June 28, 2022 – Richmond City Council Meeting
Evaluation Summary
Richmond City Council Meeting
Agenda
2 1. Phase 2 Purpose and Process
2. Corridor Conditions and Project Need
3. Potential Solutions
4. Bicycle + Parking Options
5. Key Takeaways and Next Steps
Richmond City Council Meeting
3 Purpose &
Process
Richmond City Council Meeting
Improve multimodal mobility, efficiency,
and safety to sustainably meet current and
future transportation needs and help
support strong growth along the corridor
while still maintaining local contexts.
4 Corridor Study Purpose
Promote equitable transportation
and design solutions
Effectively and efficiently accommodate
anticipated growth
Improve comfort and quality
of trips for all users
Enhance safety for
all travel modes
Support economic development
and adopted land use policies
Goals
Richmond City Council Meeting
• Effort led by Alameda CTC with financial support
and involvement by WCCTAC and CCTA
• Study area extended between downtown
Oakland and Hilltop Mall
• Project Efforts:
• Assessed existing conditions
• Identified corridor needs
• Developed concepts for a typical roadway cross-
section width
• Evaluated alternative feasibility
• Conducted public engagement activities, including
surveys, focus groups, and open houses
San Pablo Avenue Corridor Project
Phase 1 Summary
San Pablo Avenue Corridor Study Area5
Richmond City Council Meeting
Phase 2 Project Process
6 Phase 2 - Agency Partners and Study Limits
Study Need:
Complete a Contra Costa
County-focused technical
analysis to address questions
raised by public and WCCTAC
board during Phase 1
Desired Study Outcome:
Identify viable alternatives
that can be advanced in
future project phases and
that can be referenced in
ongoing and future projects
on the corridor
Assess feasibility and
implications on connectivity
Process:
Identify concept alternatives
for specific locations
Quantitatively evaluate transit
and auto performance
Consider outreach feedback
received in Phase 1
Summarize evaluation
findings
Richmond City Council Meeting
7 Corridor
Conditions and
Project Need
Richmond City Council Meeting
Conditions on the corridor today
8 Overlapping Local and Rapid Bus service provides bus
service every 7 minutes south of Macdonald. Rapid
service extends to Contra Costa College.
Bike lanes only in some segments in the City of San Pablo, far northern segment in Richmond near Hilltop Mall, and very short new segment constructed in El Cerrito (approx. 20% of corridor) Long gaps between pedestrian crossings and many
uncontrolled crossings (e.g., multiple 0.4 mile gaps in protected crossings in El Cerrito)
Sidewalks are continuous, but narrow and not well
buffered from traffic in some locations
Used as an alternative to I-80 for longer-distance trips; 1/3 of trips on San Pablo Ave are just passing through
Existing curb-to-curb widths
Richmond City Council Meeting
9 Mode split on the corridor today
Note: Transit trips include trips on 72 series routes only and do not include BART or other bus routes Represents pre-Covid conditions
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Auto Person
Trips, 88.1%
Ped Trips,
1.0%
Bike Trips,
0.4% Transit
Trips,
10.5%
Moeser Lane to Manila Avenue
Auto Person
Trips, 87.1%
Ped Trips,
0.9%
Bike Trips,
0.2% Transit
Trips,
11.8%
Macdonald Ave to Barrett Avenue
Richmond City Council Meeting
Parking on the corridor today
• On-street parking on both sides of San
Pablo Avenue on most blocks
• Many commercial properties have off-
street parking
• Pre-pandemic weekday parking
occupancy was low (<60% on most
blocks), but higher near Stockton Ave on
weekends (70%-80%)
• Recent/planned developments reducing
amount of surface parking in some
corridor segments and with lower
parking requirements
• Assume greater use of alternative modes
Existing Parking Locations - Richmond10
Richmond City Council Meeting
Transit on the corridor today
• Well-utilized today
• 12,500 daily bus riders (approx. half in Contra
Costa County)
• More riders on 72-series routes than any other
AC Transit route (14% of the entire system
ridership)
• Bus speeds are about 30% slower than
auto speeds and speeds for both have
consistently been degrading
• Improving transit in this corridor is an
equitable solution
• 77% of 72-series passengers are non-white
• 61% of 72-series passengers make less than
$50,000 per year
11Sources: San Pablo Avenue Speed and Delay Study; AC Transit 2017-2018 on-board passenger survey; AC Transit Short Range Transit Plan, 2019-2029 PM Peak Period Northbound Bus Travel Time
Rapid buses spend 57% of
travel time stuck in congestion
Richmond City Council Meeting
What will happen to mobility if no
changes to San Pablo Avenue are
made?
Source: Equity Priority Communities for Plan Bay Area 205012 • 69% increase in PM traffic delay by 2035
• 12 minutes of additional Route 72R travel time
• Continued safety issues
• 62 injuries or fatalities in recent 5-year period1
• 18 involving pedestrians or cyclists, including 1 death1 • Walking and biking will remain difficult
• Discontinuous bicycle facilities
• Challenges crossing San Pablo Avenue and side-streets • Equity Priority Communities will be most impacted
• 93% of study area within ¼ mile of an equity priority community
• More difficult/time-consuming to access jobs and
recreation Legend
Equity Priority Communities
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1 Data for San Pablo Avenue within the City of Richmond Richmond City Council Meeting
13 Potential
Solutions
Richmond City Council Meeting
What are the options to improve pedestrian safety?
14 • Widen sidewalks
• Provide landscape buffers
• Provide bulbouts to shorten
crosswalks
• Install high-visibility crosswalks
• Upgrade curb ramps to meet ADA
standards
• Install pedestrian lighting, particularly
at crossings and bus stops
• Improve sidewalk conditions
• Add new crossings
• Improve safety of crossings with
signalization (pedestrian hybrid
beacons) and rapid rectangular
flashing beacons
Widen sidewalks and provide
landscape buffers
Image Source: NACTO
Image Source: Google
Shortened crosswalks
Image Source: Google
Pedestrian Lighting
Signalization
Image Source: Google
Richmond City Council Meeting
Image Source: AC Transit
What are the options to improve transit?
15 In-Lane Stops
Stop Consolidation
AFTER
BEFORE
Stop Relocation
Transit Signal PriorityQueue Jumps
Level Boarding
Richmond City Council Meeting
How could a BRT be configured in this corridor?
16 Image Source: SFMTA
Center-Running Bus Lanes Side-Running Bus Lanes
Image Source: Kimley-Horn
Richmond City Council Meeting
What are the benefits of BRT?
What are the challenges of BRT?
Significant cost to
rebuild street
Street reconstruction temporarily
affects access to businesses
Increased ridership (30%+) and mode shift from auto to
transit, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing mobility, particularly for equity priority communities
17 Improved travel time (30% to 45%) and reliability
(>60%) for buses can allow for more frequent service for same cost
Removal of one through lane reduces capacity
for auto vehicles and may increase diversion
Stops are placed further apart in order to improve
travel speed and reliability for users, which may
result in a longer walk to transit
Improved passenger
waiting areas
Energizes level of
economic activity
Richmond City Council Meeting
18 Benefits Specific to Center-Running BRT Benefits Specific to Side-Running BRT Less costly to construct bus lane due to reduced
median and signal impacts
Allows for more flexibility in use of bus lane by
non-BRT routes
Easier to implement in phases with a shorter
construction duration due to less infrastructure required Challenges Specific to Center-Running BRT
May be difficult to be used by non-BRT
bus routes operating on corridor
Eliminates existing medians,
including street trees
Challenges Specific to Side-Running BRT
Maximizes transit speed and reliability benefits
(approximately 10% faster than side-running)
Removes conflicts between the bus lane and
turning vehicle, parked cars, and bicyclist
Emphasizes permanence of
transit solution
Community access is affected by elimination of auto left- turns at unsignalized intersections and at stations
Does not allow for a time-managed
auto/parking lane in El Cerrito
Stations may be more constrained due to sharing
space with pedestrians or an adjacent bicycle
facility (if provided)
P
Increased likelihood of illegal double-parking in the bus lane, affecting bus travel time
Richmond City Council Meeting
What are the implications of converting a traffic lane to transit? • Additional traffic congestion on San Pablo Avenue Some drivers will change their mode, route, or time of day with center-running and side-running BRT • Center-running BRT: localized diversion due to left-turn restrictions • If all diverted auto traffic went to I-80, would increase peak hour volumes on I-80 by about 4% • Local traffic may divert to local streets; however, local diversion routes will experience diversion even with no changes to San Pablo Avenue and may not support significant additional diversion • Opportunity for traffic calming on diversion streets
19Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Metric Center-Running Side-Running
Auto Diversion 30%-35% 25%-30%
Richmond City Council Meeting
20 Diversion Analysis
• Identify the key travel markets (regional and local trips) • Identify the competing routes and how traffic would connect to these routes
• Estimate how the traffic volumes at each model input and route through the model is adjusted
• Capacity on alternative routes is limited
Arlington Ave
Richmond City Council Meeting
How does a transit lane affect bus and auto travel time? • Greatest bus travel time decrease and auto delay increase with transit lanes is in northern segment (Richmond/San Pablo)
• With No-Build, including ongoing transit signal priority projects, transit is 7% slower than auto in peak direction
21 Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Metric Center-Running Side-Running
Change in transit travel times (peak
direction) 30%-45% 25%-40%
Change in auto travel times
0%-45% 0%-35%
Bus speed relative to auto Bus is 25%-55% faster Bus is 15%-40% faster Richmond City Council Meeting
Transit ridership and reliability findings
• Bus travel time variability improves by over 50%-80% with both center and side- running options
• 30%-35% increase in ridership typical with high-quality BRT • Travel demand model in project Phase 1 projected a 35%-45% ridership increase with BRT 22 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
160
180
Segment 1: McBryde to
Church, Northbound
Segment 1: Church to
McBryde, Southbound
Segment 2: Cutting to I-80
Ramps, Northbound
Segment 2: I-80 Ramps to
Cutting, Southbound
Travel Time Standard Deviation (seconds)
Existing
2035 No Build
2035 Build: Side-Running BRT
2035 Build: Center-Running BRT
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Richmond City Council Meeting
23 Bicycle +
Parking
Options
Richmond City Council Meeting
What are the options to improve biking conditions?
24 • New protected bicycle lanes
(cycle tracks)
• Improved bicycle crossing markings
• New signalized bicycle crossings
(pedestrian hybrid beacons or
signals)
• Protected intersection treatments
• Transit islands to avoid bus-bike
conflicts at bus stops
Image Source: CATSIP
New & protected bike facilities
and crossings
New signalized bicycle crossings
Image Source: Google
Protected intersection
treatments
Image Source: Google
Richmond City Council Meeting
Can a low-stress bicycle facility be
provided on San Pablo Avenue?
• Significant number of driveways and
intersections will require crossing bicycle
facility
• Right-turn lanes will be needed at major
intersections
• Will require bicycle facility to be shared with
autos, buses, or narrow pedestrian facility
• Projected to remain at Level of Stress 4 for
cyclists (high level of stress)
• Lower stress options may be available on
parallel streets south of Rheem Avenue
25 Images Source: Google
Richmond City Council Meeting
What are the options for a lower-stress parallel bikeway? 26 Source: San Pablo Avenue Phase 1 Evaluation Report
See Lower Left
See Upper Right
San Pablo
Richmond
Richmond
El Cerrito
Legend
Parallel Bikeway
Proposed/Existing Bike Facilities
on San Pablo Ave
City Boundary
Richmond City Council Meeting
27 • Options range from:
• Parking Prioritized: Preserve most parking on both sides of the street where it exists today with some bike facilities on San Pablo and/or bike connectivity via a parallel route • Bicycle Prioritized: Provide a Class IIB/Class IV bike facility throughout, with parking on at least one side of the street in most areas. Bicycle facility, improved but remains higher-stress Center-Running
Side-Running
• Options range from:
• Parking Prioritized: Preserve most parking on both sides of the street where it exists today with bike connectivity via a parallel route and/or shared with the bus lane • Bicycle Prioritized: Provide a Class IV bike facility throughout, with most parking removed. Bicycle facility, improved but remains higher-stress
Parking and Bike Options
See maps depicting range of options for parking and bicycle provision on San Pablo Avenue in Council Memo Richmond City Council Meeting
2828
Key Takeaways
and Next
Steps
28 Richmond City Council Meeting
Comparison of Transit Solutions
Metric No-Build
Center-Running Side-Running
Maximize Bicycle Maximize Parking Maximize Bicycle Maximize Parking Transit Performance
Auto Performance
Pedestrian Safety
Bicycle Connectivity & Comfort
Parking and Loading
Community and Business Access
Ease of Implementation
Cost per Mile $$$$ $$-$$$ $$-$$$ $-$$
Better than existing
No change
Worse than existing
29 Richmond City Council Meeting
Key Takeaways
30 There is community support for improvements in the
corridor, but no consensus thus far on the type of
improvements
Center-running bus lanes provide 30%-45% transit travel time savings and would be approximately 10% faster
than side-running
Center-running bus lanes provide greatest opportunity
for both parking and bike lanes throughout the corridor.
Side-running allows for either/or in most segments
P
Without improvements, congestion will significantly
increase (69% increase in delays), impacting mobility
options
Side-running bus lanes avoid some of the
implementation challenges of center-running and can
be easily used by all bus routes in the corridor
A low-stress bike facility cannot be provided
but parallel route options are limited in the northern
portion
On-street parking is currently plentiful and redundant, but new, more dense development will change the role
of on-street parkingP
Richmond City Council Meeting
What are some options on what to do next?
31 1. Do not advance corridor-wide improvements
2. Implement safety enhancements, such as pedestrian
crossing improvements and ADA upgrades
3. Advance a near-term project, similar to Alameda County • Safety enhancements
• Side-running bus lanes
4. Advance a Long-Term Project
• Safety enhancements
• Center- or side-running bus lanes
• Bicycle and/or parking improvements
Next Steps
Engagement
Concept Design
Funding Plan
Less
More
Additional variant: Identify a phasing strategy and focus initial efforts on a first phase segment Richmond City Council Meeting
Questions for Decision-Makers
1. Should we focus right now on pedestrian safety
improvements only?
2. Should we continue to consider a corridor-wide bus lane solution?
3. If a bus lane is desired, is there a preference for side- running or center-running?
4. What is the priority between a parking lane and a bike lane? Does the priority vary geographically?
32