riders

394

1.1.1.1 Information Sources
Respondents were asked several questions that pertain to how they plan and complete their trips.

Responses showed that while digital sources of information (BCT website and real-time transit applications) are the predominant methods, in-person and physical means of navigating transit services are still very prevalent.

BCT disseminates information to its riders via several methods, namely its website and its Twitter account.

Both platforms provide regular updates on service, but the website includes a host of other system information as well as a real-time bus tracker. Survey respondents were asked to indicate all methods they use to access information and service updates. Figure 10 provides a breakdown of those means, with BCT’s website being the most popular source of information.

Figure 10: Sources for transit information (multiple selections, 104 responses) The “Other (please specify)” answers indicated that trip planning and real-time transit apps like Google Maps and the Transit App are also valuable sources for trip information, accounting for 14% of “other” responses. Additional notable comments mention “city senior centers,” “Chamber of Commerce,” and “bus stop signage for schedule.” These responses highlight the duality of transit information; both digital and physical sources remain important to BCT’s riders.

As respondents indicated through the “Other (please specify)” selection in the previous question, real-time trip planning apps are very popular for accessing transit information. Respondents were then directly asked which apps they use, with the results shown in Figure 11. Google Maps and the Transit App were the most used by BCT riders. These results demonstrate that the effort by BCT to provide a modern trip-planning experience by publishing real-time information has had a significant impact on riders. 51%
38%
20%
15%
9% 8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
BCT Website On Bus
Signage
Other (please
specify)
N/A Calling BCT Twitter
Service information

395
Figure 11: Real-time transportation planning app usage (multiple selections, 174 responses)

1.1.2 SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Overall satisfaction with the fixed route system was high, with most responses indicating at least a satisfactory option for the overall BCT experience. Figure 12 displays rider satisfaction with different aspects of BCT service (listed from overall most satisfied to least satisfied), with riders particularly satisfied with the value of fare paid and the cleanliness of the bus. Attributes where BCT does not perform as well include time spent waiting for the bus, reliability, service area, and the hours fixed-route buses run.

Where BCT performs poorly in rider satisfaction is the frequency of buses. This attribute received the highest “extremely dissatisfied” response (percent) with over 50% of respondents not satisfied with how often the bus comes. BCT’s service area was another aspect where riders were overall less satisfied, but there was higher satisfaction and lower dissatisfaction compared to frequency. In the tradeoff between coverage and frequency, it appears that BCT riders prioritize frequency. Another key area of dissatisfaction is BCT’s service span with 35% of respondents either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. 10%
31%
12%
12%
26%
7%
2%
Real-time service
I don't use an app
Google Maps
Apple Maps
BCT Website
Transit App
Moovit
Other (please specify)

396
Figure 12: Rider satisfaction with aspects of BCT fixed-route service (107 responses)

1.1.2.1 Systemwide Improvements
Many of the areas BCT performed poorly in customer satisfaction were areas that would increase ridership from current riders. Figure 13 shows rider priority for frequency, service span, and reliability. Almost all respondents indicated that more frequent and more reliable service would encourage them to ride more often. Additionally, comfort when transporting children was not of major concern with only 2% indicating this response.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Frequency of buses (how often they run)
Hours the bus service is available
Ability to transfer between routes
Routes go where I need to go
Reliability (buses run on time)
Time spent waiting for the bus
Overall experience with BCT
Times spent onboard the bus
Personal safety on the bus/at stops
Bus cleanliness and comfort
Value for fare paid
BCT fixed route satisfaction
Extremely Dissatisfied Dissatisfied No Opinion/Neutral
Satisfied Extremely Satisfied NA / Prefer Not to Say

397
Figure 13: Factors that would increase riding frequency (multiple selections, 106 responses) The ”Other (please specify)” category received several responses and included:
• Later service with buses running past 8 PM or earlier service on “non-school weekdays.” Service for summer concerts was also mentioned regarding later service. • Access to LAX was requested, and given that BCT serves LAX, indicates a lack of access to information (or awareness) about BCT services.

Other opportunities for better information sharing were seen with requests for “real-time info” or an app to track when the next bus comes. Both services are available on BCT’s website as well as trip planning applications like Transit or Google Maps. This presents BCT with an opportunity for more robust outreach and marketing to inform the public that these services are available to them.

Locations Not Currently Served
Respondents were asked to describe locations not currently served by BCT and that they would like to see BCT provide service to. An open-ended question, answers ranged from specific locations to streets that should have a transit line, as well as general areas. Themes from this question include:
• Service to LAX was highly desired by riders. While Line 109 currently provides service to the LAX City Bus Center, information about this service is lacking. Some responses did indicate the desire for an express service to LAX which does differ from the current Line 109. • Del Amo Mall was the most requested location by riders. While BCT does not currently provide service to Del Amo Mall, the previously operated Line 104 ran from Del Amo Mall to Palos Verdes, 23%
21%
28%
51%
50%
75%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
I had more information about BCT
The bus ran at different times
My trip time was comparable to driving
The bus was more reliable (arrived/departed on
time)
The bus went to more places
The bus ran more frequently
Factors that would increase riding frequency

398
Riviera Village, and along Catalina Ave to Redondo Beach Pier. The line was eliminated due to low ridership. Additionally, Torrance Transit operates almost all its services centered around the Del Amo Mall. While the BCT system map shows all other transit routes, connections, and destination information, additional publications providing destinations and transfers could be designed in coordination with the other transit operators.
• Schools were a common response from non-riders, who wanted service to Mira Costa High School, Parras Middle School, and the South Bay Adult School. Additionally, El Camino College and generally ‘middle schools’ were mentioned by riders.
• Polliwog Park was mentioned several times by riders, often noting a desire for service along Manhattan Beach Blvd, North Redondo Beach, or the Metro C Line (Green) station. • Streets were often requested by riders. These requests included: PCH, 190th, Aviation, Torrance Blvd as well as streets BCT already operates on like Hawthorne Blvd, Prospect Ave, and Artesia.

While many of these streets have transit service by BCT or other providers like Metro Bus, GTrans, or Torrance Transit, respondents may want to emphasize their importance or were simply unaware.

Bus Stop Amenities
Riders were asked to indicate what amenities they would like to see on BCT services. Figure 14 shows that riders would generally like to see a variety of amenities. Themes of cleanliness and information availability were also mentioned by those who chose to specify. Along with benches, lighting, and shelter (shade specifically), riders would like to see cleaner bus stops with trash and recycling cans. Physical bus information like QR codes or real-time signage was mentioned to provide better arrival information.

Figure 14: Bus stop amenities (multiple selections, 101 responses) 64%
58%
47%
27%
15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Benches Lighting at bus
stops
Bus Shelters Bike Racks Other (please
specify)
Bus stop amenities

399

1.1.2.2 Line 102
BCT currently operates Line 102 from 6:00 AM to 8:30 PM on weekdays, 8:00 AM to 9:15 PM on Saturdays, and 9:15 AM to 7:00 PM on Sundays. Respondents were asked to indicate the earliest and latest times they would utilize bus service on Monday through Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday individually. Figure 15 shows that riders were primarily interested in either the latest option for morning service or uninterested in morning service at all. Service starting at 5:00 AM did receive an increase of interest with 15% of respondents indicating that 5:00 AM service Monday-Thursday would be utilized.

Considering the current service span and the relatively low interest in earlier trips, a change to the start times of Line 102 is not a priority.

400
Figure 15: Earliest times riders would utilize Line 102 service (62 responses) There was strong support for later service times on Line 102, particularly on the weekends. Figure 16 indicates while later service is not as much of a priority for riders during the weekdays (Monday-Thursday), it is very important on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

Figure 16: Latest times riders would utilize Line 102 service (65 responses)

1.1.2.3 Line 109
Line 109 operates during a wider service span than Line 102 with buses running from 6:00 AM to 9:45 PM Monday through Friday and 6:00 AM to 10:15 PM Saturday and Sunday. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
N/A 4:00 a.m. 5:00 a.m. 6:00 a.m.

Earliest start time: Line 102
Monday - Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
N/A 7:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 9:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m.

Latest end time: Line 102
Monday - Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

401
Riders indicated that similarly to Line 102, earlier service was not a priority. Figure 17 shows the same preference as Line 102, with riders favoring 6:00 AM service or not interested in morning service and responding N/A.

Figure 17: Earliest time riders would use Line 109 (76 responses) The latest Line 109 operates is currently 10:15 PM on weekends. As Line 109 operates along the busier, nightlife areas of the Beach Cities, riders were asked to indicate their use of late-night service with buses operating until midnight.

Figure 18: Latest time riders would use Line 109 (79 responses) Figure 18 shows that riders overwhelmingly support later service on Friday and Saturday nights. Comments like, “If the 102/109 would run later in the day, past 8” and “Late night hours after summer concert ends” 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
N/A 4:00 a.m. 5:00 a.m. 6:00 a.m.

Earliest start time: Line 109
Monday - Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
N/A 9:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. 11:00 p.m. Midnight
Latest end time: Line 109
Monday - Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

402
indicate a desire for later service. This sentiment was additionally supported by comments that pointed to the dangers of drunk driving and the need for transit coming home from bars and other nightlife activities.

1.1.3 KEY TAKEAWAYS
Based on feedback from BCT riders, key themes surrounding the strengths and weaknesses of the fixed route service were identified. These include:
• The profile of BCT users responding to the survey is one that infrequently rides, traveling for leisure purposes but includes a subset of more frequent use, captive (non-driving) riders who travel to school at a higher rate than non-captive riders. Seeking reliable transportation to restaurants, bars, and other evening activities, riders highly favored later service on both Lines 109 and 102. • Riding respondents were overall satisfied with the service BCT provides particularly the value of fare as well as the cleanliness and comfort of vehicles. Despite this, respondents desired improved reliability and increased frequency of bus service.
• Information is predominantly acquired at stops through signage and the use of real-time bus tracking apps like Google Maps or Transit App. Information about the system falls short concerning where BCT and other bus services operate (Line 109 to LAX, Torrance Transit around Del Amo Mall, etc.) and general knowledge about BCT services.
• Riders frequently desired more locations served by BCT. These often included those served by other transit agencies in the South Bay. This desire was complemented by a slight increase in dissatisfaction with the ability to transfer between systems.

1.2 WAVE Riders4
The WAVE survey collected 11 valid responses from South Bay residents that indicated previous use of the service. The low number of responses is unsurprising for a survey of dial-a-ride riders; currently, the WAVE saw 4,845 unlinked passenger trips in 2021 (NTD Agency Profile), or about 13 average daily WAVE riders, so these responses represent about 83% of daily riders. Questions included demographics, WAVE usage, fixed-route use, and opinions on the service and where it could improve.

1.2.1 RIDER PROFILE
Results from WAVE survey respondents who indicated their ZIP codes are seen in Table 2 and show an even split between the two cities served by the WAVE, Hermosa Beach, and Redondo Beach. Most respondents indicated their ethnicity to be white or Caucasian (Figure 19) and all identified as women. 4 Please note that due to the low number of responses on the WAVE rider survey, survey results may not be indicative or reflective of actual WAVE riders.

403
Additionally, respondents indicated income ranges (Figure 20) for all categories except for $75,000 and above.

Table 2: Home ZIP code of WAVE riders (6 responses)
Zip Code Percent City
90254 50% Hermosa Beach
90277 33% Redondo Beach
90278 17% N. Redondo Beach
Figure 19: WAVE ride ethnicity (multiple selections, 7 responses) 14%
14%
57%
14%
Ethnicity of WAVE riders
Prefer not to say
Hispanic or Latino
White or Caucasian
Asian or Asian American

404
Figure 20: Income ranges of WAVE riders (7 responses)
Responses regarding eligibility for WAVE services (Figure 21) indicate that age is the primary factor, rather than disability, in using dial-a-ride. A portion of respondents (29%) indicated that despite eligibility for WAVE services, they are not registered for the service.

Figure 21: WAVE eligibility and registration status (7 responses) WAVE riders who responded to this survey are generally infrequent users (Figure 22) riding the WAVE less than once a month. No WAVE riders indicated they ride “five or more days a week” or selected the option for “once a week or less.”
14% 14% 14% 14%
43%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Under $15,000 Between
$15,000 and
$29,999
Between
$30,000 and
$49,999
Between
$50,000 and
$74,999
Don't
know/prefer not
to say
WAVE income range
14%
57%
29%
WAVE eligibility
I am a registered
WAVE user due to a
disability
I am a registered
WAVE user due to
being 62 or older
I am eligible for the
WAVE but not
registered

405
Figure 22: Frequency of WAVE use (7 responses)

1.2.2 TRIP PURPOSE
The primary use for WAVE services was for rides to non-dialysis, medical appointments. Figure 23 shows that other trip purposes were errand or leisure-driven, with shopping and visiting families or friends indicated. The other category included:
• Childcare responsibilities (traveling with children)
• Traveling to dialysis
No respondents indicated they use the WAVE for school, work, or travel to entertainment or recreation.

Figure 23: WAVE trip purpose (multiple selections,11 responses) Apart from WAVE usage, only 29% of respondents indicated they currently use Line 102 or 109 (Figure 24). 14% 14%
71%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
3-4 days per week 1-2 days per week Once a month or less Frequency of WAVE use
9%
27%
27%
55%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Visit family/friend
Grocery shopping or other shopping
errand
Other (please specify)
Medical/healthcare/dental, reasons other
than dialysis
WAVE use

406
Figure 24: Fixed-route use among WAVE riders (7 responses) Figure 25: Factors that prevent fixed-route service use (multiple selections, 11 responses) WAVE riders indicated their reasons for not using fixed-route services in Figure 25. While lack of information and proximity to a bus stop was indicated, most respondents preferred to describe their own limiting factor. Of the “Other (please specify)” category preferring to drive their own car was mentioned most often. While WAVE riders prefer to drive, they often indicated they would ride the WAVE due to an injury limiting or prohibiting them from driving. One WAVE rider summed that sentiment with the comment, “I drive my car unless I am injured, post-surgery, etc.” Other limitations included a lack of information about or infrequency of BCT fixed-route service.
29%
14%
57%
Fixed-route use among WAVE riders
Yes, I currently ride
Line 102 or 109
Yes, I used to ride Line
102 or 109 but no
longer do
No
14%
29%
29%
57%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
The bus stop I would need to use is not accessible
There is no bus stop near me
I am unsure about how to use the bus
Other (please specify)
Reasons for not using fixed route services

407

1.2.3 SATISFACTION AND IMPROVEMENTS
WAVE riders were asked to provide feedback on their satisfaction with the dial-a-ride services provided by BCT. Figure 26 shows that overall riders are very satisfied with the service provided by the WAVE. While no riders express “extreme dissatisfaction” notable areas of improvement include:
• Ride delivery: scheduling, reliability, and convenience of pick-up/drop-off time. • Registration process
• Service area
Figure 26: Satisfaction for WAVE services (5 responses) Survey respondents who ride the WAVE indicated their satisfaction with 43% expressing extreme satisfaction at the overall experience. Driver behavior and helpfulness were remarkably high with most 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
WAVE goes where I need it to go
Total travel time on the WAVE
Hours the WAVE service is available
Registration process
Convenience of pick-up and drop-off times
Reliability of the WAVE
Scheduling trip with the dispatcher
Cleanliness of the vehicle
Personal safety waiting for and during your trip
Value for paid service
Driver behavior/helpfulness
Overall experience with WAVE
Satisfaction for WAVE services
NA / Prefer Not to Say Extremely Dissatisfied Dissatisfied No Opinion/Neutral Satisfied Extremely Satisfied

408
respondents extremely satisfied. As Figure 26 indicates other areas the WAVE excels at are the value, safety, and vehicle cleanliness. The areas where the WAVE service struggles -according to those who responded to the survey- are primarily before getting onto a vehicle. Lower satisfaction levels included the scheduling process, reliability, pick-up/drop-off times, and the registration process. While these areas did have more dissatisfied respondents, the satisfaction responses ranged from 43% to 57% for these areas.

Figure 27 displays the frequency at which WAVE rides indicated the likelihood of a service change to increase their ridership. The WAVE serving a larger area was the primary factor with a comment requesting service to the Costco in Torrance, but other areas of improvement included:
• Trip scheduling – riders would like to use the web or app-based services to schedule and be updated about their trips. Twenty-seven percent of respondents indicated a phone call (or potentially other forms of notification) was desired.
• Better information – a large portion of respondents (27%) didn’t feel like they had enough information about WAVE services. This is summed up by the comment, “I didn’t know we had it.” • Reliability – although not a selection, respondents commented that poor reliability turned them away. Comments included, “I quit when they did not show up for the third or fourth time,” and “If they showed up. They no showed us 3 times and we switched to Uber,” Figure 27: Service changes to increase the frequency of ridership (multiple selections, 11 responses)

1.2.4 KEY TAKEAWAYS
Respondents who ride the WAVE are generally satisfied with the service but would like to see expanded service and information. Notable areas from this feedback include:
9%
9%
9%
18%
27%
27%
27%
36%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
The WAVE operated later in the day
I could ride alone
Other (please specify)
I could get a phone call from the WAVE to let me know the driver is arriving within 5-10 minutes
I had more information about the WAVE
I could use an app or website to book my trips
I could track my trip on an app
I could travel farther distances than Redondo Beach,
Hermosa Beach or Torrance
Ways to increase ridership frequency

409
• Based on survey responses, WAVE clients are generally infrequent riders who travel to medical appointments. All respondents indicated having access to a vehicle and preferring to drive. They would utilize the WAVE when something like an injury limited their ability to drive a personal vehicle. Supported by analysis of client data, it should be noted that the survey sample didn’t capture frequent WAVE riders who rely on the service as a necessary means of transportation. • WAVE riders were overall satisfied with BCT dial-a-ride service once they were onboard. The signup, scheduling, and pickup process solicited the most dissatisfaction from survey respondents.

Although important aspects of the service were not as satisfactory to some, satisfaction was particularly high around drivers and included praise like, “The drivers on The WAVE are very courteous, kind, friendly, and helpful! They’re great.” • Riders indicated some of the lowest satisfaction around the service area of the WAVE. Additionally, when asked to indicate ways to increase ridership frequency, the highest support from respondents was oriented towards traveling further distances than Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Torrance.
• Survey respondents indicated that information about WAVE services is lacking as comments like, “community needs more info” and “send eligible people info on this,” demonstrate. Of the respondents, 29% indicated they’re eligible for the WAVE but are not registered which points to a lack of access to information about the registration process. While WAVE information is available on the City website, at Senior Centers and libraries, and can be requested at City offices, overall, riders who have used the service feel they don’t have access to enough information about the WAVE.

1.3 Non-Riders
The non-rider survey collected 126 valid responses from residents of the Beach Cities and surrounding area. In addition to demographic questions, non-riders were asked to indicate their propensity to transit as well as changes to service that would encourage them to ride BCT services.

1.3.1 DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISON
Comparing non-riders to riders of BCT services provides a more specific look at who is using and not using BCT fixed-route or WAVE dial-a-ride.

While most respondents had cars available in the household (Figure 28), zero-vehicle households were only present in the rider category. This is expected as non-drivers are often considered captive riders on transit. Additionally, WAVE riders indicated they would only use dial-a-ride services when an injury prevented them from driving but not due to lack of vehicle access.

410
Figure 28: Number of vehicles per household by survey (234 combined responses) Generally, non-riders indicated higher incomes overall than other demographics, with 66% reporting incomes of $75,000 or higher (Figure 29), while this range was reported at 50% for riders and not at all for WAVE riders. The non-response (don’t know/prefer not to say) was popular among all demographics, but the WAVE respondents chose this at a higher frequency than any other option.

Figure 29: Income ranges by survey (234 combined responses) Survey responses were gathered from all the Beach Cities as well as the surrounding area. Table 3 shows that the largest segment of respondents came from Redondo Beach. Non-riders were less likely to live in North Redondo Beach than riders. Additionally, a large portion of the non-rider responses came from Torrance, which BCT (apart from WAVE satellite locations) does not serve. 12%
100%
47%
34%
30%
47%
7%
15%
4%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
WAVE Rider
Rider
Non-rider
Number of vehicles per household
None One Two Three or more Prefer not to say
1%
6% 9% 5%
50%
30%
2% 1% 3% 4%
66%
24%
14% 14% 14% 14%
0%
43%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Under $15,000 Between
$15,000 and
$29,999
Between
$30,000 and
$49,999
Between
$50,000 and
$74,999
Over $75,000 Don't
know/prefer not
to say
Income range
Rider Non-rider WAVE rider

411
Table 3: ZIP code responses for all three surveys (228 combined responses) ZIP Code Non-riders Riders WAVE riders City
Prefer not to say - 1% -
90245 5% 6% - El Segundo
90250 4% 2% - Hawthorne
90266 6% - Manhattan Beach
90274 4% - - Rolling Hills/Palos Verdes
90254 - 20% 50% Hermosa Beach
90277 42% 28% 33% Redondo Beach
90278 14% 26% 17% N. Redondo Beach
90503 28% 2% - Torrance
Other (please
specify) 2% 10% -

1.3.2 PROPENSITY TOWARDS TRANSIT
The non-rider survey asked questions that sought to gauge the value non-riders had for BCT and what factors were present in them not riding. Figure 30 through Figure 32 provide a look at different factors nonriders were asked to gauge their propensity to transit use. Take-aways include:
• Less than a quarter of non-riders have had experience with BCT services. Of this subsect, only 10% would not consider riding BCT (Figure 31) and largely cited location as the limiting factor (BCT service area or ease of other modes).
• Transit is generally valued in the South Bay with 85% of non-riders supporting the statement, “Public transit is an important service to the community.” Most of the remaining responses strongly disagree with the statement which goes in line with the ~15% of respondents that adamantly opposed transit.

412
Figure 30: Non-rider previous use of BCT fixed-route or WAVE dial-a-ride (126 responses)
Figure 31: Likelihood of non-rider using BCT when
regular mode unavailable (125 responses)
Figure 32: Non-rider opinion towards the value of transit for the community (125 responses) Comments from South Bay residents not willing to consider BCT services (Figure 31) generally fell into one of three categories: safety, value, and information. These sentiments included:
• Safety is a concern with words like “crime,” “homelessness,” and “dirty” associated with this opinion.
• Value was also noted in that the bus takes too long or “it’s easier to call a ride service,” and “I’d rather take my bike.”
• Lack of information and experience with BCT services was commonly noted. Some respondents put it simply with “I don’t know enough about it,” while others requested a bus to Manhattan Beach, demonstrating a lack of knowledge as Line 109 travels through Manhattan Beach.

1.3.3 SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Figure 33 shows the factors that would encourage non-riders to ride more often or try riding. A frequent theme throughout the engagement, the lack of information about BCT is a large barrier to using the system.

Other factors included:

23.02%

76.98%
Previous BCT use
Yes
No
82%
18%
Consider using BCT
Yes
No (please
describe why not)
13% 2% 20% 65%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Public transit is an
important service for the community
Sees transit as valuable for the community
Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion/Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

413
• Comparability to driving – non-riders would like to see service that was available in more places and went to destinations quicker with minimal wait times.

Figure 33: Factors to encourage ridership among non-riders (multiple selections,126 responses) Non-Rider Desired Locations for BCT Service
Non-riders generally asked for service to LAX and Del Amo Fashion Mall. LAX was by far the most requested location by non-riders indicating a fundamental lack of knowledge about the system. Some additional locations included:
• Schools including Parras Middle School, South Bay Adult School, and Mira Costa High School (serviced by Torrance Transit)
• Malaga Cove Plaza (Palos Verdes)
• Prairie and 190th Ave
• East-west service from Metro C Line (Green) Station to Manhattan Beach along Manhattan Beach Blvd.

1.3.4 KEY TAKEAWAYS
Representing over 50% of the survey responses, Beach Cities residents who don’t ride transit are an interested population who lack the information to utilize transit. Among these findings, others included:
4%
4%
6%
11%
12%
19%
33%
37%
44%
52%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Nothing, I prefer to bike/walk
Nothing would encourage me to ride BCT more often
I felt more comfortable transporting children…
Nothing, I prefer to drive, and I have a vehicle
The bus ran at different times
The bus was more reliable (arrived and departed on-time) The bus ran more frequently
The bus went to more places
My trip time was comparable to driving
I had more information about BCT
Factors to encourage transit use

414
• Non-riders had a higher rate of access to personal vehicles, were more likely to live in Redondo Beach, and not be a student. This translated into only a quarter of non-riders having any previous experience with BCT.
• While 85% of non-riders agreed with the statement that “public transit is an important service for the community,” words like “crime”, “homelessness,” and “waste of time” are associated with why nonriders wouldn’t consider riding. Furthermore, a large portion of non-riders (82%) would be interested in riding, but the remaining 18% have an entrenched, low opinion of public transit. • Lack of information: many of the barriers to transit use identified by non-riders, the bus doesn’t go where needed, unsure of the nearest BCT stop, what types of services are available, etc., would be addressed by improved outreach and information availability. 2 In-person engagement
Additional one-on-one conversations were conducted with BCT stakeholders outside of the engagements which were conducted via surveys, pop-ups, and focus groups. The following information was provided by stakeholders, most amplifying comments that the study team had previously heard.

2.1 Overview
A Participant stated that more easily accessible printed materials available in businesses (grocery stores were mentioned) regarding BCT services and bus schedules would encourage them to consider using BCT more often.

A Participant, like some stated in pop-up events, mentioned just generally having better line connections to places they may consider going. The “limitation” of the routes prevents them from exploring the region more by utilizing BCT.

A Senior stakeholder discussed their desire to start using the service regularly - both fixed line and possibly Dial-a-Ride - in the future. When the stakeholder was given a description of “travel training”, they stated that they would find it beneficial and they would definitely use a training.

An overarching and repeated theme in one-on-one discussions was a desire to have more general information about the lines. “Maybe if I knew more about the services I would consider using it more.” In a follow-up one-on-one conversation with a focus group member, they stated that they get most of their information about current events and civic affairs specifically from Facebook. When told that BCT did not have a presence on Facebook, the stakeholders stated that this may be the reason they know very little about BCT.

There were only two incoming email submissions beyond interactions with stakeholders who wished to attend a focus group session. One email submission stated, “I hope you continue to run the 109 service. I like the way it's coordinated and I’m looking forward to the airport connector (in reference to Los Angeles International Airport).

415
A longtime daily bus Rider attended not only all of the focus groups meetings but also had additional oneon-one comments. The Rider stated that they used BCT lines throughout high school (Redondo Beach Union) and now uses the line to commute to work and for general needs. The Rider shared input on current and future routes. What stood out in conversation with the Rider is this: though opportunities for improvement were stated, their overall satisfaction with the line was apparent and stated.

Another Senior stakeholder - who has never utilized public transportation but is now considering it - stated that they had no idea where to start their research until the conversation they had with the service study team. The Senior, who is an avid user of technology, stated that they have yet to use any municipal services that are targeted/marketed to Seniors (“I’m old but not ‘that’ kind of old”) but anticipates needing transportation assistance/rides in the future. The Senior stated that they would need easily accessible information on the Internet to consider using Dial-a-Ride. “I’d rather waste my money on Uber than waste my time searching for info about public rides.”

2.2 Themes from comments
From across the in-person engagement process, comments and impressions were compiled, providing a measure of the sentiment around BCT and transit in the South Bay. Below are highlighted comments that exemplify those conversations.
• WAVE – “I have recently called and got no answer and their Voice Mailbox was full” • “I don’t want elders on the road – not everyone can drive” • “Public transit is good — but you cannot control the people who ride (Metro rider) • “Clean up the homeless (Metro rider)
• “Police need more presence on trains and at stations. I am usually alone. It is depressing to see (Metro rider)
• “There is an unsafe perception. It’s better with the Sherrifs (Metro rider) • “BCT buses are clean
• “The only time I use the bus is to go to Dodger Stadium • “I only use the line to go to the beach
• “Public transit should provide free parking lots if they want people to ride • “I am a day laborer who just moved to CA from Texas. I use the Long Beach Park & Ride • “We need faster headways.
• “I didn’t even realize the 109 was part of BCT” (Spanish speaker) • “I am not familiar with BCT at all.”
• “I have never heard of BCT. I drove today and sometimes I use Metro” • “The app is not synched up to the bus schedule”
• “Consistency of bus schedules is the key to me riding more” • “We need better routes to City Centers”
• “I lived in Hong Kong for 2 years. Local transit is like a 3rd world country” • “Give us a direct route to LAX during peak hour times!”

416
3 Conclusions
Collecting over 280 detailed opinions from the Transit Services Study Survey, and many more in-person and virtual impressions, South Bay communities gave feedback on and were informed about BCT services.

Highlights from this process include conclusions regarding areas of improvement and continued success.

Information or the lack thereof was a theme across demographics and transit preferences. BCT ensures that information about its services is available through a variety of different sources and mediums, including on the BCT website, through Twitter, onboard buses, at bus stops, and local senior centers and other community centers. A repeated theme across survey results and from engagement is a sentiment that people do not have adequate information about BCT services, which signals a need to explore strategies that can connect people with information and raise public awareness about where information can be found.

Insights regarding information availability include:
• Real-time apps were widely used by BCT riders and often their only source of information pertaining to service notifications.
• Bus stop improvements pointed to the desire for more and better information about the routes and system as a whole when at a bus stop.
• Among non-riders, access to more information was the biggest factor that would increase their use of transit. While BCT provides information through a variety of sources, these comments suggest that non-riders are unaware of where to find the information. Strategies to address this are discussed in greater detail in TSS 2, Section 6.4.

Those without access to a vehicle are more likely to take the bus. While this is to be expected, it bares pointing out that all non-riders indicated they had access to vehicles, whereas 12% of riders did not have access. BCT provides essential services to South Bay community members. Additionally, WAVE users (all who had access to a vehicle) indicated they used transit only when unable to drive due to an injury or some other reason.

Community members would generally like to see more frequent buses that run later into the evenings. Later trips were particularly desired on the weekends with supporting discussion about access to bars, restaurants, and entertainment. Additionally, there was a desire for more frequent bus service.

Community members who utilize WAVE services provided a smaller portion of feedback but did provide a clear perspective on where improvements in the service were needed. Core aspects of the service are where clients are most dissatisfied including service registration, scheduling, pick-up/drop-off times, and reliability. Once a rider is aboard the service, they are generally very satisfied with the service quality.

Overall, while BCT provides services that are valued and perceived as high quality by its riders, gaps are still present. Addressing the need for connecting the general public to information sources as well as riders

417
will go a long way in reinforcing BCT’s services. This coupled with service modifications and improvements to better suit the desires of current riders could heighten the overall profile of BCT.

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-7: SURVEY – COMMENT LOG
418
Date Event City Location
5/20/22 Senior Fair Manhattan Beach MB Senior Fair

1. We want the bus to go on Aviation to Mira Costa High School and the beach.

2. East-West connection on Aviation Boulevard.

3. Bus to the beach on either Manhattan Beach Boulevard or Marine Avenue.

4. Please make sure that there are printed Maps.

5. Manhattan Beach Boulevard extended to Highland to Artesia loop.

6. Beach bus weekend Express.

7. Express bus to LAX Airport.

Date Event City Location
7/14/22 Pop-up #1 El Segundo Douglas Station

1. Extend route to Westchester Parkway / Metro 115.

2. BCT bus is always late or never comes near airport.

3. Sometimes I don't see any detours on the real-time app. Real-time has been down.

4. I like G-Trans website and want the same from the BCT website.

5. Northrop discontinued the shuttle to the Douglas Station.

6. I take BCT at LAX bus station to Manhattan Beach.

7. I would like shuttles to the events such as Fiesta Hermosa.

8. I would like a beach bus to Fiesta Hermosa.

9. I want a beach bus to Manhattan Beach.

10. BCT schedule needs to match the Green Line schedule.

11. If I knew the routes, I might take the bus.

12. BCT bus goes too fast. Sometimes the drivers pass the bus stops. The schedule is always late.

13. I do not use the real time app because I take the same route to work every day.

14. I live in Hawthorne. I would like to go to concerts at Polliwog Park on Manhattan Beach Boulevard.

15. The price is good at $1. It is cheaper than buses in the Bay Area.

16. I want BCT to go from Manhattan Beach Boulevard to Manhattan Beach Pier.

17. You need a BCT website.

18. Detours are confusing. The app does not show where to pick up the bus.

19. I take Metro everywhere. Never tried BCT.

20. I called BCT and nobody answered the phone.

21. I work at El Segundo Plaza. Need a late bus around 10 p.m. I live in South Los Angeles.

22. Bus drivers are rude.

23. Why do bus detours not go to event destinations like Beach Festival Fiesta or concerts on the pier?

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-7: SURVEY – COMMENT LOG
419
Date Event City Location Comment
7/20/22
Senior Open
House
Redondo
Beach Veterans Park
Add stop at Pacific Crest Cemetery in
Redondo Beach. BCT service is appreciated.

Date Event City Location
7/21/22 Pop-up #2 Redondo Beach Redondo Beach Farmers Market

1. Can the WAVE go to the Farmers Market at 9 a.m. or 10 a.m. on a regular schedule?

2. Riviera Village to Redondo Beach Pier - Veterans Park is too far to walk with stuff.

3. Direct bus to LAX Airport with maybe three stops.

4. Where is the website for BCT? Not City website; it's hard to find information.

5. I come from the Valley to Redondo Beach on Access.

6. When will the Green Line open? Does BCT connect to the new station?

7. Make it easier to fill out the senior application.

8. LAX express bus with AM and PM Peak service hours.

9. Make Beach bus frequency every 15 minutes.

10. Beach bus to Manhattan Beach. Frequency every 15 minutes during the summer. The sand and beach is better in Manhattan Beach.

11. Why can't I transfer BCT buses at the Redondo Beach Pier?

12. Airport Express direct to and from LAX-Redondo Beach station.

13. Destinations LAX: DTLA from Riviera Village at Trader Joe's.

14. Line 102 riders need more transfers to Line 109.

15. Bus to concerts, especially Fiesta Hermosa.

16. Does the WAVE go to the Farmers Market every week?

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-7: SURVEY – COMMENT LOG
420
Date Event City Location
7/22/22 Farmers Market Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Farmers Market

1. Events of the day should be posted on the website.

2. The route should be more than for "rich" areas, along the beach. Extend the route. Prospect Avenue (N/S) and Meadows Ave (N/S). Extend Aviation routes east and west.

3. Use visual photos instead of needing all languages for postings. Suggested art at the bus stop or on panels in the busses.

4. More frequent stops; bus every 15 minutes.

5. I would take the bus to Manhattan Beach farmers market if it came more often not every 30 minutes.

6. Need to cater to tourists taking Line 109 especially for the Olympics.

7. Need new express route on Marine Avenue.

8. No, I have never taken the bus because it is dangerous.

9. I think the bus should go to Fiesta Hermosa.

10. Is there a BCT website?

11. I took the bus in high school. Need more buses in the afternoon.

12. Keep the bus clean! Once I found a crack pipe on the bus when I took BCT in high school.

13. Bus doesn't go where you want to go. Why doesn't it go to the west side?

14. Thank you for being at the Farmers Market in Hermosa Beach. I take the bus to the beach.

15. Maybe Line 109 line should not be so long. I like local shuttles.

16. I never take the bus, but I will try BCT to Farmers Market.

17. New route suggestion: from Huntington Beach City Council, Grand to Vista Del Mar to Imperial.

It will create access for the underserved community.

18. The challenge is to get to the west side.

19. I will try the bus from Hermosa to Redondo Beach. Never knew about it.

20. Reroute Line 109. The loops in Manhattan Beach & El Segundo - who does it serve?

21. Representative Aaron Forbuger suggested event bus to community events - concerts, seasonal service at peak hours.

Date Event City Location
7/27/22 Pop-up #3 Perry Park Hermosa Beach Farmers Market

1. I take Line 102 to the beach. Align Line 109 transfer at the pier would be good.

2. Where does the bus go? Will it take me here to Perry Park?

3. I would like to go to the LAX Express.

4. Promote bus lines at the senior centers. Interested in travel training.

5. I got the survey from the senior center email. The survey was confusing.

6. I take the WAVE to the Green Line and on to LAX Airport. Did a field trip with the senior center.

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-7: SURVEY – COMMENT LOG
421

7. BCT fixed route should go to Perry Park.

Date Event City Location
8/11/22 Farmers Market El Segundo El Segundo Famers Market

1. I use MOOVIT app. It is accurate.

2. How about going to UCLA?

3. I did not know El Segundo had a bus system. I will try it for fun to go to the beach.

4. Is there a stop on Grand? There are lots of local stops.

5. Interested in going to the Manhattan Beach Mall.

6. Excited about connection to Crenshaw line. Also the regional connector to DTLA.

7. I use Google and Apple Maps not the BCT transit app. I go to work near Imperial Highway.

8. I use BCT for Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach destinations for recreation.

Date Event City Location
4/15/23 Springfest Redondo Beach Aviation Park

1. Expand as much as possible

2. We don't ride and probably never will

3. My mom rides BCT but we didn't know about WAVE

4. Keep a stop @ Recommendation "B"

5. Keep the stop at SB Galleria as you continue to plan

6. Domestic workers will use "C"

7. Please have stops around the South Bay Galleria

8. Micro transit for seniors to go door-to-door would be nice

9. Can I connect to C Line @ the new bus center?

10. We'd like a route to Mira Costa High School

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-7: SURVEY – COMMENT LOG
422
Summarized General Comments (throughout engagement)

1. WAVE – “I have recently called and got no answer and their Voice Mailbox was full”

2. “I don’t want elders on the road – not everyone can drive”

3. “Public transit is good — but you cannot control the people who ride (Metro rider)

4. “Clean up the homeless (Metro rider)

5. “Police need more presence on trains and at stations. I am usually alone. It is depressing to see (Metro rider)

6. “There is an unsafe perception. It’s better with the Sheriffs (Metro rider)

7. “BCT buses are clean

8. “The only time I use the bus is to go to Dodger Stadium

9. “I only use the line to go to the beach

10. “Public transit should provide free parking lots if they want people to ride

11. “I am a day laborer who just moved to CA from Texas. I use the Long Beach Park & Ride

12. “We need faster headways.

13. “I didn’t even realize the 109 was part of BCT (Spanish speaker)

14. “I am not familiar with BCT at all.

15. “I have never heard of BCT. I drove today and sometimes I use Metro

16. “The app is not synched up to the bus schedule “

17. “Consistency of bus schedules is the key to me riding more

18. “We need better routes to City Centers

19. “I lived in Hong Kong for 2 years. Local transit is like a 3rd world country

20. “Give us a direct route to LAX during peak hour times!”

21. A Participant stated that more easily accessible printed materials available in businesses (grocery stores were mentioned) regarding BCT services and bus schedules would encourage them to consider using BCT more often.

22. A Participant, like some stated in pop-up events, mentioned just generally having better line connections to places they may consider going. The “limitation” of the routes prevents them from exploring the region more utilizing BCT.

23. A Senior stakeholder discussed their desire to start using the service regularly - both fixed line and possibly Dial-a-Ride - in the future. When the stakeholder was given a description of “travel training”, they stated that they would find it beneficial and a training they would definitely use.

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-7: SURVEY – COMMENT LOG
423
Summarized General Comments (throughout engagement) con’t

24. An overarching and repeated theme in one-on-one discussions was a desire to have more general information about the line. “Maybe if I knew more about the services, I would consider using it more.” In a follow-up one-on-one conversation with a focus group member, they stated that they get most of their information about current events and civic affairs specifically from Facebook. When told that BCT did not have a presence on Facebook, the stakeholder stated that this may be the reason they know very little about BCT.

25. A longtime daily bus Rider attended not only all of the focus groups meetings but had additional one-on-one comments. The Rider stated that they used BCT lines throughout high school (Redondo Beach Union) and now uses the line to commute to work and for general needs. The Rider shared input on current and future routes. What stood out in conversation with the Rider is this: though opportunities for improvement were stated, their overall satisfaction with the line was apparent and stated.

26. Another Senior stakeholder - who has never utilized public transportation but is now considering it - stated that they had no idea where to start their research until the conversation they had with the service study team. The Senior, who is an avid user of technology, stated that they have yet to use any municipal services that are targeted/marketed to Seniors (“I’m old but not ‘that’ kind of old”) but anticipates needing transportation assistance/rides in the future. The Senior stated that they would need easily accessible information on the Internet to consider using Diala-Ride. “I’d rather waste my money on Uber than waste my time searching for info about public rides.”

Beach Cities Transit
Transit Services Study April 28, 2023
Public Outreach Summary Report
APPENDIX A-8: PUBLIC MEETING POP UP PROJECT BOARDS
424

SEE PDF

A
B
D
C

NEWLY OPENED
B
A
C
D
C
D
E

Appendix B: List of Senior Housing Complexes Within Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study
APPENDIX B: LIST OF SENIOR HOUSING COMPLEXES WITHIN REDONDO

BEACH AND HERMOSA BEACH

1. Redondo Beach
a. Casa de Los Amigos
123 S. Catalina,
Redondo Beach, 90277
b. Cresta Mobile Park
2345 190th St,
Redondo Beach 90278
c. Salvation Army – Mindeman Senior Residence
125 W. Beryl St.

Redondo Beach, 90277
d. Heritage Pointe
1801 Aviation Way
Redondo Beach, 90278
e. Seaside Villa
319 N. Broadway
Redondo Beach, 90277
f. Seasons Senior Apartments
109 S. Francisca Ave
Redondo Beach, 90277
g. Breakwater Village
2750 Artesia Blvd
Redondo Beach 90278

2. Hermosa Beach
a. Marineland Mobile Home Park
531 Pier Avenue
Hermosa Beach 90254
b. Sunrise of Hermosa Beach
1837 E. PCH
Hermosa Beach, 90254

429
APPENDIX C: SPACE NEEDS PROGRAM
See attached PDF.

Stantec Project No.: 2073016510
Updated: 6/7/2023
AREA
W x L x H SQFT TOTAL

STAFF SHIFTS VISITORS PEAK SPACE SQFT PRIMARY SECONDARY Maintenance Manager Admin for Maintenance; private office 150 1 1 0 1 1 150 View of Shop Maint Super Workstation, File Cabinets Maintenance Supervisor Admin for Maintenance; private office 120 1 1 0 1 1 120 File Cabinets; Security Moniton, Workstation Shop / Accounting Clerk Receive parts, invoicing; open office suite w/ access to exterior
120 1 1 0 1 1 120 File Cabinets, Workstation w/ receiving counter File / Office Storage General office/supply storage room for maintenance dept only
100 1 100 File cabinets, open shelves
Mechanics / Utility
Workers
Program Line for staffing only; see
Restrooms/Lockers in Shared Department for
Restrooms)
0 8 2 1 9 0 0
Staff: 5 mechanics, 2 utility, + 1 future mech (general 0.5% growth in staff qty)
Uniform Storage Alcove for clean uniform rack and dirty bin 25 0 0 1 1 1 25 Closet Rod and Shelves Techician Counter, Library Technicians counter/workstation: Parts ordering; entering work order data into computerized
100 1 100 Storage Shelves, file cabinets, small workstation Repair Bays Bays w/ bus hoists to perform any maintenance or service function; Fall-protection in one bay for
rooftop access
20 x 50 x 20 1,000 3 3,000 Work bench w/ vice at each bay, other mobile equipment and tool boxes;
Platform lift for minimum of one bay;
fall protection system in min of one bay;
tailpipe exhaust system for all bays
OH Repair Jobs Require:
one bay with roof top work
requiring fall protection (line
or gantry); Roof top
antennas, A/C and batteries.

Common Work Area Space to perform minor fabrications 300 1 300 grinder, drill press, work bench, weld table, welding equip., etc.

Tire Shop and Storage Space to store new and used tires on multi-tier racks. 20 x 15 300 1 300 Multi-tier racks for 50 tires total (new and used) Battery Cabinet Enclosed cabinet for battery storage 6 x 10 60 1 60 Exterior rated battery charging cabinet, selfcontained with lighting and ventilation emergency wash needed
adjacent to cabinet Accessed by Pallet Jack
Electronics Shop Maintenance/Repair of onboard eletrical equipment 10 x 15 150 1 150 Work bench, task lighting, storage racks/shelving Does NOT require special clean-room requirements Repair functions include multiplex wiring; electronic fareboxes, GPS-based automatic vehicle location system; Destination signs
Lube / Compressor Room Enclosed room to house bulk fluid tanks 15 x 20 300 1 300 Fluid tanks for: engine oils, Coolant, Transmission
oils, Gear oil, Waste Oil;
Air Compressor
Fire Rating (TBD),
exhausted
Parts Storage
Space to store parts (engine/transmission
blocks, windshields, seats/covers, wheel-rims,
misc parts, cleaners, flam cabinets, etc.)
25 x 60 x 20 1,500 1 1,500 Storage racks and High-density storage equipment Space does not need to be
walled-off, chainlink fencing
would be sufficient.

Includes 12ft x 12ft allowance for parts receiving space.

Contains large and small parts storage racks/shelving. Space for future clerk. Space for receiving table or counter. Additional storage on Mezzanine above (TBD)
Tool Crib (Shop Tools
Storage) Secure Cabinet or Cage for tool storage 6 x 6 36 1 36 Secure storage cabinet Mobile Equipment
Storage Storage of mobile equipment 10 x 20 200 1 200
Mobile lifts, ladders, platforms, manual pallet
manual; DOES NOT INCLUDE STORAGE FOR

FORKLIFT OR MOBILE LIFTS
Hazardous Material
Storage
Space for hazardous gas cylinders, chemicals
(paint thinners, etc.) 5 x 10 50 1 50 Exterior storage cabinet or caged area with roof Tool Box Storage Designated space for tool boxes space 4 x 5 20 6 120 power receptacles (1) full-size tool box + (1) cart per mechanic 11 3 2 13 24 6,631
15% 995
7,626
FM Storage 100 1 100
Custodial 120 1 1 0 1 1 120
Main Electrical Room 250 1 250
Main IT/Data Room Central IT room for entire facility. 150 1 150 IT racks, etc. as required dedicated spilit AC system Main Plumbing Room 100 1 100
Fire Riser Room 50 1 50
1 1 - 1 6 770
20% 154
924
Wash Bay Manual, covered, drive-in/back-out Bus Wash
operation 20 x 55 x 20 1100 - - - - 1 1,100 Mechanical ventilation with corrosion resistant ductwork and equipment Chassis Wash / Steam
Bay
Exterior covered space for pre-inspection/repair
under-carriage bus-wash 20 x 60 x 20 1200 - - - - 0 0 Chassis wash bay not proposed Wash Equip Room Equipment for vehicle wash system 10 650 - - - - 0 0 Equipment room not required, wash equipment can be located within the bay for manual washing functions.

Fare / Revenue Room Fare Vault room, include fare vault IT equip 100 - - - - 0 0 Not included in proposed program Cleaning Storage Room Cleaning supplies, etc. 100 - - - - 1 100 washer + dryer for wash cloth; rags.

Electrical Room Elec for wash equipment 100 - - - - 0 0 Not required for the proposed configuration - - 2 1,200
20% 240
1,440
City of Redondo Beach, Beach Cities Transit

FUNCTION

MAINTENANCE

VEHICLE

SERVICING /

UTILITY
SPACE

CATEGORY SPACE NAME FACILITY MAINT / BUILDING UTILITIES Maint Offices, Clerk
-
Repair Bays
NOTES
Adjacent to Wash Bay
open to shop, adjacent to maint
offices and parts storage
ADJ to Locker Rooms
Special
Requirements Equipment / Furniture
Repair Bays
Shop Foreman, Repair Bays
Enclosed bay
Close to maintenance bays, needs
exterior access for delivery vehicle

ADJACENCY SPACE

STANDARD
Direct view of Shop floor
Adjacent to repair bays
Repair Shop
Adjacent to Repair Shop, access
through exterior receiving OH Door;
Maintenance Supervisor
adjacent to OH receivnging door
Common Work Area,
Portable Equipment Storage,
Maintenance staff offices
MAINTENANCE SUMMARY:

Grossing Factor (Circ, Elec, Mech, Struct):

FM/UTILITY SUMMARY:

Grossing Factor (Circ, Elec, Mech, Struct):

SERVICE TOTAL:

Centrally located in office areas
Operations and Maintenance Facility Space Needs Program MIN

SIZE QUANTITY

PROGRAM
MAINTENANCE TOTAL:

Grossing Factor (Circ, Elec, Mech, Struct):

VEHICLE SERVICING SUMMARY:

SERVICE TOTAL:

AREA
W x L x H SQFT TOTAL

STAFF SHIFTS VISITORS PEAK SPACE SQFT PRIMARY SECONDARY

FUNCTION SPACE
CATEGORY SPACE NAME NOTES Special Requirements Equipment / Furniture

ADJACENCY SPACE

STANDARD
MIN

SIZE QUANTITY

PROGRAM
General Manager Typical office 150 1 1 0 0 1 150 Workstation, File Cabinets Operations Manager Typical office 150 1 1 0 0 1 150 Workstation, File Cabinets Operations Assistant Typical office 150 1 1 0 0 1 150 Workstation, File Cabinets Training Manager Typical office 150 1 1 0 0 1 150 Workstation, File Cabinets Supervisors Office Office for supervisors 150 2 2 0 2 1 150 Dispatch Drivers Room Two workstations, File Cabinets Window into Dispatch and Drivers Room
Dispatch Suite Office space with counter/window with direct access to operators. 200 1 2 0 1 1 200
Direct view of
bus yard and
Operator
Entry/Exit
Drivers Room Adjustable Height Workstations, file storage; IT equip: large security monitors mounted high on wall
receptacles for large
monitors, IT closet closeby
Dispatch Vestibule Adjacent to Dispatch Counter, space for two drivers at counter 1 120 Dispatch Suite Break Room Counter w/ storage for paperwork, tackboards, notice boards Payroll Clerk Shared office with Disptach 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Dispatch Ops Manager Workstation, File Cabinets Lost & Found Storage Space to store lost and found items. Lost bikes may be stored outside. 75 1 75 Disptach Supervisors Open storage shelves Increased ventilation due to
potential for soiled items
being stored in room.

General Storage Room 200 1 200 File cabinets, open shelving Operators' Lockers (35) Lockers 2-tier configuration 1 x 2 x 3 2 35 2 0 24 1 70 Break Room Restrooms 3-tier Lockers: 12W x 12D x 24H EA 0 43 2 - 28 11 1,415
20% 283
1,698
Offices Typical private office 10 x 12 x 9 150 5 1 2 7 5 750 Workstation, file storage Cubicles Typical open cubicle 12 x 12 x 9 144 4 1 0 2 2 288 open cube workstation for 2 persons each, file storage
Small conference room Sized for 4 9 150 1 150 tables/chairs, Typical AV Files / Storgae Room 9 200 1 200 Shelving, cabinets; step ladder Copy / Production Area Space for general office supplies, copy/printing functions 9 150 1 150 Copy machine, counters, open/closed shelving could be combined with File/Storage Room Restrooms Gender neutral toilet room 9 75 1 75
Break room 9 150 1 150 Small kitchenette: Cabinets w/ Sink, Refrigerator; table and seating for 4
9 1 2 9 12 1,763
20% 353
2,116
Unisex RR/Shower Centrally located and for use by all staff 9 90 1 90 Separate from Ops, Maint, and Admin Lactation Room Secure Room, 'Wellness Room' 9 65 1 65 Sink, counter, mini-refrigerator, chair Space required by CA labor code Break Room Central break room/lounge space to be used by all staff. 9+ 300 1 300 Exterior Patio Dispatch Tables and chairs, drinking fountain w/ bottle filler, notice/bulletin boards, TV Connection for cable TV Connected to all dept., direct connection to exterior; space for 15+ people during large events Kitchen Open kitchen space integrated with Break Room,
mix of seating options 9 100 1 100 refridgerator, vending machines, ice maker, microwaves, garbage disposal, etc.

Quiet Room Separate quiet break room away from larger
Break Room 9 65 1 65 lounge furniture
Large Conference Room Sized for 12 to 14 9 350 1 350 tables/chairs, Typical AV Training Room Flexible, large room with movable furniture 9+ 400 1 400 Trainer Office Admin Suite movable training tables/chairs; monitors on multiple walls
Connections for AV and
Monitors
Training Storage Storage specifically for training function 9 80 1 80 Storage shelving, stackable rolling chair racks Mens RR/Lockers Toilet room, lockers, and shower 9 350 1 350 Full-height locker 24x24 w/ boot drawer, integral bench Lockers for Maintenance staff
Womens RR/Lockers Toilet room, lockers, and shower 9 250 1 250 Full-height locker 24x24 w/ boot drawer, integral bench Lockers for Maintenance staff
- - - - 10 2,050
20% 410
2,460
Admin Offices
away from offices
Access through Training Room
Away from Break Room

SHARED SPACES
SHARED SUMMARY:

Grossing Factor (Circ, Elec, Mech, Struct):

SHARED TOTAL:

Dispatch Suite
-
within admin suite
admin department
admin offices
within admin suite
Dispatch suite and Lead Super
Training Room

ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION SUMMARY:

ADMINISTRATION TOTAL:

Grossing Factor (Circ, Elec, Mech, Struct):

OPERATIONS
Connected to Break Room
near admin office suite
within admin suite
OPERATIONS SUMMARY:

Grossing Factor (Circ, Elec, Mech, Struct):

OPERATIONS TOTAL:

AREA
W x L x H SQFT TOTAL

STAFF SHIFTS VISITORS PEAK SPACE SQFT PRIMARY SECONDARY

FUNCTION SPACE
CATEGORY SPACE NAME NOTES Special Requirements Equipment / Furniture

ADJACENCY SPACE

STANDARD
MIN

SIZE QUANTITY

PROGRAM
Employee Patio
Partially covered space connected directly to
Break Room; BBQ area (size dependent of
space configuration), landscaping
- 1000 1 1,000 Break Room Employee Entry Exterior tables/chairs; patio furniture; BBQ Space should be close to where employees will enter and should be visually separate and secured from visitor/public entry Designated Smoking
Area
Covered space at least 25 feet from building
openings for smoking 100 1 100
Trash Enclosure City/County standard enclosure 10 x 25 250 1 250 Misc Ext Storage FM, Utility, Bus Stops 500 1 500 delivery access Electrical Utility XMFR, Switchgear, etc. 500 1 500
- - - - 5 2,350
0% -
2,350
Bus Parking 30' buses 12 x 35 420 15 6,300
Min: (12) plug-in connections, (6) 120kW charging
cabinets
Ideal: (16) plug-in connections, (8) 120kW charging
cabinets
25' bus 12 x 30 360 3 1,080
Chargers shared between cutaways and vans:

Min: (6) plug-in connections, (3) 120kW charging
cabinets
Ideal: (8) plug-in connections, (4) 120kW charging
cabinets
Passenger Vans 10 x 20 200 5 1,000
Non-Revenue Vehicle 10 x 20 200 3 600
Down Bus Parking 12 x 40 480 1 480
FLEET SUBTOTAL: 9,460
Employee Parking 9 x 18 162 50 8,100 Level 2 chargers where required, electrial infrastructure required for EV capable stalls
CalGreen Bldg Code: (13) EV capable w/ (3) EV charging
stations (EVCS), one of which can be accessible EV stall Visitor Parking 9 x 18 162 2 324
Accessible Parking 15 x 18 270 3 810 QTY: As required by CA Bldg Code (11B-208.2) for 51-75 space provide (3) accessible spaces, including (1) van space Accessible EV 17 x 18 306 1 306 Level 2 charger QTY: As required by CA Bldg Code (11B-228.3.2.1.) for 1 - 4 EVCS, one van accessible space required.

EMPLOYEE PARKING SUBTOTAL: 9,540
Long-tern Bike Parking 3 x 6 18 3 50 QTY: As required by 2022 CalGreen Building Code 5.106.4.1.2:

Provide 5% of employee parking
Short-term Bike Parking 2 x 6 12 1 12
QTY: As required by 2022 CalGreen Building Code

5.106.4.1.1.: Provide 5% of visitor parking, but not less than (1) two-bike rack
- - - - 87 19,062
75% 14,296
33,358
AREA
TOTAL

STAFF SHIFTS VISITORS PEAK SPACE SQFT
63 2 4 50 n/a AREA
16,263
35,708
5% 1,785
ACRES 53,756

PROGRAM SUMMARY

QUANTITY

PROGRAM
TOTALS
GRAND TOTALS:

TOTAL BUILDING & SPACE AREA:

TOTAL SITE AREA:

SITE FACTOR:

TOTAL PROGRAM AREA: 1.23
Cutaway Bus

PARKING
PARKING SUMMARY:

Grossing Factor (Circulation):

PARKING SPACE TOTAL:

PARKING WITHIN MAINTENANCE YARD:

PARKING WITHIN EMPLOYEE / VISITOR LOT:

EXTERIOR
SPACES
EXTERIOR SPACE SUMMARY:

Grossing Factor (Circulation):

EXTERIOR SPACE TOTAL:

Third closest to main entry
As close as possible to main visitor
and employee entries
Second closest to main entry
Behind security fence
Outside of security fence

Appendix D: Site Plans
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study
APPENDIX D: SITE PLANS
See attached PDF.

EXISTING OPERATIONS AND

MAINTENANCE FACILITY
6,000 SF

TRANSIT CENTER

VAN VAN

PUBLIC WORKS
20,000 SF

EXISTING
FLEET

PARKING LOT

BUS ENTRY GATE

BUS EXIT
GATE

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

PARK & RIDE LOT ,

EMPLOYEE PARKING
320 TOTAL

PARKING STALLS

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT EV
VAN
ENTRY
EXIT

KISS & RIDE STOP STOP
BUS

ENTRY / EXIT

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV

EVEVEVEVEV

EV EV EV EV EV

EVEVEVEVEV
EVEV

CURRENT

FACILITY AREA
35,700 SF

KINGSDALE AVE
N
DWG:
0' 30' 60' 120'

EXISTING CONDITIONS
DATE:
05/16/23
Stantec Proj No:
2073016510 CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, BEACH CITIES TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY MASTER PLAN

1.0

EXISTING OPERATIONS AND

MAINTENANCE FACILITY
6,000 SF

TRANSIT CENTER

VAN VAN

PUBLIC WORKS
20,000 SF

BUS ENTRY GATE

BUS EXIT
GATE

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

PARK & RIDE LOT ,

EMPLOYEE PARKING
VAN
ENTRY
EXIT
STOP
BUS
STOP

ENTRY / EXIT
(11) 30' BUS & CUTAWAY PARKING

MAINTENANCE

WASH BAY

CHARGING EQUIPMENT
& UTILITY YARD

ADMIN,OPS, SHARED SPACES

SECOND FLOOR

ACCESSIBLE PARKING

NON-REV PARKING

MINI-VAN PARKING
NOTE: EMPLOYEE PARKING

WILL BE OUTSIDE THE FENCE

POTENTIAL PV

CANOPY ABOVE

KISS & RIDE

NEW OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE FACILITY & FLEET PARKING

CURRENT

FACILITY AREA
35,700 SF

NEW BUS OMF
43,800 SF
148'
295'

EV EV EV EV EV

EVEVEVEVEV

EV EV EV EV EV

EV EV EVEVEV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EVEV
35'-0"
(9) 30' BUS & CUTAWAY PARKING
62'
109'
155'
62'

ROLLING GATE

EXISTING
FLEET

PARKING LOT

KINGSDALE AVE
N
DWG:
0' 30' 60' 120'

NEW BUS OMF CONCEPT
DATE:
05/23/23
Stantec Proj No:
2073016510 CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, BEACH CITIES TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY MASTER PLAN

1.1

TRANSIT CENTER

PUBLIC WORKS
20,000 SF
VAN
ENTRY
EXIT

KISS & RIDE STOP STOP

NEW OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE FLEET PARKING
-133 STALLS
24'
24'

EXISTING FACILITY,
FENCING, ETC.

TO BE DEMOLISHED
STOP
STOP
EXISTING PARKING = 320 STALLS
NEW BUS OMF = -133 STALLS

DEMO OF EXISTING OMF
& RESTRIPING OF P&R = +83 STALLS
______________________________________
FINAL PARKING TOTAL = ~ 270 STALLS
(7) ACCESSIBLE SPACES REQUIRED
(1) ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKING SPACE
(54) EV CAPABLE SPACES REQUIRED
W/ (14) EV CHARGING STATIONS
[CALGREEN TABLE 5.106.5.3.1]

PARALLEL
STALL

PARALLEL
STALL

PARALLEL
STALL

PARALLEL
STALL

PARALLEL
STALL

PARALLEL
STALL

PARALLEL
STALL

PARALLEL
STALL

PARALLEL
STALL

PARALLEL
STALL
19 37
37 37
7 10
9 4
97 14
17 1212
15 16

VAN VAN

EXISITING ACCESSIBLE PARKING TO REMAIN
EVEV

NEW BUS OMF

TWO-STORY BUILDING

KINGSDALE AVE
N
DWG:
0' 30' 60' 120'

NEW PARK & RIDE PARKING LAYOUT CONCEPT
DATE:
05/23/23
Stantec Proj No:
2073016510 CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, BEACH CITIES TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY MASTER PLAN

1.2

TRANSIT CENTER

PUBLIC WORKS
20,000 SF
VAN
ENTRY
EXIT

KISS & RIDE STOP STOP

KINGSDALE AVE

NEW BUS OMF

TWO-STORY BUILDING
STOP
STOP

STORMWATER SWALE /

LANDSCAPE BETWEEN

RETAINING WALL &

PARKING GARAGE

PARKING GARAGE
~124 PARKING

STALLS PER LEVEL

STORMWATER SWALE /

LANDSCAPE & SETBACK

BETWEEN PARKING

GARAGE & BUS

FACILITY
SURFACE PARKING = 114 STALLS

PARKING GARAGE
GROUND LEVEL= 100 STALLS
PARKING GARAGE L2= 124 STALLS
SUBTOTAL= 338 STALLS
PARKING GARAGE L3= +124 STALLS
SUBTOTAL= 462 STALLS
PARKING GARAGE L4= +124 STALLS
SUBTOTAL= 586 STALLS
FINAL PARKING TOTAL = ~ 586 STALLS
(12) ACCESSIBLE SPACES REQUIRED
(2) ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKING SPACE
(118) EV CAPABLE SPACES REQUIRED
W/ (30) EV CHARGING STATIONS
[CALGREEN TABLE 5.106.5.3.1]
30'
24'
24'
29 24
24 29
99 14
16 99
8888
12 1111
EVEV
N
DWG:
0' 30' 60' 120'

NEW PARK & RIDE PARKING LAYOUT CONCEPT
DATE:
05/23/23
Stantec Proj No:
2073016510 CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, BEACH CITIES TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY MASTER PLAN

1.3

438
APPENDIX E: FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND INPUTS
The table below presents a description and sources for the cost inputs (in 2023$) presented in Section 11: Financial Plan.

Category Item Description Inputs Source and
Comments
Capital Bus purchase price
Purchase price of a
bus/vehicle inclusive of
options and taxes and
extended warranty.

CNG 30 ft: $521,438
CNG cutaway:
$189,175
CNG van: $56,948
BEB 30 ft: $935,375
BE cutaway:
$275,943
BE van: $215,896
Source: BCT; BOS
survey, checked with
industry values from
CalDGS and
MBTA/CalACT.

Extended warranty
added as additional

6.54% of purchase
price.

Capital Infrastructure and
facility modifications
Site demolition, new
OMF, new
administration and ops
building, equipment
costs, soft costs,
charging infrastructure,
with escalation.

Total opinion of
probable cost with
escalation plus
equipment costs
and soft costs:
$31,738,902
Independent cost
estimate (Appendix D)
Operating Operating cost
estimates
Operating cost
estimates for the fiveyear service plan paid
to an O&M contractor to
operate and maintain
service.

Fixed monthly rate:
$101,627
Fixed hourly rate:
$47.69
BCT; Transportation
Concepts contract RFP
Plan Year 1 with annual
CPI increase of 3%.

Appendix F: Cost Estimate
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study
APPENDIX F: COST ESTIMATE
See attached PDF.

Tel (213) 688-1341 or (805) 339-9434

OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
JYI# C2677A-R1
June 13, 2023
PREPARED FOR:

STANTEC
BY:

JACOBUS & YUANG, INC.
330 N. Lantana Street, Ste 28, #220
Camarillo, CA 93010
Revised: June 14, 2023

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
OPERATIONS and MAINTENANCE FACILITY

MASTER PLAN

BEACH CITIES TRANSIT

Prepared by Jacobus &Yuang, Inc.

JOB #: C2677A-R1
LOCATION: REDONDO BEACH, CA DATE: 13-Jun-23
CLIENT: STANTEC REVISED: 14-Jun-23
DESCRIPTION: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - COST SUMMARY ITEM
NO.

DESCRIPTION EST QTY U
N
I
T

UNIT COST
SUB

CONTRACT

UNIT COST
W/

PRORATES
TOTAL

ESTIMATED
COST
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATE $
SITE DEMOLITION 153,790 SF 1.95 2.93 450,351
PARK & RIDE LOT / EMPLOYEE PARKING 109,820 SF 3.67 5.50 604,309 OMF SITEWORK 33,845 SF 160.46 240.92 8,153,797
ADMIN-OPS & MAINTENANCE FACILITY (EQ. SEPARATE) 17,256 SF 352.79 529.67 9,139,965 SUB TOTAL 18,348,422
TOTAL OPINION OF PROBABLE COST WITHOUT ESCALATION 17,256 SF 1,063.31 18,348,422 ESCALATION 21.57% 3,957,755
TOTAL OPINION OF PROBABLE COST WITH ESCALATION 17,256 SF 1,292.66 22,306,177

EQUIPMENT COSTS

MAINTENANCE / BUS WASH EQUIPMENT COST
- C.F.C.I. EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING INSTALLATION COST 1 LS 1,000,000 1,000,000 SUB TOTAL 1,000,000
ADD: PRORATES PER BASE ESTIMATE W/O CONTINGENCY 17.12% 171,213 ADD: ESCALATION COST 21.57% 252,631

TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST W/O CONTINGENCY PLUS

ESCALATION
1,423,843

TOTAL OPINION OF PROBABLE COST WITH ESCALATION
PLUS EQUIPMENT COST 23,730,020
PROJECT: CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, BEACH CITIES TRANSIT - OPERATIONS AND

MAINTENANCE FACILITY MASTER PLAN

Prepared by Jacobus &Yuang, Inc.

JOB #: C2677A-R1
LOCATION: REDONDO BEACH, CA DATE: 13-Jun-23
CLIENT: STANTEC REVISED: 14-Jun-23
DESCRIPTION: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - COST SUMMARY ITEM
NO.

DESCRIPTION EST QTY U
N
I
T

UNIT COST
SUB

CONTRACT

UNIT COST
W/

PRORATES
TOTAL

ESTIMATED
COST
PROJECT: CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, BEACH CITIES TRANSIT - OPERATIONS AND

MAINTENANCE FACILITY MASTER PLAN

SOFT COSTS
ARCHITECTURAL/ENGINEERING FEES 15.0% $3,559,503
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING (CEQA/NEPA) 0.75% $177,975
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY 5.0% $1,186,501
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FEES 8.0% $1,898,402
SURVEYS & THE LIKE 5.0% $1,186,501

TOTAL OPINION OF PROBABLE COST WITH ESCALATION,

EQUIPMENT & SOFT COSTS
17,256 SF 1,839.30 31,738,902

ESCALATION CALCULATION
BASE MONTH Jun-23
CONSTRUCTION START MONTH Jan-28
CONSTRUCTION DURATION (MONTHS) 18.0
MID POINT OF CONSTRUCTION Oct-28
% ANNUAL ESCALATION 3.75%

ALLOWANCE FOR ESCALATION (TO MIDPOINT OF

CONSTRUCTION)

21.57%
GENERAL NOTES:
1 COSTS ARE BASED ON PREVAILING WAGE RATES
2 ESTIMATED COSTS ASSUME AT LEAST 4 TO 5 COMPETITIVE RESPONSIVE BIDS SHALL BE RECEIVED 3 ALL WORK IS ASSUMED TO BE PERFORMED DURING REGULAR WORKING HOURS 4 5
6 NO ALLOWANCE IS INCLUDED IN THE ESTIMATE FOR LOOSE FURNITURE, FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT OTHER THAN THOSE PART OF

EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE ON SUMMARY SHEET
THE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST IS PREPARED BASED ON MASTER PLAN DIAGRAMS DATED 04/20/2023 AND SPACE PROGRAMS DATED 02/24/2023 PREPARED BY STANTEC, AND RECEIVED 04/21/2023

MAINTENANCE AND BUS WASH EQUIPMENT COSTS ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO DESIGN CONTINGENCY AS COSTS ARE BASED ON COST DRAWN FROM SIMILAR, MOSTLY COMPLETED, PROJECTS.

Prepared by Jacobus &Yuang, Inc.

JOB #: C2677A-R1
LOCATION: REDONDO BEACH, CA DATE: 13-Jun-23
CLIENT: STANTEC REVISED: 14-Jun-23
DESCRIPTION: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - COST SUMMARY ITEM
NO.

DESCRIPTION EST QTY U
N
I
T

UNIT COST
SUB

CONTRACT

UNIT COST
W/

PRORATES
TOTAL

ESTIMATED
COST
PROJECT: CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, BEACH CITIES TRANSIT - OPERATIONS AND

MAINTENANCE FACILITY MASTER PLAN
SPECIFIC EXCLUSIONS:
1 OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS
2 F, F & E (GROUP II EQUIPMENT), EXCEPT AS NOTED IN THE ESTIMATE DETAIL. 3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT FEES
4 ALLOWANCES FOR GEOTECHNICAL & HYDROLOGY TESTING, UTILITY INVESTIGATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 5 GUARD SHACK
6 OFFICE EQUIPMENT AND FURNISHINGS
7 BREAKROOM / KITCHENETTE EQUIPMENT
8 DEEP CLEANING BAY
9 FARE REVENUE, CLEANING STORAGE, AND ELECTRICAL ROOM REMOTE BUILDING SPECIFIC INCLUSIONS:
1 ALLOWANCE FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FEES & OTHER TYPICAL SOFT COSTS BEYOND REGULAR GENERAL CONTRACTOR COSTS 2 SITE DEMOLITION
3 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ABATEMENT ALLOWANCE RELATED TO BUILDING DEMOLITION 4 PARK & RIDE LOT AND EMPLOYEE PARKING RE-STRIPING
5 FENCING AND GATES
6 PV CANOPY STRUCTURE
7 ADMIN-OPS AND MAINTENANCE BUILDING WITH ADJACENT BUS WASH FACILITY 8 TRASH ENCLOSURE
9 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY POWER SERVICE
10 SITE LIGHTING
11 INCOMING COMMUNICATIONS
12 SITE SECURITY
13 PV PANELS WITH CIRCUITRY AND INVERTER
14 (11) 120kW CHARGER CABINETS WITH (22) PLUG-IN DISPENSERS 15 PLUMBING UTILITIES RELATIVE TO OMF SITE

Prepared by Jacobus &Yuang, Inc.

JOB #: C2677A-R1
LOCATION: REDONDO BEACH, CA DATE: 13-Jun-23
CLIENT: STANTEC REVISED: 14-Jun-23
DESCRIPTION: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - COST SUMMARY ITEM
NO.

DESCRIPTION EST QTY U
N
I
T

UNIT COST
SUB

CONTRACT

UNIT COST
W/

PRORATES
TOTAL

ESTIMATED
COST
PROJECT: CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, BEACH CITIES TRANSIT - OPERATIONS AND

MAINTENANCE FACILITY MASTER PLAN

DEFINITIONS

OPINION OF COST
JYI cannot, however, be responsible for inclusion of items or work of which we have not been informed.

BID
An offer to enter a contract to perform work for a fixed sum, to be completed within a limited period of time.

SPECIAL NOTE - MARKET CONDITIONS
Number of bids Percentage Differential

1............ + 25 to 50%
2-3.......... + 10 to 25%
4-5.......... + 0 to 10%
6-7.......... + 0 to - 5%
8 or more.... + 0 to -10%
Accordingly, it is extremely important to ensure that a minimum of 4-5 valid bids are received In the current market conditions for construction, our experience shows the following results on competitive bids, as a differential from JYI final estimates:

An Opinion of Cost is prepared from a survey of the quantities of work-items prepared from written or drawn information provided at the Conceptual or Schematic stage of design.

Historical costs, information provided by contractors and suppliers, plus judgmental evaluation by the Estimator are used as appropriate as the basis for pricing.

Allowances as appropriate will be included for items of work which are not indicated on the design documents, provided that the Estimator is made aware of them, or which in the judgement of the Estimator are required for completion of the work.

Prepared by Jacobus &Yuang, Inc.

PROJECT: CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, BEACH CITIES TRANSIT - OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY MASTER PLAN JOB #: C2677A-R1 LOCATION: REDONDO BEACH, CA DATE: 13-Jun-23
CLIENT: STANTEC REVISION: 14-Jun-23
DESCRIPTION: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - ESTIMATE DETAIL ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION EST QTY U
N
I
T

UNIT COST SUB CONTRACT
TOTAL
% CONTINGENCY DESIGN

CONTINGENCY
AMOUNT

GENERAL

CONDITIONS/

REQUIREMENTS

PHASING
FACTOR

BONDS GC FEE CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL

20.00% 12.50% 2.50% 2.00% 6.50%
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATE $

1.0 SITE DEMOLITION 153,790 SF 2.93 299,960 20.0% 59,992 44,994 10,124 8,301 26,980 450,351

2.0 PARK & RIDE LOT / EMPLOYEE PARKING 109,820 SF 5.50 402,505 20.0% 80,501 60,376 13,585 11,139 36,203 604,309

3.0 OMF SITEWORK 33,845 SF 240.92 5,430,909 20.0% 1,086,182 814,636 183,293 150,300 488,476 8,153,797

4.0 ADMIN-OPS & MAINTENANCE FACILITY (EQ. SEPARATE) 17,256 SF 529.67 6,087,755 20.0% 1,217,551 913,163 205,462 168,479 547,556 9,139,965

ESTIMATED OPINION OF PROBABLE COST WITHOUT

ESCALATION
17,256 SF 1,063.31 12,221,129 2,444,226 1,833,169 412,464 338,220 1,099,214 18,348,422 445 ESTIMATE DETAIL

Prepared by Jacobus &Yuang, Inc.

PROJECT: CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, BEACH CITIES TRANSIT - OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY MASTER PLAN JOB #: C2677A-R1 LOCATION: REDONDO BEACH, CA DATE: 13-Jun-23
CLIENT: STANTEC REVISION: 14-Jun-23
DESCRIPTION: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - ESTIMATE DETAIL ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION EST QTY U
N
I
T

UNIT COST SUB CONTRACT
TOTAL
% CONTINGENCY DESIGN

CONTINGENCY
AMOUNT

GENERAL

CONDITIONS/

REQUIREMENTS

PHASING
FACTOR

BONDS GC FEE CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL

20.00% 12.50% 2.50% 2.00% 6.50%

1.0 SITE DEMOLITION $

SITE DEMOLITION (HAULING INCLUDED)

REMOVE/HAUL (E) OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE FACILITY

STRUCTURE INCLUDING SLAB & FOUNDATION, COMPLETE
6,000 SF 12.00 72,000 20.0% 14,400 10,800 2,430 1,993 6,476 108,099 SAWCUT/REMOVE (E) ASPHALT PAVEMENT & BASE @ 5'-0"

BEYOND FOOTPRINT OF EXISTING OPS-MAINTENANCE FACILITY
2,000 SF 5.18 10,360 20.0% 2,072 1,554 350 287 932 15,554 SAWCUT/REMOVE (E) ASPHALT PAVEMENT & BASE @ OMF AREA 43,745 SF 3.58 156,660 20.0% 31,332 23,499 5,287 4,336 14,091 235,204 REMOVE (E) WHEELSTOP 72 EA 43.50 3,132 20.0% 626 470 106 87 282 4,702 SANDBLAST/REMOVE (E) LINE STRIPING 6,383 LF 2.00 12,766 20.0% 2,553 1,915 431 353 1,148 19,166 SANDBLAST/REMOVE (E) CHEVRON STRIPING 1,486 SF 2.00 2,972 20.0% 594 446 100 82 267 4,462 SANDBLAST/REMOVE (E) PAVEMENT MARKINGS 90 EA 31.58 2,842 20.0% 568 426 96 79 256 4,267 REMOVE (E) FENCE & GATES 374 LF 12.00 4,488 20.0% 898 673 151 124 404 6,738 REMOVE & CAP (E) UTILITIES U/S BUILDING & 5' BEYOND 8,000 SF 0.45 3,600 20.0% 720 540 122 100 324 5,405 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ABATEMENT - BUILDING 6,000 SF 3.50 21,000 20.0% 4,200 3,150 709 581 1,889 31,529 MISC. SITE DEMO WORK 1 LS 10,140.00 10,140 20.0% 2,028 1,521 342 281 912 15,224 SUBTOTAL 299,960 59,992 44,994 10,124 8,301 26,980 450,351

2.0 PARK & RIDE LOT / EMPLOYEE PARKING $

SITE PARAMETERS - IMPROVEMENTS
NEW PAVEMENT 8,000 SF
NEW PARKING STALLS & DRIVE AISLE 94,300 SF
EXISTING PARKING STALLS 7,520 SF
GROSS SITE AREA 109,820 SF 0.54

SITE PREPARATION
SITE CLEARING 109,820 SF 0.25 27,455 20.0% 5,491 4,118 927 760 2,469 41,220 ROUGH / FINE GRADING 8,000 SF 1.00 8,000 20.0% 1,600 1,200 270 221 720 12,011 REMOVE & EXPORT (E) DIRT, +/-5'D 1,481 CY 46.11 68,313 20.0% 13,663 10,247 2,306 1,891 6,144 102,563 DIRT IMPORT + BACKFILL & COMPACT 1,481 CY 75.00 111,111 20.0% 22,222 16,667 3,750 3,075 9,994 166,819 EROSION CONTROL 8,000 SF 0.30 2,400 20.0% 480 360 81 66 216 3,603

HARDSCAPE
8,000 ASPHALT PAVING + BASE, MATCH EXISTING 8,000 SF 5.83 46,667 20.0% 9,333 7,000 1,575 1,292 4,197 70,064 94,300 RE-SEAL (E) ASPHALT PAVING - ALLOWANCE 94,300 SF 1.00 94,300 20.0% 18,860 14,145 3,183 2,610 8,482 141,579

SITE MISCELLANEOUS
PARKING STALL STRIPING - STANDARD 253 EA 65.00 16,445 20.0% 3,289 2,467 555 455 1,479 24,690 STOP SIGN + LIMIT LINE STRIPING 2 EA 750.00 1,500 20.0% 300 225 51 42 135 2,252 WALK-AISLE STRIPING (CHEVRON) 1,350 SF 1.75 2,363 20.0% 473 354 80 65 213 3,548 DASH LINE STRIPING 125 LF 2.25 281 20.0% 56 42 9 8 25 422 REFRESH (E) ADA PARKING STALL STRIPING & LOGO 8 EA 150.00 1,200 20.0% 240 180 41 33 108 1,802 REFRESH (E) STD PARKING STALL STRIPING 21 EA 50.00 1,050 20.0% 210 158 35 29 94 1,576 REFRESH (E) WALK-AISLE STRIPING (CHEVRON) 1,800 SF 1.25 2,250 20.0% 450 338 76 62 202 3,378 MISC. SITE IMPROVEMENTS / SIGNAGE ALLOWANCE 1 LS 19,170.00 19,170 20.0% 3,834 2,876 647 531 1,724 28,781 SUBTOTAL 402,505 80,501 60,376 13,585 11,139 36,203 604,309 446 ESTIMATE DETAIL

Prepared by Jacobus &Yuang, Inc.

PROJECT: CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, BEACH CITIES TRANSIT - OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY MASTER PLAN JOB #: C2677A-R1 LOCATION: REDONDO BEACH, CA DATE: 13-Jun-23
CLIENT: STANTEC REVISION: 14-Jun-23
DESCRIPTION: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - ESTIMATE DETAIL ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION EST QTY U
N
I
T

UNIT COST SUB CONTRACT
TOTAL
% CONTINGENCY DESIGN

CONTINGENCY
AMOUNT

GENERAL

CONDITIONS/

REQUIREMENTS

PHASING
FACTOR

BONDS GC FEE CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL

20.00% 12.50% 2.50% 2.00% 6.50%

3.0 OMF SITEWORK $

SITE PARAMETERS - IMPROVEMENTS
GROSS SITE AREA 43,745 SF
BUILDING FOOTPRINTS: DIMENSIONS AREA + 5'-0" BEYOND
- ADMIN / MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOOTPRINT 8,492 SF 64' x 132.70' 10,042 - WASH BAY + EQUIPMENT ROOM FOOTPRINT 1,408 SF 64' x 22 ' 1,650

SITE AREAS
- DESIGNATED SMOKING AREA 105 SF
- TRASH ENCLOSURE 263 SF 12' x 22' 544
- MISC. EXTERIOR STORAGE 525 SF
- CHARGING EQUIPMENT & UTILITY YARD 2,134 SF
- PARKING & DRIVE AISLE 27,666 SF
NET SITE AREA 33,845 SF 14,573.30

SITE PREPARATION
SITE CLEARING 43,745 SF 0.25 10,936 20.0% 2,187 1,640 369 303 984 16,419 ROUGH / FINE GRADING 43,745 SF 1.00 43,745 20.0% 8,749 6,562 1,476 1,211 3,935 65,677 BUILDING PAD OVEREXCAVATION (ASSUME 5'-0"D) INCLUDING

WASH BAY & DEEP CLEANING BAY
2,422 CY 20.00 48,442 20.0% 9,688 7,266 1,635 1,341 4,357 72,729 BUILDING PAD OVEREXCAVATION (ASSUME 3'-0"D) FOR

FARE/REVENUE & TRASH ENCLOSURE
166 CY 20.00 3,320 20.0% 664 498 112 92 299 4,985
SCARIFY/ COMPACT - U/S SITE PAVING 30,430 SF 0.56 16,906 20.0% 3,381 2,536 571 468 1,521 25,382 EROSION CONTROL 43,745 SF 0.30 13,124 20.0% 2,625 1,969 443 363 1,180 19,704

HARDSCAPE
2,134 CONCRETE PAVEMENT/BASE, ASSUME 6"/ 4" - CHARGING

EQUIPMENT & UTILITY YARD
2,134 SF 12.02 25,648 20.0% 5,130 3,847 866 710 2,307 38,507 31,449 ASPHALT PAVEMENT/BASE, ASSUME 6"/ 4" 31,449 SF 6.93 217,810 20.0% 43,562 32,672 7,351 6,028 19,591 327,013 EXTRA FOR CURBS, GUTTERS, V-GUTTERS 1 LS 8,520.00 8,520 20.0% 1,704 1,278 288 236 766 12,792

SITE STRUCTURE, COMPLETE
DEEP CLEANING BAY N.I.C.

FARE/REVENUE, CLEANING STORAGE, & ELECT'L ROOM N.I.C.

TRASH ENCLOSURE 263 SF 60.00 15,780 20.0% 3,156 2,367 533 437 1,419 23,692

FENCING
PERIMETER FENCING (SOUTH & WEST EXCLUDED) 250 LF 80.00 20,000 20.0% 4,000 3,000 675 554 1,799 30,027 40'L ROLLING GATE + MOTOR 1 EA 20,250.00 20,250 20.0% 4,050 3,038 683 560 1,821 30,403 UTILITY YARD FENCE/GATE 142 LF 80.00 11,360 20.0% 2,272 1,704 383 314 1,022 17,056 EXTERIOR STORAGE FENCE/GATE 92 LF 80.00 7,360 20.0% 1,472 1,104 248 204 662 11,050

PV CANOPY STRUCTURE
NORTH/SOUTH CANOPIES, COMPLETE (NO METAL DECK) 6,600 SF 60.00 396,000 20.0% 79,200 59,400 13,365 10,959 35,618 594,542

SITE MISCELLANEOUS
PARKING STALL STRIPING - ADA + SIGNAGE 1 EA 1,225.00 1,225 20.0% 245 184 41 34 110 1,839 PARKING STALL STRIPING - NON REVENUE 3 EA 75.00 225 20.0% 45 34 8 6 20 338 PARKING STALL STRIPING - MINI VAN 5 EA 75.00 375 20.0% 75 56 13 10 34 563 PARKING STALL STRIPING - CUT AWAY BUS 20 EA 90.00 1,800 20.0% 360 270 61 50 162 2,702 MISC. SITE IMPROVEMENTS / SIGNAGE ALLOWANCE 1 LS 43,140.00 43,140 20.0% 8,628 6,471 1,456 1,194 3,880 64,769

PLUMBING UTILITIES
STORM DRAINS (W/ BIO RETENTIONS) 33,845 SF 5.00 169,225 20.0% 33,845 25,384 5,711 4,683 15,221 254,069 DOMESTIC WATER 33,845 SF 1.20 40,614 20.0% 8,123 6,092 1,371 1,124 3,653 60,977 FIRE WATER 33,845 SF 1.50 50,768 20.0% 10,154 7,615 1,713 1,405 4,566 76,221 SEWER 33,845 SF 1.30 43,999 20.0% 8,800 6,600 1,485 1,218 3,957 66,059 447 ESTIMATE DETAIL

Prepared by Jacobus &Yuang, Inc.

PROJECT: CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, BEACH CITIES TRANSIT - OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY MASTER PLAN JOB #: C2677A-R1 LOCATION: REDONDO BEACH, CA DATE: 13-Jun-23
CLIENT: STANTEC REVISION: 14-Jun-23
DESCRIPTION: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - ESTIMATE DETAIL ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION EST QTY U
N
I
T

UNIT COST SUB CONTRACT
TOTAL
% CONTINGENCY DESIGN

CONTINGENCY
AMOUNT

GENERAL

CONDITIONS/

REQUIREMENTS

PHASING
FACTOR

BONDS GC FEE CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL

20.00% 12.50% 2.50% 2.00% 6.50%

ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
PRIMARY / SECONDARY POWER SERVICE 33,845 SF 1.50 50,768 20.0% 10,154 7,615 1,713 1,405 4,566 76,221

NORMAL POWER (BUILDING SWITCHBOARD, BEB CHARGER

SWITCHBOARD, FEEDERS, UTILITY PADS, COMPLETE)
33,845 SF 25.00 846,125 20.0% 169,225 126,919 28,557 23,417 76,104 1,270,346 EMERGENCY POWER (ATS, GENSET, & FEEDERS, COMPLETE) 33,845 SF 17.50 592,288 20.0% 118,458 88,843 19,990 16,392 53,273 889,243

BEB CHARGERS & FEEDERS
- 120 kW CHARGING CABINET, COMPLETE 11 EA 80,482.50 885,308 20.0% 177,062 132,796 29,879 24,501 79,628 1,329,174 - PLUG-IN DISPENSERS, COMPLETE 22 EA 37,366.88 822,071 20.0% 164,414 123,311 27,745 22,751 73,940 1,234,232 200A - 120kW FEEDER, COMPLETE 11 EA 10,909.09 120,000 20.0% 24,000 18,000 4,050 3,321 10,793 180,164 100A - 60kW FEEDER, COMPLETE 22 EA 15,272.73 336,000 20.0% 67,200 50,400 11,340 9,299 30,221 504,460 - EXTRA FOR BOLLARD 44 EA 1,250.00 55,000 20.0% 11,000 8,250 1,856 1,522 4,947 82,575

PV PANELS
- PV PANELS + CIRCUITRY/INVERTER, COMPLETE - ASSUME (1) PV PANEL/MODULE @ 420W @ 24.10 SF = 274 MODULES @
115.08kW TOTAL
6,600 SF 61.03 402,780 20.0% 80,556 60,417 13,594 11,147 36,228 604,721 SITE LIGHTING 33,845 SF 2.00 67,690 20.0% 13,538 10,154 2,285 1,873 6,088 101,628 SITE SECURITY 33,845 SF 0.50 16,923 20.0% 3,385 2,538 571 468 1,522 25,408 INCOMING COMMUNICATIONS 33,845 SF 0.75 25,384 20.0% 5,077 3,808 857 703 2,283 38,111 SUBTOTAL 5,430,909 1,086,182 814,636 183,293 150,300 488,476 8,153,797

4.0 ADMIN-OPS & MAINTENANCE FACILITY (EQ. SEPARATE) $

BUILDING PARAMETERS
BUILDING GFA (PROGRAMMED) 17,256 GSF DIMENSIONS
MAINTENANCE FACILITY 8,492 SF 64' x 132.70'
WASH BAY & EQUIPMENT ROOM 2,490 SF 64' x 45.90'
ADMIN-OPS (2ND FLOOR) 6,274 SF 64' x 98'
EMPLOYEE PATIO (2ND FLOOR, NOT PART OF GSF) 1,050 SF

SUBSTRUCTURE
FOUNDATION 17,256 GSF 13.26 228,792 20.0% 45,758 34,319 7,722 6,332 20,578 343,501 SLAB ON-GRADE - MAINTENANCE 8,492 SF 10.39 88,222 20.0% 17,644 13,233 2,978 2,442 7,935 132,454 SLAB ON-GRADE - BUS WASH 2,490 SF 16.43 40,901 20.0% 8,180 6,135 1,380 1,132 3,679 61,407 EXTRA FOR REPAIR BAY PIT 3 EA 60,000.00 180,000 20.0% 36,000 27,000 6,075 4,982 16,190 270,246 EXTRA FOR WASH BAY PIT/HOLDING PIT 1 EA 40,000.00 40,000 20.0% 8,000 6,000 1,350 1,107 3,598 60,055 EXTRA FOR ELEVATOR PIT 1 EA 15,000.00 15,000 20.0% 3,000 2,250 506 415 1,349 22,521

STRUCTURE
STEEL STRUCTURE 17,256 GSF 72.00 1,242,432 20.0% 248,486 186,365 41,932 34,384 111,749 1,865,349 METAL DECK + TOPPING - 2ND FLOOR 6,274 SF 12.11 75,994 20.0% 15,199 11,399 2,565 2,103 6,835 114,095 METAL DECK + TOPPING - 2ND FLOOR PATIO 1,050 SF 12.11 12,718 20.0% 2,544 1,908 429 352 1,144 19,094 METAL DECK, NO TOPPING - ROOF 9,932 SF 6.61 65,675 20.0% 13,135 9,851 2,217 1,818 5,907 98,602

ENCLOSURE
VERTICAL ENCLOSURE 17,256 GSF 36.00 621,216 20.0% 124,243 93,182 20,966 17,192 55,875 932,674 HORIZONTAL ENCLOSURE 17,256 GSF 20.00 345,120 20.0% 69,024 51,768 11,648 9,551 31,041 518,152

INTERNALS
INTERNALS, VERTICAL 17,256 GSF 15.00 258,841 20.0% 51,768 38,826 8,736 7,163 23,281 388,616 INTERNALS, HORIZONTAL 17,256 GSF 9.00 155,304 20.0% 31,061 23,296 5,242 4,298 13,969 233,169 MAINTENANCE OFFICES & SUPPORT AREAS 707 SF 10.50 7,426 20.0% 1,485 1,114 251 206 668 11,149 ADMIN-OPS OFFICES & SUPPORT AREAS 2,950 SF 12.50 36,870 20.0% 7,374 5,531 1,244 1,020 3,316 55,355 SMALL CONFERENCE ROOM 180 SF 20.00 3,600 20.0% 720 540 122 100 324 5,405

INTERIOR BUILD-OUTS (INCLUDES CABINETRIES, SPECIALTIES, FURNISHINGS, ETC.)
448 ESTIMATE DETAIL

Prepared by Jacobus &Yuang, Inc.

PROJECT: CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, BEACH CITIES TRANSIT - OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY MASTER PLAN JOB #: C2677A-R1 LOCATION: REDONDO BEACH, CA DATE: 13-Jun-23
CLIENT: STANTEC REVISION: 14-Jun-23
DESCRIPTION: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - ESTIMATE DETAIL ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION EST QTY U
N
I
T

UNIT COST SUB CONTRACT
TOTAL
% CONTINGENCY DESIGN

CONTINGENCY
AMOUNT

GENERAL

CONDITIONS/

REQUIREMENTS

PHASING
FACTOR

BONDS GC FEE CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL

20.00% 12.50% 2.50% 2.00% 6.50%
LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM 420 SF 20.00 8,400 20.0% 1,680 1,260 284 232 756 12,612 TRAINING ROOM 576 SF 20.00 11,520 20.0% 2,304 1,728 389 319 1,036 17,296 KITCHEN / BREAKROOM 660 SF 35.00 23,100 20.0% 4,620 3,465 780 639 2,078 34,682 RESTROOM / SHOWER 198 SF 50.00 9,900 20.0% 1,980 1,485 334 274 890 14,864 MEN'S / WOMEN'S RESTROOM W/ LOCKERS 720 SF 80.00 57,600 20.0% 11,520 8,640 1,944 1,594 5,181 86,479 OPS STORAGE / OPERATOR'S LOCKERS 414 SF 15.00 6,210 20.0% 1,242 932 210 172 559 9,324 LACTATION / QUIET ROOM 156 SF 30.00 4,680 20.0% 936 702 158 130 421 7,026 CUSTODIAN 144 SF 12.00 1,728 20.0% 346 259 58 48 155 2,594 MAINTENANCE PARTS STORAGE 1,725 SF 7.50 12,938 20.0% 2,588 1,941 437 358 1,164 19,425 MAINTENANCE SHOPS 1,341 SF 7.50 10,057 20.0% 2,011 1,509 339 278 905 15,099 REPAIR BAYS 3,450 SF 7.00 24,150 20.0% 4,830 3,623 815 668 2,172 36,258 LUBE COMPRESSOR 345 SF 7.00 2,415 20.0% 483 362 82 67 217 3,626 UTILITY ROOMS 780 SF 5.00 3,900 20.0% 780 585 132 108 351 5,855 WASH BAY / WASH EQUIPMENT ROOM 2,940 SF 3.00 8,820 20.0% 1,764 1,323 298 244 793 13,242

SUPPORT ITEMS
MISC. ROUGH CARPENTRY 17,256 GSF 0.40 6,902 20.0% 1,380 1,035 233 191 621 10,362 MISC. METALS 17,256 GSF 1.00 17,256 20.0% 3,451 2,588 582 478 1,552 25,908 MISC. CAULKING/SEALANTS 17,256 GSF 0.35 6,040 20.0% 1,208 906 204 167 543 9,068 MISC. FIREPROOFING/FIRESTOPPING 17,256 GSF 0.30 5,177 20.0% 1,035 777 175 143 466 7,773

MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT

SEE SUMMARY

BUS WASH EQUIPMENT

SEE SUMMARY

CONVEYING
METAL PAN STAIR, SWITCHBACK, COMPLETE 1 FLT 37,500.00 37,500 20.0% 7,500 5,625 1,266 1,038 3,373 56,301 PASSENGER ELEVATOR, 2-STOP 1 EA 190,000.00 190,000 20.0% 38,000 28,500 6,413 5,258 17,089 285,260

FIRE PROTECTION
FIRE PROTECTION 17,256 GSF 7.05 121,575 20.0% 24,315 18,236 4,103 3,365 10,935 182,529

PLUMBING
PLUMBING, COMPLETE (INCLUDES +/-28 FIXTURES) 17,256 GSF 16.23 280,000 20.0% 56,000 42,000 9,450 7,749 25,184 420,383 EXTRA FOR WASH BAY PLUMBING 2,160 SF 10.00 21,600 20.0% 4,320 3,240 729 598 1,943 32,430 EXTRA FOR PROCESS PIPING - LUBE COMPRESSOR SHOP 345 SF 18.00 6,210 20.0% 1,242 932 210 172 559 9,324 HVAC
HVAC SYSTEM, COMPLETE 17,256 GSF 41.10 709,160 20.0% 141,832 106,374 23,934 19,626 63,785 1,064,711

ELECTRICAL
ELECTRICAL 17,256 GSF 42.46 732,700 20.0% 146,540 109,905 24,729 20,277 65,902 1,100,053 COMMUNICATIONS 17,256 GSF 8.59 148,204 20.0% 29,641 22,231 5,002 4,102 13,330 222,509 FIRE ALARM 17,256 GSF 7.07 122,086 20.0% 24,417 18,313 4,120 3,379 10,981 183,296 SECURITY 17,256 GSF 4.63 79,816 20.0% 15,963 11,972 2,694 2,209 7,179 119,833 SUBTOTAL 6,087,755 1,217,551 913,163 205,462 168,479 547,556 9,139,965 449 ESTIMATE DETAIL

450
APPENDIX G: FINAL STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Prior to approval by Redondo Beach City Council, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, and El Segundo Staff were provided a draft final copy of the Beach Cities Transit Study Report to provide comments.

Manhattan Beach was the only beach city to provide comments on the Draft Study Report.

13.1 Manhattan Beach
Manhattan Beach Staff provided comments to the draft of the Beach Cities Transit Study Report. While Staff “generally support the overall goals and comprehensive nature of its [the TSS Report] recommendations” they “offer[ed] several comments and observations… to consider for inclusion in the Final Report and Implementation Plan.” Below includes those comments with additional context or references to the pertinent pieces of the TSS.

13.1.1 General Comments
Initial comments from Manhattan Beach Staff pertained to Appendix B: List of Senior Housing Complexes Within Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach and included:
“The Transit Study Report should identify the existing senior facilities within the City of Manhattan Beach in Appendix B: List of Senior Housing Complexes Within Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach when considering transit service planning, including”:

3. Manhattan Beach
a. Manhattan Village Senior Villas
1300 Parkview Ave,
Manhattan Beach, 90266
b. Manhattan Terrace
3400 N Valley Dr
Manhattan Beach, 90266
“The Transit Study Report should incorporate the City of Manhattan Beach’s General Plan Mobility Element inclusive of its goals and objectives into its Background Document Review” (Section 3.1).

13.1.2 Service Plan
Manhattan Beach Staff provided comments on the service plan with specific comments relating to Line 109 (Section 7.2.2) and the Manhattan Beach Blvd (Section 7.2.4). The comments are as follows:
“Staff supports the short –range and long-range service planning recommendations with attention on providing alternative transportation to seniors and other transit dependent users.” Citing recommendations for Line 109 outlined in the Service Plan section of the Executive Summary (Section 1.4) Manhattan Beach Staff “support the Line 109 service plan, as noted below:” • FY23-24 (Plan Year 1): re-route Line 109 around Manhattan Village Mall and Plaza El Segundo to provide more direct service, reduce travel time, and eliminate stops with very low ridership that are not pedestrian-friendly.

Comments pertaining to this recommendation included:

Appendix G: Final Stakeholder Comments
Beach Cities Transit – Transit Services Study
“We specifically request that BCT seriously consider the existing bus turnout on Saunders Way (by Macy’s) as the eastbound bus stop that serves the Manhattan Village Shopping Center, and by its proximity, the Manhattan Village Senior Apartments and The Pointe. This bus turnout provides a safe location with existing amenities that is protected from high speed vehicles and closer to the users’ destinations. It has an easy right turn in-right out configuration using Cedar Way and Village Drive respectively with very little added travel time. See attached sketch.” (Figure G-1) • FY24-25 (Plan Year 2): adjust routing around LAX to serve the AMC to provide a direct connection to LAX APM and other transit operators at the AMC. • FY24-25 (Plan Year 2): terminate Line 109 at the Pier and extend Line 102 south from the Pier to Riviera Village to enable easier transfers, provide easier access to the Pier and Veterans Park Senior Center, and better reflect travel patterns in South Redondo. • FY26-27 (Plan Year 4): improve weekday AM and PM peak hour service to every 35 minutes to provide a better experience for riders who use Line 109 during peak hours.

Figure G-1: Bus Turnout on Saunders Way Serving the Manhattan Village Markup Provided by Manhattan Beach Staff