Richmond City Council
September 12, 2023

This project will improve multimodal connections be tween the BART station to the Richmond Annex and the Richmond Bay Specific Plan Area. This area is adjacent to the Richmond Bay Specific Plan Area which expects a variety of uses to develop catalyzed by the connection to the waterfront and to the potential Bay Campus developm ent.

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 80
Development around the El Cerrito Plaza BART Statio n within the City of El Cerrito is guided by the El Cerrito San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (2015). The Specific Plan establishes a form -based land use designation (Transit- Oriented, High -Intensity Mixed Use – TOHIMU) for parcels around the station as well as guidance for mobility and civ ic space improvements.

TOD Criteria Assessment
 Streetscape improvements and multimodal connections from the efforts of the City of El Cerrito will provide better commuter access to the activity center.  The area within one mile of the BART station is des ignated as a Gateway Activity Center in the Richmond General Plan. This designation sign ifies this area is intended to support pedestrian -friendly and transit friendly development.
 Large area of residential uses in neighborhoods adj acent to activity center to support the retail, commercial, and services.
 There are a number of vacant parcels within walking distance of BART including at least four small vacant residential parcels and at least six l arge vacant commercial parcels.  The connection between the B ART station and the activity center is impeded by t he I -80 underpass. Most of the gateway connection to the BA RT station is outside of the City of Richmond boundary, which leaves the city with less control of the development of this key connection.
 Zoning designation of Regional Commercial may lead to a mo re auto -oriented retail environment versus a pedestrian/ multimodal oriented environment that is described in the General Plan.
 The Ohlone Greenway is accessible from this area an d provides a connection to the Richmond Greenway creating a bike and pedestrian co nnection from central Richmond and El Cerrito del Norte BART Station.
 Of development parcels, the c urrent building project at 5620 Central Avenue is on 2.58 acres of land and located partially within the City of El Cerrito ( but much of the site is within City of Richmond). One hundred and seventy -two (172) below -market rate apartments are proposed in a podium building with o n level of above -ground parking totaling five stories.

Contra Costa County Transit Center
Existing Development Summary
In 2016, t he City of San Pablo conducted an economic and desi gn feasibility study in order to further implementation on four key opportunity site s identified in the San Pablo Avenue and 23 rd Street Specific Plans. Th e intersection of Rumrill Boulevard and San Pablo Avenue was studied as a potential transit hub. The sites adjacent to the intersection are underutilized and could be redeveloped into retail/ service uses serving the tr ansit hub and residential uses serving Contra Costa College. Multimodal improvements can connect transit riders to the College and to planned bicycle infrastructure along Rumrill Boulevard.

The WCCTAC is studying alternatives for transit imp rovements along San Pablo Avenue to create a transit hub at Contra Costa College , building upon the existing bus transfer point on campus .

These improvements would create a connection from c entral Richmond to Hilltop Mall and Richmond Parkway, improving TOD potential at the mo st northern activity center.

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 81
Figure 48 Opportunity Site Study from SCS by Strengthening Public Health Plan

TOD Criteria Assessment
 Most of the gateway connection to the BART station is outside of the City of Richmond boundary, whi ch leaves the city with less control of the develop ment of this key connection. The City of San Pablo has focused planning efforts on this area including Complete Streets S tudy (20 15) for improvements along San Pablo Avenue and Rumrill Boulevard , improved development standards with the San Pablo Specific P lan, and economic feasibility studies of key opportunity sit es at gateway intersections.  Proximity and connection to Contra Costa College an d to several underutilized parcels make this area ready for more intense and transit- oriented development  There is a potential bike/ pedestrian connection to Bay T rail along the San Pablo Creek, and a p arallel connection existing along Wildcat Creek.  There are a number of large, vacant , and underutilized parcels in the Richmond city limits including at least one residential parcel an d seven industrial parcels – all within a one-m ile radius of the transit station.
 Potential t ransit i mprovements studied by WCCTAC include :
− Potential Bus Rapid Transit station would connect t his area to Hilltop Mall, El Cerrito BART Stations and central Richmond.
− Potential BART extension with stops at Contra Costa College and connections north to Richmond Parkway and Hercules and south to centr al Richmond and beyond.

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 82

SHARED MOBILITY
There a re many alternate terms for shared mobilit y; the term commonly includes “the shared use of a vehicle, bicycle, or other mode .”38 In essence, the vehicle is “shared” by many paying users, but unlike regular fixed -route public transportation, shared mobility typically includes services that are responsive to immediate user demands. Thes e user demands are often enabled by technology, ranging from a phone call to a stationa ry kiosk, or a mobile app.

This section discusses existing shared mobility options in Ric hmond and the greater East Bay area. By virtue of its location in the Bay Area and California, Richmond is the beneficiary to many services emerging from the shared mobility sector, but not all services are necessarily available within the city limits. Ser vices which have incorporated Richmond as part of a larger shared mobility network are either via major national oper ations (such as Uber, Lyft, and Zipcar), or are part of a special consortium of funders (such as Ea st Bay Paratransit).

Taxis
Taxis are an intuitive “last mile” option for all individuals d isembarking from the rapid transit system. All BART stations have designated curb spac e for the sole use of taxis as a waiting area for pick -ups . In outlying transit hubs, including the future Fe rry Termin al and the RPTC, there are no designated taxi areas at this time.

Taxicabs are regulated in the City of Richmond as f ollows:
 The Director of Public Works may “establish taxi z ones on the central traffic district for the exclusive use by taxicabs (Municip al Code 14.48.0 90) .”  Taxi zones are marked by white curbs and signage .
 All taxi cab companies operating in Richmond must c ollectively pay the City $50.0 0 per quarter per “parking space designated as a taxi zone .”  “Every person engaged in the business of op erating vehicles for hire or taxicabs shall pay a license fee of eighty -three dollars and sixty cents ($83.60) per vehicle per year. (Municipal Code 7.04.120)”
 The cap of 60 taxicabs in the City was repealed by Ordinance 9 -80 N.S.

The availability of taxis is relatively concentrated at stations . Even before the growth of ride- hailing mobile application s, taxi drivers experienced difficulty sustaining a steady income. 39 Paratransit
As discussed in the prior chapter, there are two pa ratransit service provides in Richmond: East Bay Paratransit, which is jointly provided by AC Tr ansit and BART ; and R- Transit, provided by the City of Richmond and based at the Richmond BART . R-Transit riders must be a resident of Richmond, North Richmond, El Sobrante, or Kensingt on. 40 In Fiscal Year 2015/ 2016, East Bay

38 Shaheen, Chan, Bansal, and Cohen, Shared Mobility: Definitions, Industry Developments, and Early Understanding, 2015.
39 http://richmondconfidential.org/2009/10/13/rough-roads-for-richmonds-cab-drivers/ 40 http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2880/R-Transit-Paratransit

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 83
Paratransit had 17,273 ADA eligible riders on their database and an average of 2,526 riders per weekday. 41
The City of Richmond conducted an internal audit of p aratransit services in J anuary 200 8 to provide an overvie w of the p rogram’s operations and service levels as well as r ecommendations to City management to improve the p rogram’s effectiveness, efficiency, organizational structure , and internal controls. A follow-up report was produced in J une 20 08 to document pro gress of the recommendations , which included the following :
 Outsource vans, drivers, and related scheduling to a private company to allow for more flexibility in scaling services .
 Develop and document policies and procedures for pa ratransit operations.  Inc rease the cost of van coupons relative to the cost of taxi scrip to incentivize passengers to use lower -cost taxi services in lieu of vans .
 Move the program offices to the Recreation Departme nt to improve integration with other senior services .
 Improve coo rdination with East Bay Paratransit to avoid duplic ating services .  Program staff should be adequately cross -trained to ensure that all important program tasks are accomplished in the absence of any manage r or employee .  Improve program monitoring and progre ss evaluation .  Purchase scheduling software to prepare the daily d river schedules .  Ensure that the re venue accounts included in the p rogram’s annual budget are reasonable, adequately supported , and conservative.

From 2012 to 2014, as part of a clean air se ttlement with Chevron, a series of transportation programs were piloted in Richmond. The overarching program, known as “Easy Go Richmond,” included paratransit services, as well as car and b icycle sharing programs (which are described later in this section ). The paratransit system was among the most popula r, in contrast with the light usage of the car sharing service. One paratr ansit service known as the “kids cab” incorporated demand-response rides for children hea ding to after school programs and had an average of 1 ,730 rides and 346 reservations per month . The “deviated” route, which had an average of 1,380 rides and 276 reservations per mon th, “ drove non -paratransit eligible and low income families around on shopping trips, grocery r uns and communities events .”42 These programs were discounted due to lack of ongoing fun ding.

TNCs / Ridesharing
Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), which are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, are a common term for the smartphone an d ride -hailing services provided by companies such as Uber and Lyft. Through the use of a mobile smartphone app lication, a ride - hailing user requests a door -to-door ride. Users have a choice of sharing their rid e; if selected, the app lication will match the user with a nea rby driver as well as other users who are nearby and traveling in the same general direction. In this wa y, the driver is paid to share space in their vehicle to provide rides to willing and paying user s. Both Uber and Lyft are available within

41 http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/19554/7.2_EBP_SRAC_Meeting_Minutes_20160503.pdf 42 http://richmondconfidential.org/2014/12/06/after-exhausting-1-8-million-funding-richmonds-easy-go-program- yields-low-usage-rates-at-high-costs/

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 84
Richmond, an d both offer ride -sharing options , known as UberPool and Lyft Line respectively.

Although more data is slowly becoming available, th ere is currently no information on ridesharing usage within Richmond. The San Francisco County Tra nsportation Authority (SFC TA) recently assembled a report of TNC vehicle activity, but it only analy zes rides taking place entirely within the City of San Francisco. However, it was observed that only 29% of registered TNC vehicle s in San Francisco are actually based in San Francis co. Twelve percent of registered TNC vehicles were based in Contra Costa County, which is the fourth m ost represented county. This implies that significant amounts of TNC vehicles are regularly m aking trips into San Francisco. It was noted that future repo rts will build on this research, including transit demand impacts and policies regarding safety, congestion, disabled access, equi ty, and curbside management. 43 The Richmond BART station, in its current form, lac ks a visible designated passenger loading zone. Although the ongoing construction surrounding t he area may affect the placement and availability of such curbside zones, TNC drivers may not have a clear designation of where they may — and may not— pick up passengers. This is an ongoing issue throug hout many cities which have yet to comprehensively inventory and regulate curbside space.

The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) re ceived a regional planning grant to create a pilot a Real -time Ridesharing program. The program is intended t o assist r iders and drivers in creating instant carpools. The program relied on ma ny partners, including a real- time ride - sharing smartphone app, a technology vendor, and ne ighboring county transportation organizations. 44 A targeted marketing approach to the program resulted in the signups of 500 participants in the first two weeks. 45 In 2014, 3,500 new accounts on the app were created , and 4,000 one -way shared trips were taken. The real-time ridesharing concept will continue being examined through 2019. 46
Car Share
Car sharing programs allow people to have on -demand access to a shared fleet of vehicles on an as-needed basis, but are different than traditional car rentals in that :
 System users must be members of a car -sharing organization .  Fee structures typically empha size short -term rentals rather than daily or weekly rentals .  Vehicle reservations and access are “self-service.”
 Vehicle locations are widely distributed rather than concentrated  Most systems require vehicles to be picked up and dr opped off at the same loc ation.

Car sharing has the potential to reduce household car ownership , and allow employees who commute by transit to use a shared car for midday e rrands if needed.

Among Richmond’s transit hubs and gateways, the onl y car share vehicles are located in the El Cerrito del Norte BART station. At a Chevron gas station at the intersecti on of San Pablo and Potrero Avenue s, there are three Zipcar (the nation’s largest car share service) vehicles available.

43 http://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/content/Planning/TNCs/TNCs_Today_061317.pdf 44 http://www.ccta.net/_resources/detail/115/2
4545 http://www.circlepoint.com/casestudies/ccta-real-time-ridesharing-pilot-program-2/ 46 http://ccta.net/uploads/555a7b6429289.pdf

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 85
Other BART stations such as Ashby, Rockridge, and West O akland include car share spaces on BART property . The placement of these car sharing spaces on station property demonstrates the potential use of car share for connecting trips to transit.

Turo (formerly RelayRides) is a peer -to-peer car share service, al lowing people to rent out their vehicles. This service is available in Richmond. Un ique to Turo is the option of having a rented vehicle being “delivered” directly to the location of the customer.

A similar service, Getaround, does not currently of fer veh icles in Richmond. In 20 12, Getaround participated in an electric car sharing program, wh ich was funded indirectly by the “Easy Go Richmond” program . The services, which were intended “to demonstrate that peer -to-peer car can work just as well in smaller t owns and rural areas a s it does in dense urban cities,” included a bike sharing system, a van sharing program, and a “kid’s cab” program. 47 The operation, which was primarily contracted by transMetro, included 15 vehicles at Richmond Transit Village (a mix of Miles electric vans and Toyota Prius hybrid seda ns), six vehicles at Hilltop Mall , and another six on -demand vehicles that had to be parked in an on -site warehouse . From J anuary 2012 through the car share program’s suspension in Augus t 2013, an average of only four daily reservations, or 120 per month, were made. 48
Gig is a one -way car share service that was introduced to the Ea st Bay by the American Automobile Association (AAA) in 2017. The system wo rks in that an individual may locate a car (one amongs t a fleet of identical Toyota Priuses) via a map lo cator on the car share company’s mobile app. When the trip is complete, the driver m ust park within what is currently deemed the “Home Zone” (Central Oakland and the City of Berkel ey).

Bicycle Share
Bay Area Bike Share (also known as Ford GoBikes), t he most prolific program, is a traditional “second generation” bicycle share system, in that b ikes are docked at locking stations placed along plazas, sidewalk zones, or the parking lane of a stre et. These stat ions, which are intended to be located in prominent and accessible destinations, a re where a casual user may walk up, enter a credit card into a kiosk, and check out a bike. In addition to a bike share membership (which may last from a day to a month), bikes are charged by a n escalating fee based on how long the bike is checked out (usually with an initial grace period). All bikes are expected to be returned to a station, but in theory, any willing and paying user could take the bike to any intermediate des tination. Although the current expansion of Ford Go Bike includes the East Bay, there are currently no BABS/ Ford GoBike bicycle share station s planned for the City of Richmond.

The Bay Area also has a variety of smaller “station -less” bike share systems (in cluding Social Bicycles and J ump). These systems are primarily fun ded by private enterprises for the benefit of their employees (e.g., Genentech’s campus has a bic ycle share system under the auspices of their “gRide” transportation demand management progra m).

In 2012, the City of Richmond did have a bicycle sh aring system as a part of the “easy Go Richmond” program. Lasting through the initial fund ing stage, a total of 32 bikes were purchased for use at the Richmond BART Station and Liberty Village areas. H owever, the bike share system

47 http://blog.getaround.com/peer-to-peer-electric-car-sharing-enhances-richmonds-green-transport-initiative/ 48 http://richmondconfidential.org/2014/12/06/after-exhausting-1-8-million-funding-richmonds-easy-go-program- yields-low-usage-rates-at-high-costs/

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 86
was hindered by poor maintenance and confusion about how to acces s the bikes, and only 89 reservations were made over the entire program, or four per month. 49

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Transportation demand management ( TDM) refers to policies, physical amenities, progra ms, tools, and services that support the use of sustain able modes. TDM works with the existing transportation system to expand and support mobilit y options that accommodate future growth while meeting larg er city goals. Supporting bicycling, walking, using transit , and carpooling makes it easier for all users to reduce reliance on driving alone, and provides larger environmental benefits through lower emissions, hea lth benefits through increased safety, and community benefits through active public spaces and streets. Often, investment in first mile/ last mile connections is a large part of TDM, as these i nvestments strive to improve physical access to transit and increase awareness of sustainable trave l modes . However, where first mile/ last mile connections’ objective is to make these sustainable travel modes more accessible and attractive, TDM also includes mechanisms to discourage or disin centivize the use of single occupancy vehicles.

The provision of free or underpriced, readily avail able parking is a major contributor to one’s decision to drive. Overbuilding parking supply leads to increased auto mobile use, contributing to more vehicle trips, traffic congestion, higher cons truction costs, and greenhouse gas emission s. 50 There is a strong correlation between the price of parkin g and the rate at which people park. The more the price of parking reflects its true cost (i ncluding land, construction, operations), the more likely drivers with a choice will consider using non -driving modes for all or some of their trips. In this way, TDM uses mechanisms such as parking suppl y management and dynamic pricing reveal the true impacts of parking and discourages driving while preserving access to parking for those who need it.

This section provides the larger context for TDM in the City of Richmond , including TDM policies and regulations, and summarizes the overarching str ucture of the chapters that follow.

City TDM Policies
The City of Richmond updated the Zoning and Subdi vision Regulations of the Richmond Municipal Code in November 2016, which included an article requiring residential and commercial developments to implement transportation demand management programs with the goal of reducing single -occupant vehicle trips g enerated by the development. Currently, there have been no development applications that fall und er this requirement.

The City also currently has a Commuter Benefits Ord inance (CBO), which requires employers with 10 or more employees to implement a Commute r Benefits Program (CBP). The ordinance encourages commuters to use sustainable methods of transportation such as public transit, vanpools, carpools, biking, telecommuting, and alte rnative work schedules to reduce reliance on single -occupant vehicle trips. Compliance is required from private businesses, pub lic agencies, and non- profit organizations within the city limits and wit h fewer than 50 employees. For employers with 50 or more employees in the City of Richmond or across all sites in the Bay Area, the employer must register with the Bay Area Commuter B enefits Program and is exempt from

49 Ibid.
50 King County Metro, http://www.rightsizeparking.org/about.php.

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 87
registering with the City of Richmond. The CBO requ ires employers to offer at least one of the following benefits:
 A program allowing employees to exclude $230 per mo nth from taxable wages for the use of public transit and vanpool and $20 per month for bicycles  A program supplying a transit pass or reimbursement for equivalent vanpool charges at least equal in value to the purchase price of the a dult monthly transit pass for the local transit agency system(s) for the employee to comple te the trip to the workplace  Transportation furnished by the employer (e.g. vanp ool, bus, or multi -passenger vehicle) at no cost to the employee
 An alternative commuter benefit pre -approved b y the City of Richmond In reaching out to the major employers in Richmond with approximately 150 employees or more, it was found that one large employer did not offer any commuter benefits to its employees, citing challenges with warehouse hours and schedu ling of employee shuttles or vanpools. This employe r provides free parking at a rate of more than one sp ace per employee, although parking is available for both staff and customers. Employees at this bus iness take a variety of transportation modes includin g personal vehicles, motorcycles, public transit, a nd bicycling. Another business surveyed was a large retail corporation that provides its em ployees pre -tax deductions for commuting costs in the Bay Area (up to $130 a month for public tran sportation and $ 250 a month toward parking expenses). At this business, the ratio of parking spaces to number of employees is 2.37; h owever, this parking is provided for both staff and custome rs and may be shared with other businesses in the area.

Parking at other large e mployers in Richmond varied generally depending on the type of industry:
• All manufacturing facilities provide employee parki ng. Half of these manufacturing facilities have gated entrances to employee parking lots. A correlation between the proportion of pa rking spaces to number of employees showed that bus inesses with gated parking had lower ratios (0.16 – 0.26) compared to non -gated parking (0 .42 – 1.58). • Retail locations provide both customer and employee parking. All of these businesses have high ratios of parking spaces to number of employees (1.73 – 3.69) because of the additional capacity for customers.
• Nonprofits and other miscellaneous businesses provi de employee parking with relatively low ratios (0 .12 – 0.67). Richmond Hospital provides a parking g arage for patients and a dedicated surface lot for staff.

Three out of four businesses with convenient transi t access (a transit stop less than 0.5 miles away) had low parking ratios. This number was lower for businesses near BART connections (0.09 spaces per employee) than for local bus conne ctions (0.328 spaces per employee), reinforcing how nearby frequent transit access may reduce the need for driving and thus additional parking supply. All of the businesses wi thout convenient transit access were less t han one mile from the I -80 or I-580 freeways, and were generally businesses with la rge freight and shipping components. Of these 15 businesses, 11 had parking ratios of 0.5 or more.

Regional TDM Context
The West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Commi tt ee (WCCTAC) reached out to 60,000 employees and obtained 615 completed surveys regard ing employee ridesharing alternatives in West Contra Costa County, which includes the cities of Richmond, Pinole, San Pablo, El Cerrito,

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 88
and Hercules. 51 Of the employees surveyed, most were full -time, working at least 40 hours per week with commute times between the peak hours of 7 :00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. Most of these employees lived in the East Bay, where 8 out of 10 drove to work alone citing inconveniences of transit and w ork schedules. Of those surveyed, employees were mo st likely to live in Richmond (8% of respondents).

Key findings from the survey revealed that most com muters preferred to drive alone to work (78%). However, WCCTAC cited one large employer wit h a strong c arpool and vanpool program as the reason for a lower than average drive- alone rate in the Bay Area. To encourage solo drive rs to take ridesharing alternatives, employers found f inancial incentives were most compelling.

Telecommuting and guaranteed rides home in case of emergencies were also cited as important issues for commuters, indicating the need for flexi ble and reliable transportation options. Transit use varied among employers, with some having many t ransit riders and others having none.

WCCTAC found that half of solo drivers were receptive to at leas t one ridesharing alternative, and one-third applied for a financial incentive to driv e less, implying that drivers in the region are open to using more sustainable modes of travel.

One- third of those sur veyed (34%) traveled 21 to 40 miles to work, with a n average distance of 21 miles. Given this distance, it makes sense that the preferred alternative to solo driving was carpooling (42%) and vanpooling (27%), then followe d by BART and bus (24% and 18% resp ectively). The inadequacy of transit service was th e primary reason (42%) solo drivers gave for why they chose to drive.

Among Contra Costa employers who are required to provide commute r benefits to their employees (142 in 2014) , providing pre -tax transpor tation benefits (e.g. C ommuter Checks) is the primary choice to meet this requirement ( 75%). Approximately 8.5% provide a transit/ vanpool subsidy . Over one-quarter of employers provide additional TDM benefits beyond the required strategy, typically includi ng on -site bicycle parking (10 %), an emergency ride home (6%), and showers and bike loc kers (6%). Overall, more employers provided TDM strategies related to bicycling more than for any other mode. This may be indicative of a latent demand within th e workfo rce for bicycling, or is perhaps symptomatic of the relatively minimal financial investment required for bicycling strategies.

AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE ASSESSMENT
The growing research and development activity aroun d autonomous vehicle (AV) technology has recentl y started to show results, with AV pilots taking pl ace in a number of cities across the United States and the globe. In addition to the pot ential to reduce the cost of providing transit service itself, AVs present a new way to facilitate connections betwee n high capacity transit stations and people’s home or work front doors. Thi s section discusses the outlook for the technology, potential ways in which AVs could effic iently provide first/ last mile connections, and emerging ideas on how design and regulatio ns might affect the way AVs are adopted and accompanying implications for the first and last mi le in Richmond.

51 WCCTAC Employee Transportation Survey, May 2016.
http://www.wcctac.org/files/managed/Document/352/WCCTAC%20Employee%20Transportation%20report%20201

6.pdf.

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 89
It is likely to be at least a few years before AVs are available for widespread consumer use. 52 Once they are, AVs are expected to steadily gain m arket share and ultimately provide a major portion of motorized passenger travel within several decades. V arious technology and transportation theorists estimate that AVs will penetrate the moto rized travel market by 70% to 90% sometime between 2035 and 20 55. 53 However, given many unknowns about the technology i tself and the regulatory efforts at the state and federal levels that will shape it , all of these estimates are subject to significant error.

Given Richmond’s proximity to multiple regional tra nsporta tion networks, both rail and highway, the city is well -positioned to capitalize on AVs by preparing its po licies and street network to encourage AVs in a sustainable manner.

Shared vs. Private Mobility: The Implications of How AVs are Adopted How autonomo us vehicles are adopted could have significant impl ications for the built environment and, in turn, for the first and last mi le of people’s journeys. If they are adopted as shared resources, 54 they could lead to major reductions in the need for parking arou nd all manner of trip origins and destinations. If people made jo urneys from front door to front door in cars that were constantly in use (instead of sitting unused 9 5% of the time at one location or another), the need for parking would substantially decli ne. With adoption of AVs in this way, conventional car parking may morph into something similar to transit vehicle parking today – centralized facilities, often with maintenance capabilities, that owned by the operators of large fleets and largely empty at peak times.

While the exploding demand for ride -hailing services, particularly in urban areas, has shown the potential of a shared model of AV use, people have continued to purchase private vehicles and drive, with private vehicle sales in the United Sta tes hitting record highs in recent years, and climbing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita. 55 If AVs are adopted as private mobility resources, they might substantially eat into the ma rket share of transit services. To the extent that they provide first - and last -mile connections, accommodating them around transit stations might look a lot like accommodating private vehicles does today, with large parking facilities and “kiss and ride” areas for more limited pick -up and drop- off activity.

Cities that wan t to see a shared future of motorized travel will n eed to use a mix of regulations and incentives that encourage shared mobility over the status quo. In addition to the potential for

52 Bliss, Laura. “The Future of Autonomous Vehicles is Shared,” CityLab, January 6, 2017, http://www.citylab.com/tech/2017/01/the-future-of-autonomous-vehicles-is-shared/512417. 53 Estimates from “Peak Car Ownership: The Market Opportunity of Electric Automated Mobility Services,” Rocky Mountain Institute, 2016, https://rmi.org/insights/reports/peak-car-ownership-report and “Global Insurance Market Opportunities,” 2016, http://www.aon.com/japan/product_services/by_specialty/reinsurance/report/20160911-ab- analytics-gimo.pdf and “Ten ways autonomous driving could redefine the automotive world,” McKinsey & Company, June 2015, http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/ten-ways-autonomous-driving- could-redefine-the-automotive-world and “Effects of Next-Generation Vehicles on Travel Demand and Highway Capacity,” February 2014, http://www.fehrandpeers.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/07/FP_Think_Next_Gen_Vehicle_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf, and “Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning,” February 27, 2017, http://www.vtpi.org/avip.pdf. 54 In other words, AVs as a shared resource would mean that they are integrated into public-facing systems, such as ride-hailing companies (i.e. Lyft and Uber, also categorized as transportation network companies or TNCs) and dynamic “microtransit” services (i.e. Chariot).
55 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-car-sales-poised-for-their-best-month-ever-1451999939. Short, Doug, Advisor Perspectives, https://www.advisorperspectives.com/images/content_im- age/data/9c/9c6653974df4f9bea06b785ab3d9bb50.png.

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 90
furthering urban sprawl, 56 AV adoption as private mobility resources would also have significant negative equity implications. The high cost of the technology would make it much harder for those with low incomes to take advantage of the ben efits AVs may offer. However, shared mobility will likely require additional investment on the part of cities and public agencies to subsidize access for all users.

Regulating and Designing for an Autonomous Future
Local governments like the City of Richmond have a major role to play in determining how AVs are adopted within their jurisdiction s. Federal and state regulatory action to date has focused on regulating the safety of the technology and of how the vehicles are operated. 57 While state and federal policy makers ultimately have great power t o determine the trajectory of the technology (if they are willing to use that power), cities can hel p determine the way local streets and the built environment evolve to make way for AV travel. Speci fically, cities can:
 Provide space for companies to test different types of AV technology  Adjust their ap proach to managing curb- space in street design  Adjust their parking regulations and the extent to which they provide and/ or operate public space for vehicle storage
The sub -sections below outline cities’ action to date, emer ging best practices, and open qu estions in each of these areas, with the overarching vision of AVs as shared mobility resources.

Hosting AV Technology Pilots
For several years now, Google and its Waymo AV divi sion have tested AVs on city streets along the Peninsula, primarily in Mountain View and Palo Alto. Those cities did not actively l ure or even necessarily approve AV testing on their streets, bu t rather the location of Google’s headquarters in Mountain View was the reason testing has happened i n the area. Several cities have actively encouraged or regulated AV testing on their streets , although some of these localities have soured on its partnership due to concerns about the privat e company’s lack of cooperation with city requests and safety concerns. 58
Other cities have allowed time -limited trials of autonomous shuttles, which typical ly fit six to 10 passengers and are limited to relatively low speeds . The Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA) is funding a fixed -route shuttle pilot with one company, Easy Mile, in the Bishop Ranch office park in San Ramon. 59 The vehicles are first being tested on the GoMen tum test facilities at the Concord Naval Weapons Statio n, and they are slated to hit city streets after that.

Em e rgin g Be s t Practice s :
 Provide space for low -speed testing o f higher capacity AVs within circumscribed areas with as few natural modal conflicts as possible. Su ch AVs might be a natural fit for first/ last -mile situations, though the complicated mix of moda l conflicts around major transit stations would need to be m anaged carefully.

56 https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/driving-sideways/?_r=0 57 CITE Stanford AV policy website
58 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/01/uber-pittsburgh-city-mayors-237772 59 http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/07/22/driverless-shuttles-coming-to-east-bay-to-be-tested/

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 91
Ope n Qu e s tio n s :
 What are the safety implications of testing early a utonomous vehicles on city streets? Recent pilots have revealed some issues with certai n technologies, including unsafe operation around bicycle facilities and a lack of recognition of less- used traffic control approaches like signalized mid -block crosswalks.

Curb Management
Especially in light of the growing use of ride -hailing services, some jurisdictions have begun to tackle passenger loading as part of the broader cha llenge of determining which mode should get priority for curb space in different parts of the u rban street network. Seattle 60 and Washington, DC61 have both commissioned curb management studies in recent years. Richmond currently lacks a consistent approach to managing its curb sp ace. If passenger loading increases in importance with the proliferation of autonomous veh icles, cities across the country will need to develop thoughtful ways to more fully incorporate p assenger loading (in addition to commercial delivery activity) in a context -sensitive way that minimizes conflicts with pedestri ans and bicyclists.

Em e rgin g Be s t Practice s :
 Develop a context -sensitive approach to managing curb space citywide.  Consider how to incorporate passenger loading and u nloadin g behavior in places where curb space is allocated to bicycles or transit vehi cles to minimize conflicts.  Consider shifting incentive structure created by al locating most curb space to private vehicle parking. Tipping the balance toward active loading and unloading could be one way to encourage the use of shared vehicles.

Ope n Qu e s tio n s :
 How should passenger pick -up and drop- off activity be incorporated in areas in which curb space is allocated to buses or bicycles, to av oid conflicts?  To what extent should curb space be used for private vehicle parking in a shared autonomous future, and at what pace should a transi tion happen? Parking
Since the provision of free/ underpriced, readily accessible p arking implicitly incentivizes driving, many cities interested in a future in which AVs are shared should consider adjusting parking requirements as a primary way to incentivize this f uture. Shared autonomous vehicles offer the potential to substantially reduce the need for park ing. Some early analyses estimate that p arking demand could drop by as much as 80% if the entire s mall -vehicle fleet is shared. 62 Even if some of the fleet is privately owned, self -driving and self- parking cars could enable a much more efficient

60 http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/parking/cbdCurbspaceStudy.htm 61 https://comp.ddot.dc.gov/Documents/District%20Department%20of%20Transportation%20Curbside%20Management %20Study.pdf
62 International Transport Forum and Corporate Partnership Board. “Urban Mobility System Upgrade: How shared self- driving cars could change city traffic.” Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2015, http://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/15cpb_self-drivingcars.pdf.

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 92
use of the space dedicated to parking. 63 Clearly, the ways cities regulate the parking suppl y – primarily through off -street parking requirements in zoning codes – will need to shift to account for AVs. This is especially relevant to Richmond, w hich has minimal parking regulation even around the primary mob ility hubs.

Em e rgin g Be s t Practice s :
 Eliminate parking minimums and implement parking ma ximums, reducing the incentives to use private vehicles that are built i nto new buildings through the ample provision of free parking.
 Where parking is necessary, ensur e that it is shared flexibly across different uses and, as possible, discourage its incorporation into buildin gs with primary land uses (i.e. residential or commercial). Rather, encourage any n ew supply to be in stand -alone areas or structures, to more eas ily enable conversion to primary land uses in the f uture.  Shift the allocation of space around major transit stations, reducing parking and increasing the prominence of passenger pick- up and drop -off facilities.

Ope n Qu e s tio n s :
 What is the best way to mana ge the transition to a shared autonomous future, ac counting for people’s auto -oriented behavior today while avoiding further enco uragement of this behavior?
 How much might parking demand drop with the uptake of AVs? Although it may be quite a while before autonomous vehicles are part of Richmond’s daily re ality, the City can be proactive in examining its curb and parking management through a lens of shared mobility. A strong policy framework and street desi gn will lay the foundation for Richmond to take ad vantage of opportunities to test or implement AVs o n its streets, when the time comes.

63 Meier-Burkert, Friedrike. “With self-parking cars and intelligent fleet management, real-estate developers save time and money.” Audi Urban Future Initiative blog, November 17, 2015. http://audi-urban-future- initiative.com/blog/urban-future-partnership-somerville-boston.

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 93
4 CONCLUSION
The City of Richmond has a strong policy framework for improving its multimodal access and connectivity. Although recent planning work and improvement projec ts support access to transit (i.e. streetscape improvements, bicycle lane striping, an d new wayfinding) , there is no coordinated program to address first and last mile connection s in a comprehensive way. This report aims to consolidate the relevant work an d provide an up- to-date snapshot of existing conditions, needs, and opportunities.

The figure below summarizes the existing conditions for the areas examined in this report.

Although these are general characterizations of the areas’ various qualities, they speak to the different ways in which each area could be improved to enhance access and connectivity.

Figure 49 Qualitative Evaluation of Existing Conditions Prior to Implementing First Mile/Last Mile Strategies and Programs
Area Considered
Station Area
Design
Pedestrian
Access
Bicycle
Access
Transit
Access
Development
Opportunity
Richmond BART Station Good Excellent Excellent Excellent Moderate Richmond Ferry Terminal Poor (current)
Good (future)
Moderate
(current)
Good (future)
Moderate
(current)
Excellent
(future)
Poor
(current)
Average
(current)
Good
El Cerrito del Norte BART
Station
Moderate to
Good
Poor to
Moderate
Poor to
Moderate
Excellent Excellent
Richmond Parkway
Transit Center (RPTC)
Poor Poor Poor Moderate Poor to Moderate
Hilltop Mall Poor Poor to
Moderate
Poor to
Moderate
Poor Moderate
Stops along 13th Street /
Rumrill Avenue corridor
Poor Moderate Poor to
Moderate
Poor N/a
Stops along 23rd Street
corridor
Poor Moderate Poor to
Moderate
Poor N/a
Stops along San Pablo
Avenue corridor*
Poor to
Moderate
Moderate Poor Poor N/a
El Cerrito Plaza BART
Station
Good Moderate to
Good
Poor to
Moderate
Moderate Good
Contra Costa College
Transit Center
Good Moderate to
Good
Poor to
Moderate
Moderate N/a

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 94
In addition, there are several citywide trends and issues that should be considered in the development of first mile/ last mile connections:
 Sh are d m o bility. Motorized transportation modes will always play a role in first mile/ last mile connections, as walking, biking, and taking transit are not always feasible.

Shared motorized modes can be valuable links in the first mile/ last mile c onnection, if infrastructure like streetscapes and loading areas are designed in a way that encourages increases in average veh icle occupancy and reduces demand for parking.  Tran s po rtatio n de m an d m an age m e n t. Strategies to access transit should incorporate the needs of major employers, which inc lude employee needs as well as those related to shipping and receiving goods. Managing v ehicular travel demand will require striking a balance between local access and regiona l mobility.  Au to n o m o u s ve h icle s . Although no one is sure about what the future holds , the impending arrival of autonomous vehicles on the mar ket means that Richmond shou ld consider preparing its policies and street network to encourage the use of AVs in a sustainable manner. Both policy and infrastructure improvements can address first mile/ last mile needs and lay the groundwork to util ize AVs in a space -efficient way.

NEXT STEPS
Understanding limitations and opportunities in the transportation network is a critical step toward determining feasible and effective solutions . Based on this report, proposed strategies will strive to address the first mile/ last mile gaps in the various transportation networks, including, but not limited to: physical crossing barriers, uncomfortable biking e xperiences, indirect and deteriorated walking routes, and the lack of awareness of available transportation optio ns among different populati ons . Strategies should reflect the following takeaways:
 Due to its location in the Bay Area and connections with multiple major transportation networks, Richmond is well positioned to take advan tage of ongoing innovations in mobility. However, the City als o faces several challenges related to perceptions a bout personal safety and level of comfort with non -auto transportation modes. Strategies will have to address mental as well as physical obstacle s.
 City policies recognize the need for improved acces s and integration among the different transportation systems and infrastructure. It is no t readily apparent how plans will be translated to implementation.
 Some City plans lack a clear process for ensuring i ts projects continue to be maintained or operated in th e long term. The First Mile/ Last Mile Strategic Plan will need to acknowledge the need for ongoing operations and mai ntenance and identify how these important tasks may be accomplished.
 Richmond’s access to transit is complicated by its topography, admini strative boundaries, and proximity to major regional freeways. Rail righ ts of way and Interstates 80 and 580 are all major barriers, and Richmond is nearly divi ded in half by San Pablo and unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. Citywi de strategies wi ll likely require substantial coordination across jurisdictions and g overnment levels (e.g. Caltrans, BART, Richmond, El Cerrito, San Pablo, etc.)
 The density of intersections, population, and emplo yment in central downtown Richmond are highly conducive to sustainable transportation behavior and leveraging existing access to transit. Recent physical improve ments and planning efforts in this area

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 95
reflect a trend towards walking and bicycling, yet concerns of safety and comfort are still an issue.
 There are m ultiple development opportunities throughout Richmo nd; however, activation of these areas will likely be conditiona l on proportional investment in transportation programs and infrastructure.
 Communities and businesses throughout Richmond are disconnected f rom the transportation network in varying ways; strategies to enhance access and connectivity will need to be considered from the perspective of all s takeholders, balancing local access with regional mobility.

Given the wide variety in transit service qua lity in different areas of Richmond, it makes sense to focus on establishing first mile/ last mile connecti ons to those areas with the highest utility and appeal – the mobility hubs. Nevertheless, it is likely that some strategies will be applicable in a br oader citywide context as well and improve the likelihood that individual s choose to ride transit in Richmond. As such, this report forms the basis f rom which programmatic, policy , and infrastructure improvements will be identified for each of the mobility hubs as well as for citywide benefits.

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 96

APPENDIX A

DETAILED SUMMARY OF EXISTING

PLANS AND POLICIES
There are many plans that technically affect the tr ansit station areas of Richmond. They have different responsibilities (in the form of agencies that lea d or author a plan), and focuses on transportation modes (with differing legal requirements). The plans desc ribed and quoted below are sorted by the agency/ government responsible for the plans completion. The extent to which other agencies and transportati on modes are involved may vary during the implement ation of these plans.

CITY OF RICHMOND PROGRAMS AND PLANS
Local Programs
Carpo o l
The Richmond Parkway Transit Center (RPTC) is the l ocation of Richmond’s only “ cas u al carpo o l ” pickup location, where people can quickly form a carpool to save money and time w hen driving down the Eastshore Freeway and through the San Francisco -Oakland Bay Bridge tollbooth. People who park on the RPTC site are per mitted to use the carpool.

There is also a casual carpool pickup location near the El Cerrito del Norte Station. It is located along Eastshore Boulevard, just north of the inters ection with Potrero Avenue .

Co m m u te r Be n e fits
Per Ordinance 22- 09 N.S., the City of Richmond builds off the standa rds set by the Bay Area Comm uter Benefits Program. Rather than require commuter benefits of all employers with 50 or greater than 50 employees, the City of Richmond set s the minimum at 10 employees who work an average of at least 10 hours per week. Employers ar e also required to pay into an annual transportation fee upon registration (the fee, whic h covers administrative costs, is $20.00 per employee). Lastly, the City requires two of the fol lowing additional TDM programs for employers that provide commuter benefits:
 End -of-trip showe r facilities
 On-site bike sharing
 Commuter ride -matching services
 Annual membership dues for car sharing memberships
 Cash -out program valued at $30.00 per space per month  Using employer fleet vehicles for carpooling and/ or vanpooling purposes

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 97
 Permitted com pressed work weeks (alternative work schedules or f lex-time are two separate options)
Parkin g
Although Richmond does not have a Re s ide n tial Parkin g Pe rm it (RPP) program, it is currently in the process of studying the possibilit y of one. This included a re view of other cities using such a program, including Sacramento, San Lui s Obispo, Pasadena, Santa Rosa, Oakland, Berkeley, El Cerrito, and San Rafael.

Traffic Im pro ve m en ts
On its website, the City of Richmond solicits reque sts from the public for:
 Accessible curb ram ps
 Traffic control and safety issues
 Parking zone assignments and new color curb parking
 Encroachment permits for construction within the pu blicly-owned right -of-way General Plan (2012); A1
Broadly speaking, the general plan update for Richm ond continues an inclusive and context - sensitive approach to transportation improvements, as generally shown in prior plans, like the Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. Unlike those plans, wh ich are more focused on “Complete Streets” policies, the General Plan highlights “Complete Nei ghborhoods” in addition to recommending a Complete Streets policy 64. Defined as “when residents have access to a range of goods and services that are typically utilized on a daily basi s within” a “comfortable walking distance” of one qua rter -mile 65. The vision of Complete Neighborhoods extend to tr ansit services as well, as shown in future updates to the municipal code, which ince ntivize development within a quarter -mile distance of a transit stop.

Especially notable in the Circulation El ement of the General plan is Policy CR1.8, a demand to “promote the place -based planning approach and classification system. ” This system, detailed as “Richmond’s new approach to circulation,” is built around the designation of each street under a certain type, which is subsequently defined by which transp ortation mode is considered a priority mode, an allowable mode, or prohibited mode (Figure 47).

64 p. 4..32
65 p. 16.2

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 98
Figure 50 Place-Based Circulation Classification System 66

Not every street in Richmond is classified in the G eneral Plan. Instead, Policy CR1.9 states a priority to “classify all streets in the City to co nform to the Place -Based Circulation Classification System discussed in the Ci rculation Element of the General Plan and adopt mul ti-modal level of service (MMLOS) standards that are consistent with each street type’s intended function and character.” Classification will be critical in futu re transportation projects.

Other policies and actions in the General Plan intended to support transit access include:
 “Prioritize strategies and improvements that addres s affordability, access and safety. Also prioritize transit and street improvements that inc rease mobility for low- income, youth, seniors, disabled, and other vulnerable residents t o ensure equitable access. Expand outreach and information programs to promote transi t use.” 67  “Explore the potential to designate pedestrian prio rity areas or districts. Include strong connections to the downtown, recreation destinations, commercial and m ixed -use streets, transit stations and schools. Address pedestrian an d bicycle connections in parking lots.” 68
 “Enhance circulation linkages within the City and r egion. The City will work with regional tra nsportation agencies such as AC Transit, BART, West Contra Costa Transit Agency, and Amtrak to provide or improve connections to Ric hmond’s key transportation hubs such as the proposed ferry terminal in Marina Bay, the Downtown Intermodal Transit Station, Hilltop Mall, the shoreline and commercial and mixe d-use streets. Collaborate with regional, state and federal transportation age ncies and neighboring jurisdictions to

66 p. 4.14
67 Action CR1.B
68 Action CR1.C

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 99
support a high level of service for all users inclu ding pedestrians, bicyclists, and aut omobile drivers.” 69
 “All housing units and employment centers in Richmo nd should have access to a local and regional public transit stop. Ensure that all t ransit stations and routes to and from these stations are safe. As many residents and visi tors rely o n regional passenger rail and air travel, support efforts to create efficient pub lic transit connections to train stations and regional airports. Support efforts to expand se rvice at night and on weekends and to make transit affordable and accessible to pe ople of all abilities, seniors, youth and low - income households.” 70
 “Station Area Plans: Develop station area plans for major transit stations including the BART Station, proposed ferry terminal and Hilltop M all. Revise and update plans already underway to encourage higher -density development within a half -mile of stations; improve pedestrian, bicycle and transit connectivit y; and address parking, safety and congestion.” 71
 “Develop access and mobility criteria for capital i mprovement projects and new develop ment to enhance physical access to community facili ties, schools, parks, shoreline open spaces, historical destinations, commercial an d employment centers and transit hubs.” 72
 “Enhance safety and accessibility for pedestrians, b icyclists and public transit riders,” including “improving key intersections and streets to reduce bicycle collections,” and “improvements at transit stations and stops to redu ce crime and vandalism.” 73  “Ensure adequate maintenance of transportation faci lities ,” including bus shelters, in “a manner that is socially equitable.” 74
 “Update the City’s development impact fee program t o provide funding for future circulation improvements including pedestrian, bicy cle, and public transit facilities and amenities.” 75
 “Proposed enhancements to the street system must consider all types of travel and be based on a particular street’s intended function and character.” 76  “Develop a transportation demand management (TDM) p rogram that encourages use of public transit, bicycling, and walking.” 77
 “Explore th e potential for developing a citywide Intelligent T ransportation System (ITS) to maximize the efficiency of the circulation syste m and enhance user experience. Use available technologies such as synchronized street lights, adaptive signal controls and real -time traffic, transit and parking information, amon g others. Establish real -time

69 Policy CR1.3
70 Policy CR1.4 see also EC2.3; HW4.1
71 Action CR1.K
72 Action CR2.A
73 Policy CR3.1
74 Policy CR3.2
75 Action CR3.C
76 p. 4.14
77 Action CR 5.A

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 100
transportation information kiosks at major transit hubs and in pedestrian- oriented districts.” 78
Throughout the Circulation Element of the General P lan, there are several Rich mond arterials intersecting current and future major transit in th e General Plan that are specifically identified for certain policies. These are summarized in the “Corr idors” section of the Executive Summary.

In addition to corridors, specific “intersecti ons or roadway sections that could benefit from improvement,” were identified. 79 Those which included specific suggested improvement s include:
 Meeker Avenue and Marina Bay Parkway (traffic calming measures)  22 nd and 23 rd Streets between Roosevelt and Macdonald (two -way conversion and traffic calming measures)
 37th Street and Roosevelt Avenue (narrowed travel lanes and traffic calming measure s including traffic circles and curb extensions)
 Barrett Avenue (conditions of development approval and capital im prove ments)  Central Avenue (coordination with CCTA and El Cerrito)  San Pablo Avenue and 23 rd Street (realigned intersections with turning restri ctions)  San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway (intersection improvements)  Marina Bay Parkway Rail Crossing (grade sep aration and a new route to Interstate 80 via an extension of Regatta Boulevard)
 Harbour Way and Wright Avenue Rail Crossing (coordinated traffic signals and gate s)  Carlson and Cutting Boulevard Rail Crossing (traffi c circle)  Giant Road Rail Crossing (grade separation)
City Zoning Update (2016); A2
On November 15, 2016, the City of Richmond official ly adopted a revised Chapter 15.04 of the Richmond Municipal Code — which pertains to zoning and subdivision regulation s. This revision (Ordinance No. 16 -16) includ es several items that may potentially improve acces s to transit:
 Per 15.04.201.070 (Design Standards for Multi- Family Housing):
− “On-site pedestrian circulation and access must be prov ided according to the following standards [… ]”
o “Safe and convenient pedestrian connections shall b e provided from transit stops and BART stations to building entrances.”
− Per 15.04.602 (Affordable Housing Density Bonus):
o Developments with the maximum percentage of afforda ble units located “within one half mile of the Richmon d BART Station / Intermodal Terminal, and the El Cerrito Del Norte BART Station, measured fro m the station platform, and there is unobstructed access to the major transit s top from the development” are subject to a “vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of hand icapped and guest parking, [that] shall not exceed 0.25 spaces per bedroom or the ratios set below, whichever are lower.”

78 Action CR5.B
79 pp. 4.12-4.13

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 101
− Per 15.04.607 (Parking and Loading Standards):
o Developments “within one- half mile of the Richmond BART Station / Intermodal Terminal, an d the El Cerrito Del Norte BART Station measured fr om the station platform and within one-quarter mile of an AC Trans it bus stop” shall have all “minimum and maximum parking requirements [… ] reduc ed to 50 percent of the requirements set forth in this Artic le”
− Per 15.04.203 (Commercial Districts)
o “Safe and convenient pedestrian connections shall b e provided from transit stops to building entrances. Sidewalk “bulbouts” or bus “ pull -outs” may be required at bus stops serving commercial centers (building floo r area over 25,0 00 square feet) to provide waiting areas for transit users an d safety for passing motorists.” Richmond Bay Specific Plan (2016); A3
Bolstered by South Richmond’s designation as a plan ned development area (PDA) by the Bay Area’s regional plann ing organizations, as well as the selection of Rich mond as the home of a new campus for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laborator y, Richmond Bay is at the forefront of major shifts in land use throughout Richmond, as we ll as West County. Specific to access to transit, some established policies include:
 Requirements for “pedestrian access and frontage” a re set for virtually every building type, which will enable more pedestrian circulation .
 Minimum requirements for bicycle parking at all dev elopments.  Maximum requirements for parking only, but also with st andards for carpool, vanpool, and car sharing spaces.
 The design of new streets is in fitting with “the o riginal street grid serving the current site of the Richmond Field Station,” which will increase th e density of intersections and encourage pedestrian and bicycle activity as a real istic transportation option. 80 The alignments of these streets will also cross existin g barriers to the area, including freeways and railroad rights- of-way.
 “The establishmen t and continuing maintenance of a Transportation Ma nagement Association (TMA) is a high implementation priority .81” New projects would be required to join the TMA and participate in transportation d emand management (TDM) programs.

The TMA would also be requ ired to conduct parking inventory studies. 82  Unbundled parking for commercial and residential us es (setting parking costs “as a separate line item in the lease” or separating the space from the rent/ purchase terms altogether) is required. 83
 “A Transportati on Impact Fee (TIF) nexus study shall be completed for the RBSP Area, the South Richmond Transportation Connectivity Plan Area, or the City as a whole.” 84

80 p. 4-76
81 p. 4-106
82 p. 4-103
83 p. 4-103
84 p. 4-108

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 102
Livable Corridors Form Based Code (2015); A4
The City of Richmond is undergoing a “form -based code” p lanning process “for implementing the intent of the General Plan to create walkable mixed -use neighborhoods. 85” At this stage, the final draft was released in February 2015, but final appr oval from the City Council is still pending.

Planners for the form-b ased code developed a “transect” specifically for R ichmond, in which the definition of linear corridors is based on a zone s tructure that progresses depending on the context and relation to the conditions and intent o f the built environment (or lack thereof). Access to transit is not explicitly mentioned in any of th e transect zones, with the exception of T4 Neighborhood: “To provide a walkable, predominantly single -family neighborhood that integrates appropriate medium -density building types such as duplex es, mansion apartments, and bungalow courts within walking distance to transit and comme rcial areas. 86” “Pedestrian sheds” are defined “on the understandin g that most people are willing to walk up to 5 minutes before they will choose to drive and up to 10 minutes to a major destination or transit stop.” 87 They include as follows:

Figure 51 Pedestrian Shed Definitions
Pedestrian Shed Name Application Definition Maximum Size Standard “Planning neighborhoods” A radius of 1,320 feet around a transportation node
160 acres
Linear “Planning neighborhood main
streets or neighborhoods with
multiple nodes”
A radius of 1,320 feet around
“a series of block lengths.”
200 acres
Long “Planning major destinations
and downtowns”
A radius of 2,640 feet around
a “series of block lengths”
510 acres
Parking space reductions 88 for developments may be obtained for a variety of p urposes:
 Up to 15% of the required parking reduced with the provision of bicycle spaces. The ratio for reduction is one vehicle space for every four bi cycle spaces.  Up to 15 parking spaces (or more with Council appro val) may be reduced if the developer pays an “in -lieu fee”
 Parking facilities may not take up more than one ac re in size A minimum of 2 bic ycle parking spaces are required for virtually ever y land use except single -unit residential developments. 89
Bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding systems defer to the WCCTAC Wayfinding Plan (see below).

85 15.05.P010
86 15.05.120.080
87 15.05.610.030
88 15.05.320.070
89 15.05.320.080

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 103
South Richmond Transit Connectivity Plan (2015); A5
The study area for the SRTCP is equivalent to the “Sphe re of Influence” for the Richmond Bay Specific Plan. Unlike the RBSP, the study area for the SRTCP (bounded by the San Francisco Bay, Harbour Way, Ohio Street, San Pablo Avenue , and Central Avenue ) include s major and future high -capacity transit stations, including the Ferry Term inal, El Cerrito del Norte BART Station, and El Cerrito Plaza BART Station.

The SRTCP defined a series of “key travel corridors ,” which are the location of “most of the specific mu ltimodal connectivity projects and services located in” the plan. 90” Among other things, the plan supports the following measures sp ecifically in key corridors:
 “safety and predictability though the physical and operational separation of truck and bike traf fic 91”
 “street design and signal system upgrades where feasi ble 92” including “bicycle -only signal phases” in “high priority intersections”
The key corridors in the SRTCP include:
 Cutting Boulevard
 Carlson Boulevard
 Regatta Boulevard
 Potrero Avenue
 Central Avenue
 San Pablo Avenue
 Marina Way and Harbour Way
 23 rd Street / Marina Bay Parkway
 J ulia Woods Street
 Bayview Avenue

Projects on each of these corridors (particularly s treetscape and multi -modal improvements) were determined by a variety of criteria, inclu ding:
 connections to South Richmond
 access to regional transit hubs
 transit service enhancements
 proximity to key destinations
 multimodal safety
 relative ability to implement 93

90 p. ES-3
91 p. 8-1
92 pp. 8-9
93 p. 11-1

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 104
Wellness Trail (2017); A6
Envisioned as essentially a north -south connection fro m the Bay Trail, Future Ferry Terminal, and Marina areas to Richmond BART Station and Kaiser Medical Center via Marina Way South.

Overall, the Richmond Wellness Trail’s design is pr imarily a planned series of bike facilities that will help compliment the p erpendicular Richmond Greenway in the City’s bicycl e network. Design elements proposed for Marina Way South include:
 A protected two -way bicycle lane on the west side south of Wright Avenue  Two protected bicycle lanes
 An initial separation of the bicycle lane by a combination of planters, curbs, and delineator posts
 A permanent separation of the bicycle lane by lands caped medians  Standards for the width of the protected bicycle la nes set at 7’ in each direction, except at bus stops, in which the width is reduced to 5 in each direction  One travel lane and one parking lane in each direct ion A design concept was provided for the junction of t he Wellness Trail and Richmond Greenway.

Using painted bike lanes across Ohio Street and a p rominent plaza improvement on the northeastern corner of the intersection, a biker ma y intuitively follow this sizable and prominent route to the existing multi -use path “on -ramp” to the Richmond Greenway.

Additionally, design elements proposed for 9 th and 16 th Streets (part of the loop along the northern end of the trail to compliment Nevin Avenue and the Richmond Greenway) are similar to treatments in the Yellow Brick Road plan, includ ing traffic circles, curb extensions, high- visibility crosswalks and other calming elements.

Closer to the waterfront, the intersection of Marina Wa y South and Regatta Boulevard is proposed to have a roundabout.

Yellow Brick Road Iron Triangle Neighborhood Wellness Plan (2016); A7
Enacted by Council in 2015, the Yellow Brick Road I ron Triangle Walkable Neighborhood Plan was funded by a Caltrans Environmental J ustice Gran t. The plan area, known as the Iron Triangle, is bounded by the Union Pacific Railroad right -of-way to the east, Richmond Parkway to the west, and Richmond Greenway/ Ohio Avenue to the south. The “Yellow Brick Road” vision of the plan placed a premium on many aspects of urban walkability, including accessible sidewalks, traffic calming measures, and an overall aesthetica lly pleasing walking experience.

Demonstration projects, including c urb extensions, bike lanes, and traffic circles wit h public art, were implemented by the community across multiple w orkshops.

A design plan concept and cost estimates were created for the fir st phase, known as the “Root Route,” which is a critical north -south link centered on 7 th Street, with connections along Pennsylvania Avenue and Elm Avenue . This includes:
 Class II Bike lanes
 Curb extensions at crossings
 Extended sidewalks along the west side of 7 th Street  Pedestrian -scale lighting

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 105
 Roundabouts (speci fically at 7 th and Elm)
16th Street between Richmond BART (at Nevin Avenue ) and the Richmond Greenway is identified as a “Trunk Route,” which is the second phase of th e project. This includes:
 Bicycle Boulevard signage and striping between the Richmond Gre enway and Macdonald Avenue , with existing landscaping replaced with trees and bioswales.  “Yellow Brick” crosswalks and raised intersections along the corridor  Curb extensions on the northwest corner of the inte rsection with Macdonald Avenue  Raised crosswal ks at the intersections with Livingston Avenue , Bissell Avenue  A traffic circle at Chanslor Avenue and a cul -de -sac with no parking allowed at the Richmond Greenway
Other recommendations involving “Trunk Routes” incl ude:
 Raised crossings along the Richmon d Greenway
 Median, green painted bike lanes, raised intersecti ons and “yellow brick” crosswalks along Pennsylvania Avenue between Richmond Parkway and Harbour Way  WCCTAC guidelines for pedestrian and bicycle wayfin ding systems Rumrill Boulevard / 13th Street Complete Streets Study (2015); A8
This study, a unique cross -jurisdictional collaboration including the City of San Pablo and Contra Costa Health Services, resulted in a 30% design con cept for the reconstruction of the corridor.

Specifically, the Rumril l / 13th corridor is a continuous stretch of locally owned a nd separately named roadways that amalgamate into a major northea stern/ southwestern connection between San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway. The streets, which are a “ke y corridor for walking in San Pablo and Richmond,” also bear “an important fu nction for neighborhood access to Richmond BRT, Contra Costa College, safe routes to school for many area households, and through access for autos to I -580 and I -80 via Harbour Way and San Pablo Avenue .94” It is a Priority Development Area, making it eligible for O ne Bay Area Grants (OBAG).

The portion within the City of Richmond includes th e study corridor’s origin at Pennsylvania Avenue and 10 th Street/ Harbour Way (just west of the railroad right of way he ading northbound out of Richmond BART Station ), continuing north along 13 th Street, to the limits just north of Rheem and Costa Avenue s (approximately 0.6 miles long).

The preferred concept, in response to deficiencies in many multimodal protections and a menities along the corridor includes:
- A “repurposed” single travel lane in each direction to be reallocated for primarily multimodal transportation facilities (and “in some cases” for left- turn pockets) - A continuous protected bicycle lane, with “a landsc ap ed buffer and parting protection” in the Richmond portion
- High -visibility crosswalks with shorter crossing distanc es

94 pp. 8-10

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 106
- Reconstruction of curb cuts and driveways
- Pedestrian -scale lighting
- Bus shelters and relocating stops to the far side o f intersections - Additional street trees
Pedestrian Plan (2011); A9
Three “pedestrian improvement districts” were ident ified in older (dating back to 1994) updates to the Richmond General Plan (and are mentioned aga in in the 2030 Plan’s maps, as shown in Figure 49 ): Downtown Richmond, the Ford Peninsula, and the H illtop Mall area. Not only are these locations “where the City anticipates its hig hest pedestrian volumes and demand of the course of its General Plan build -out,” but pedestrian improvements within a quarter -mile of these districts receive greater priority as set by the 20 11 Pedestrian Plan’s project prioritization methodology. 95
Figure 52 Planned Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Map with Pedestrian Improvement District s, 2030 General Plan 96

Beyond designating corridors based on a scoring sys tem, several corridors were singled out.

Cutting Boulevard, Harbour Way, Marina Bay Parkway, Barret Avenue , and Carlson Boulevard (each of which is touched by a transit route), are identified as “overly wide and redundant

95 p. A-2
96 p. 4.49

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 107
connector streets” due to employment trends in Rich mond. As a result, these streets with “excessive right of way” are seen as “immediate opp ortunities to enhance the pedestrian a nd bicycle realm by expanding sidewalks, installing bi ke lanes and creating inviting public spaces. 97 To enable greater pedestrian connectivity, the Pede strian Plan recommends:
 A complete streets policy
 Design enhancements to tighten roadways and interse ctions  Increased crosswalk illumination
 Enforcement of sidewalk blockage laws
Bicycle Master Plan (2011); A10
The Bicycle Master Plan proposes a bicycle facility network expansion of over 100 miles, with the overarching goal “to provide continuous bikeways w ith the greatest degree of bicycle comfort possible. 98” Beyond the envisioned network, there are numerous policies and actions that support transit access in the Bicycle Master Plan. They inc lude:
 “Providing safe and comfortable bicycle and pedestr ian acce ss to the station area will facilitate multi ‐modal trips and help to reduce auto trips. Way ‐finding signage, secure bicycle parking and connectivity to the Richmond bi cycle network should be prioritized.” 99
 “The intermodal transit village, Downtown Richmond, Hilltop Mall area, Ford Point and other m ajor retail and employment centers should be access ible from all neighborhoods by a reasonably direct system.” 100
 “Improving safety and access along freeways and thr ough inter ‐ changes” is one of 7 “focus areas” of the proposed bicycle network, whic h has ra mifications for accessing the more peripheral transit nodes (RPTC, El Cerrito del Norte). 101  Action CR2.C is to “Enhance access, safety and the streetscape experience for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders.” 102 This is echoed in Policy CR3.1.  “Class I parking [secure and weather protected] is meant t o be used for more than two hours and is typically used by employees at work, s tudents at school, commuters at transit stations or park ‐and ‐ride lots and residents at home.” 103  Recommended “Install a map of biking routes and par king facilities in the Richmond BART Station/ Amtrak station.” 104
 Bike stations are “appropriate at major transit hub s, such as a ferry terminal.” 105 Specific projects proposed by the Bicycle Master Pl an include:

97 p. 16
98 p. xi
99 pp. 46-47
100 p. 52
101 p. 57
102 p. 10
103 p. 73
104 p. 91
105 p. 186

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 108
 Oakland bicycle wayfinding signage (with BART logo) recommended.  “Fundable bicycle projects include improvements at or near the I ‐80 / San Pablo Dam Road interchange; storage at the El Cerrito Plaza, El Cerrito D el Norte and Richmond BART Station s.” 106
 At the time, Nevin Avenue streetscape improvements were being implemented fro m BART to 27 th Street, as was a connection between the Richmond an d Ohlone Greenways.  “A critical gap at 23rd Street and Carlson Avenue whe re the railroad and BART tracks pass through.” 107 Recommendations include:
− Improve crossings at the Carlson Boulevard/ Broadwa y/ 22nd Street intersection to create a seamless connection between the Greenway a nd on ‐street facilities. Provide a pedestrian/ bicycle actuated signal phase to allow G reenway users to cross diagonally across the intersection.
− Construct a Class I spur path along the east side o f Carlson Boulevard from the Richmond Greenway to Broadway. Righ t‐of‐ way acquisition may be necessary. − Install Class II physically separated bike lanes on Carlson Boulevard. − Potential lane narrowing or lane reduction on Carls on Boulevard and S. 23rd Street. − Install a two ‐way cycle track adjacent to southbound S. 23rd Street below the railroad tracks. Provide switchback connections to the Green way at Ohio Avenue on the south end and 22nd Street on the north end.
23rd Street Streetscaping Project (2008-2009); A11
The streetscaping of 23 rd is an ongoing collaboration tha t initially emerged out of the City’s redevelopment agency at the time. The final communi ty meeting acknowledged that the project, covering the one mile of 23 rd Street extending north from Macdonald Avenue to the city limits near Rheem Avenue , would “ likely need to be done in phases based on priority and a vailable funding .”108
Primarily a commercial road, 23 rd Street has, as of 2016, begun to see some consisten t implementation of a streetscape redesign, including banners and branding, street lighting, accessi ble sidewalks and crossings. However, many preferen ces for streetscape elements, as listed below, remain to be seen.

Needs coming out of community and technical advisor y meetings included:
- The top priority of community input was “street tre es” - A directio nal signage program
- “Thematic elements” 109 that are specific to the project area Alternatives for numerous essential street elements were chronicled and evaluated, including the following, which are most relevant toward safe, con venient, and equitable transi t access:

106 p. 15, Section 15.08.410
107 p.46
108 Community Workshop 5 Summary
109 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting 5 Summary

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 109
• Placement of street trees
• Number and arrangement of travel lanes
• Number and angle of on- street parking lanes
• “Signature” 110 and pedestrian -scale street lighting • Bus stop shelters
• Street furniture
• Sidewalk width
Ultimately, a preferred alternativ e with parallel parking was chosen by the team.

AC TRANSIT
Short-Range Transit Plan (2015); B1
The latest Short -Range Transit Plan (SRTP) for AC Transit comes on the heels of the approval of Measure BB by Alameda County voters in November 201 4, which set i n motion a Service Expansion Plan for the agency. Because the funds re lated to Measure BB are limited to Alameda County, “AC Transit’s ability to expand service in Contra Costa County is limited at this time.” 111 Nevertheless, the planning and outreach proc esses for the Service Expansion Plan revealed and confirmed several district- wide priorities for AC Transit, including:
 The simplification of route designs on corridors se rved by at least three routes (such as San Pablo Avenue );
 The implementation of a “g rid network where feasible,” and a complementary pl an for “timed transfers” 112
 Performance measurements for AC Transit that, among others, include an improvement in the number of people within a quarter- mile, walk of bus service. 113 Major Corridors Study (2015); B2
In keeping with goals to increase ridership, access , reliability, cost -effectiveness, and environmental sustainability, the Major Corridors S tudy seeks to find “ the best opportunities to benefit the largest number of customers and to attr act new ri ders by 2040 .”114 The study focuses on 12 of the most populated and transit -dependent corridors in the AC Transit District, inc luding the San Pablo Avenue / Macdonald Avenue corridor.

Although the Study acknowledges that recent improve ments to Line 72R reduce d travel times, but “on -time performance is low as San Pablo Avenue is heavily congested at many times of the day and on weekends.” 115 This analysis led the study to conclude that invest ments in bus rapid transit

110 Community Workshop 2 Summary
111 p. 59
112 p. 55
113 p. 56
114 p.10
115 p. 48

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 110
(BRT) upgrades (including bus -only lanes for a majority of the corridor, off-boa rd fare payment, high -platform stations with amenities, and new pedestri an infrastructure to improve stop access; 116 is the necessary path for the San Pablo/ Macdonald corridor. BRT was proposed for just 5 of the 12 corridor s. 117
Richmond Parkway Transit Center Planning and Conceptual Design Study (2005); B3
Multiple concept designs were made for the RPTC wit h an included “ focus on small, l ocal -serving convenience retail. 118” There is a recognition that “pedestrian access to the RPTC is currently constrained,” 119 and the following pedestrian access suggestions inc lude:
 “Minimize the number boarding area
 “Provide shelters, canopies and landscaping for wea ther and sun protection within the RPTC
 “Provide direct, clear and protect pede strian routes between parking, transit boarding areas, and the passenger pick -up/ drop -off
 “Improve connection to intersection of Richmond Par kway and Blume Drive, pave existing dirt path, increase paved surfaces and/ or create a plaza  “Potential to create a connection from the elevated segment of Richmond Pa rkway to a new parking structure on the RPTC site
 “If warranted, a traffic signal at the intersection of Blume Drive and the RPTC/ Hilltop Plaza access road would create a new location to cro ss Blume Drive  “Create a formal crossing to Hilltop Plaza and impr ove pedestrian connection (may require off- site improvements)
 “New sidewalks along Richmond Parkway (requires off -site improvements)” The following suggestions were made for bicycle acc ess to RPTC:
 “Consider reconfiguring lanes at the Richmond Parkw ay/ Blume Drive intersection to improve bicycle conditions and, if possible, extend bicycle lanes  “Potential to provide bicycle lanes on Blume Drive (requires off -site improvements)  “Provide bicycle facilities at the RPTC (bicycle racks, bicycle lockers, potential bicycle station)
 “Improve bicycle connection to intersection of Rich mond Parkway and Blume Drive, pave existing dirt path to make it an accessible bicycle and pedestria n path  “If warranted, a traffic sig nal at the intersection of Blume Drive and the RPTC / Hilltop Plaza access road would improve crossing conditions for bicyclists  “Potential to create a connection from the elevated segment of Richmond Parkway to a new parking structure on the RPTC site”

116 p. 25
117 AC Transit has broken ground on a BRT Line along International Boulevard in Oakland, and outcomes may influence the details of what may be implemented along the San Pablo/Macdonald corridor. 118 p. 17
119 p. 41

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 111
AC Transit Bicycle Parking Study (2009); B4
“In 2009 AC Transit conducted a study to identify it s bus stops that have a high latent demand for bicycle parking and to provide guidelines for t he design and installation of secure and accessible parking at those l ocations. Using an index model of bicycle parking d emand, the study identified 39 priority bus stop locations for bicyc le parking in Richmond.” 120

COUNTY AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS AND PLANS
Contra Costa County Programs
Through December 31, 2036, the City of Richmond has a de ve lo pm e n t fe e d e dicate d to th e W e s t Co u n ty Su bre gio n al Tran s po rtatio n Mitigatio n P ro gram . No new development may be exempt from the fee. In addition to location s in El Sobrante, Hercules, San Pablo, and North Richmond, fees are exclusively to be used for:
 Richmond Intermodal Station
 El Cerrito Del Norte area improvements
 improvements along the Capitol Corridor right -of-way  ferry service to San Francisco, as well as supporti ve capital improvements like feeder transit service, landside and termin al areas, etc.
 closing gaps in the Bay Trail
 improvements to access and parking at Richmond and El Cerrito BART stations  improvements at the I -80 interchange with Central Avenue (although provisions for bicycle and pedestrian safety are not exclusively s tated for this interchange as they are for San Pablo Dam Road). 121
Regional Programs
The City of Richmond is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Mitigation District and is subject to the Bay Are a Co m m u te r Be n e fits Pro gram , as established by A ir District Regulation 14 (Rule 1), Senate Bill 1339, and renew ed by Senate Bill 1128. Under the program, all employers in the Bay Area with at least 50 full -time employees are required to designate a commuter benefits coordinator and provide at least one of four options of commuter benefits to all employees, including the exclusion of transit o r vanpool costs from taxable income, a subsidy for transit or vanpool, a shuttle service provided by the employee, or a commuter benefits that will be as effective a s the other options.

Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2014); C1 Transit priorities specific to Richmond include:
- “Implement Appian Way Alternatives Analysis and Com plete Streets Study,

120 Bicycle Master Plan, p. 78
121 Section 15.12.050

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 112
- “Support projects and programs that improve passeng er exp erience, system upgrades, and capacity of BART stations in West County,
- “Continue to evaluate long term solutions to conges tion around the El Cerrito Del Norte BART Station,
- “Partner with Water Emergency Transportation Author ity and MTC to plan and fund ferry service in West County.” 122
Among the listed projects relevant to Richmond:
 Streetscaping along 23 rd Street, Macdonald Avenue , and Nevin Avenue ;  Parking expansion for ferry service;
 Improvements to BART station access;
 Improvements to the Richmond BART S tation facility;  Improvements to the at -grade railroad crossing next to the intersection o f Carlson and Cutting Boulevards, and;
 A grade separation of railroad lines currently cutt ing across Marina Bay Parkway, are among the listed projects relevant to Ric hmond.

West County High-Capacity Transit Study (2015); C2
In 2015, the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) began a study of expanding high -capacity transit for residents living within West C ounty. With consideration given to curren t population trends, the potential development of t he Richmond Field Station as the “second campus” of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory , and the ongoing interest among residents for greater transit service, the study has proposed a series of high -capacity transit services along the I -80 corridor. The study is currently in its final st ages, but the alternatives proposed for West County include:
 Express bus service to Emeryville, Berkeley, and Oa kland.  A bus rapid transit (BRT) line connecting Contra Co sta Co llege, Hilltop Mall, and RPTC with BART stations. Corridors could include 23 rd Street or a combination of San Pablo and Macdonald Avenue s.
 An extension of the BART system from Richmond BART Station to Hercules with the possibility of infill stations at Co ntra Costa College, Hilltop Mall, RPTC, and Appian Way.  An expansion of commuter rail service to Hercules w as initially considered but ultimately tabled.

The alternatives given full consideration incorpora ted phased design improvements, especially surroun ding Hercules Transit Center, RPTC, and Hilltop Mal l. The ramifications for expanded transit rights -of-way could create new barriers for pedestrians, but certain ideas, such as the conversion of parking at RPTC to a garage, could al so be an opportunity for accessible pedestrian connections in the long term. 123

122 Figure 1.2-5: Transit Projects and Programs
123 TM#11 p. 13

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 113
WCCTAC Transit Enhancement and Wayfinding Plan (2011); C3 The many streetscaping efforts occurring throughout downtown Richmond, including reconstructions of Nevin Avenue , all play a role in encouraging bicycle and pedestrian access to Richmond BART Station . The following enhancements, among others, were li sted:
 improved passenger amenities, including security ca meras, informational signage, a bike station, and upgraded waiting areas, at Richmond BART Station itself  Protected path connections to the north of Barret Avenue  Bicycle boulevards going to the south, along Marina Way, 15th Street, 19 th Street.  Crossing improvements at key Barrett Avenue intersections with Marina Way and 19 th Street.

As for the RPTC, the key issues include disconnected land uses , surrounding high speed traffic, and neglected pedestrian infrastructure. The listed improvements for the RPTC area include:
 New sidewalks and on -street bike lanes along Blume Drive, Garrity Way, P ark Ce ntral, and Hilltop Drive
 New sidewalks and separate shared use paths along R ichmond Parkway  On-street bike lanes along Park Central, Blume Drive, hilltop Drive  Improved crossings on the west and south sides, as well as surrounding I -80 interchanges  Additio nal passenger amenities, such as dedicated taxi are as, bicycle racks, public restrooms, an on -site vendor, a transit information booth similar to BART station entrances,
El Cerrito del Norte benefits from surrounding low- speed residential streets, but to g et to Richmond, one must pass through several notable wid e and busy streets, including San Pablo Avenue , Cutting Boulevard, and Potrero Avenue , as well as the barriers set up by interchanges onto I -80 . Listed enhancements include:
 Relocation of the drop -off area for passengers with disabilities to be clos er to the station entrance
 Installation of bicycle lockers and improved statio n area signage (including maps of the station area and transit connections along San Pabl o Avenue )  Installation of real- time si gnage showing available parking inventory and reloc ation of real -time signage showing upcoming bus arrival times
 Additional trash bins and collection shifts to main tain station cleanliness South Richmond’s planned development area (PDA), wh ere the future ferry terminal will be located, also has access issues profiled. Among the recommendations are:
 Improved crossings around the I- 80 interchanges
 Shared use paths along Regatta Boulevard and 23 rd Street to pass by historically industrial land uses
Countywide , a series of TDM measures are recommended as a mea ns to enhance and encourage transit ridership through greater access:
 A feasibility study for shuttles
 Subsidized and universal transit passes
 Parking cash out programs through a local ordinance

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 114
 Car sharin g, dynamic ride sharing, and taxi sharing programs  Alternative work schedules
 Improved “smart” parking technology
 Shared parking policies

BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT (BART)
Bike Parking Capital Program (2015); D1
After identifying a total of 68 bicycle parking spaces existing in Richmond BART Station, the Bike Parking Capital Program recommends an increase of 4 8 spaces to be added (and none to be removed) in the form of 40 short -term wave/ inverted U rack spaces and 8 long -term “ArcLocker” spaces. 124 The justificat ion in the proposed expansion is found in the face that “t he Richmond BART Station has a modest amount of space for additional secure bicycle parking within the fare gates.” 125 To enable greater visibility and security of existi ng and proposed bicycle parkin g, the plan recommends the relocation of the station’s inf ormation kiosk, as well as benches, trash receptacles, and other signage – all outside the paid area within the underground co rridor.

Because the “ plan is a snapshot in time and reflects bicycle pa rking needs and opportunities at stations throughout the BART system in mid -to-late 2014,” El Cerrito del Norte Station is not included. 126
Station Profile Study (2016); D2
In general, the guidelines pertaining to multimodal access, curbside management, and transit- oriented development at BART stations are still und er development. However, among the existing policies and programs are under review, the Station Access Policy identifies points specific to Richmond and El Cerrito del Norte BART stations:
- Richmond BART Station is classified as a “Balanced Intermodal” station wi th a “stable” development climate, while El Cerrito del Norte is classified as an “Intermodal – Auto Reliant” station with a “dynamic” development clima te. - The relatively late time in which the station parki ng facilities fill up (8:40 a.m. for Richmond and 8:25 a.m. for El Cerrito del Norte).
- The fact that transit -oriented developments are continuing to be built a round Richmond BART Station .

Station Access Policy (in progress)
The Station A ccess Policy was adopted in 2016. BART is currently in the process of implementing this policy and setting benchmarks.

124 p. 3
125 p. 39
126 p. 2

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 115
Station Modernization Program (in progress)
This ongoing program includes El Cerrito Norte BART as one of two pilot stations. This proc ess will include a thorough review of the station, a reassess ment of long range needs and design needs to respond to capacity challenges , and a remodeling of the station.

Multimodal Access Guidelines; Curbside Management
Guidelines (in progress)
BART is currently in the process of developing policies and guidelines around design elements and curbside regulations pertaining to all areas be tween the edge of BART property to the fare gate of BART stations.

BART Bicycle Plan (2012); D3
The BART Bicycle Plan i s bookended by an ambition to double the bicycle ac cess mode share across the BART system from 4.1% in 2010 to 8% in 2 0 22 (p. 27), as recent gains in bicycle trips to BART are still not keeping up with the pace of B ART’s overall growth in ridership.

Howev er, the BART Bicycle Plan concedes that, because th e first and last mile is cited, in the national literature and by focus group participants alike, as one of the biggest barriers to bicycling to public transit,” the necessary measures to incre ase bicycle access shares rest on improvements occurring outside of BART’s jurisdiction and respon sibility, including municipalities. 127 Richmond had 60 existing bicycle spaces (42 racks a nd 18 lockers), while El Cerrito del Norte had capacity for 154 bicycles (126 racks and 28 lockers ). All racks are located outside of the fare gates.

Occupancy for the two stations were 29% and 14%, re spectively, which is less than the system wide average of 41%. 128
Among many system wide recommendations, Richmond BART Station was called out as a location with “minimal or no directions leading pas sengers to bicycle facilities, 129” which suggests a need for improved wayfinding systems.

Richmond BART Station Access Plan (2002); D4
The Richmond BART Station Access Plan, dated from 2002 (before the development of the Richmond Transit Village), declared that “ many riders perceive the station area as unsafe ,” which contributes to its relatively lower usage than the El Cerrito stations (as well as its distance from I - 80). With that said, the plan a dvocates for a “relatively small investment in new facilities at the Richmond BART Station and in the surrounding community, beyond that which is currently planned for the station.” Pedestrian investments re commended include:
 “Create safe, pedestrian, whee lchair, and bicycle friendly streetscape on Nevin Avenue between station and Civic Center.
 Provide wayfinding signs, lighting and other amenit ies along local streets and throughout the transit village.

127 p. 26
128 pp. 14-17
129 p. 25

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 116
 Reconfigure some existing and add new curb cuts alo ng local streets.  Locate a Richmond Police substation at the new inte rmodal facility.” 130 Bicycle investments recommended include:
 “Install bike stair channels at station entrances;
 Incorporate BART’s Bicycle Access and Parking Plan design guidelines (current ly under development) into the final design of the Richmond Transit Village;  Add bicycle lockers to meet current demand, and add itional racks in the future, as demand warrants;
 Provide security cameras for bicycle parking areas;
 Work with the City of Richm ond to develop on -street bike lanes and signage for key access routes (Macdonald Avenue , Harbour Way and 17th/ 19th Street corridor);  Encourage the City of Richmond to create a bicycle left turn lane into the station at 19 th Avenue .”131

AMTRAK/CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
Fiscal Year 2017-2019 Business Plan; E1
Specific to Richmond, the latest Capitol Corridor b usiness plan programs $ 2.5 million for Richmond BART Station improvements. In particular, the funds would create a “flashing light that will indicate to Capitol Corridor trains when a BART tra in is approaching, to allow better coordination of passengers transferring from BART t o Capitol Corridor. 132” Additionally, a parking validator machine would be installed in the Richmond BART Station parkin g garage to improve the ease of payment for parking.

WATER EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Richmond Ferry Terminal Design Project (2014-2016); F1
The Richmond Ferry Terminal is planned to be constr ucted at a current recreational boat launch site along Ford Channel (the recreational launch will be reloc ated to another location closer to the Richmond Marina). The ferry terminal site is adjace nt to where Harbor Way South ends at Ford Channel (also known as Marina Bay Channel), and acc ess will be designed to facilitate passenger movement to the new gangway and dock from Harbor Wa y South, the parking lot to the west, and the Ford Assembly Building to the east.

The newly expanded ferry service, which may start a s early as 2018, was contingent on a grant - funde d expansion of capacity at the San Francisco Ferry Terminal.

130 p. 10
131 p. 10
132 p. 10

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 117
Figure 53 Richmond Ferry Terminal Site Plan and Parking

Figure 54 Richmond Ferry Terminal Site Plan Detail

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 118

APPENDIX B

ZONING DETAILS FOR TRANSIT-

ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
The following section profiles the zones and details entailed by such zoning designations for each of the mobility hubs and areas of connectivity analyzed for transit -oriented development (TOD) potential. Locations where the station is within th e City of Richmond are profiled in greater detail, including a map and a table with essential facts of each zone. Locations outside the City (including the El Cerrito BART Station, and Contra Costa College), the nearby City of Richm ond zones and a description of their intent is listed.

Richmond BART Station
Figure 55 Richmond BART Station Zoning Map from Richmond Livable Corridors

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 119
Figure 56 Zoning Details Surrounding Richmond BART Station Zones Intent/Uses
Density/
FAR
Lot
Size
Lot
Coverage
Building
Height Setbacks
Richmond General Plan / Zoning Update
Medium Density
Multi-Family
Residential (RM
1)
Single- and multi-family
residential with a limited
amount of neighborhood
supporting uses
10 du/ac
min. 27
du/ac
max.
5,000
sf min.
75% max. 35’ max. 10’ min.
front
setback
Single Family
Low Density
Residential (RL2)
Low density residential
with a limited amount of
neighborhood
supporting uses
12 du/ac
max.
3,750
sf min.
50% max. 30’ max. 15’ min.
front
setback
Commercial
General (CG)
Retail, service, office,
research &
development, and
limited industrial uses.

No residential

2.0 FAR 5,000
sf min.

NA 55’ max.; 35
within 50
feet of R
district
0’ min.
front
setback
Richmond Livable Corridors Form-Based Zones
T4 Neighborhood
(T4N)
Primarily residential with
mix of uses allowed in
open sub-zone
Medium
density
Varies NA (Small to
Medium
Footprint
Buildings)
2 ½ stories 10’ min.;
15’ max.
front
setback
T4 Main Street
(T4MS)
Vertical Mixed-use.

Commercial on ground
floor with residential
allowed on upper floors.

Medium
density
Varies NA (Small to
Large
Footprint
Buildings)
20’ min.; 3
stories max.
0’ min.; 10’
max. front
setback
T5 Neighborhood
(T5N)
Primarily residential with
home occupation uses
and neighborhood
supporting uses allowed
in ancillary buildings
Medium
to High-
density
Varies NA (Small to
Large
Footprint
Buildings)
2 stories
min.; 55’
max.
0’ min.; 15’
max. front
setback
T5 Main Street
(T5MS)
Vertical Mixed-use.

Commercial on ground
floor with residential
allowed on upper floors.

High-
density
Varies NA (Small to
Large
Footprint
Buildings)
2 stories
min.; 55’
max. (85’
max. in
some areas)
0’ min.; 10’
max. front
setback
T6 Core (T6C) Vertical Mixed-use.

Commercial on ground
floor with residential
allowed on upper floors.

High-
density
Varies NA (Medium
to Large
Footprint
Buildings)
4 stories
min.; 135’
max.
0’ min.; 10’
max. front
setback

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 120
Figure 57 Richmond Ferry Terminal Zoning Map from City Zoning Update and Richmond Bay Specific Plan

Richmond Ferry Terminal
Figure 58 Zoning Details Surrounding Richmond Ferry Terminal Zone Intent/Uses Density/FAR Lot Size
Lot
Coverage
Building
Height Setbacks
Richmond General Plan / Zoning Update
Industrial Light
(IL)
Light industrial, Office,
Research

0.65 FAR NA NA 55’ max. 0’ min. front
setback
Industrial Water
Related (IW)
Water Related industrial,
research Facilities

0.5 FAR NA NA 100’ max. 10’ min. from local
streets; 25’ min.
from collector
streets (front
setback)
Commercial
Mixed-use,
Activity Node
(CM-5)
Commercial on ground
floor and Residential
allowed on upper floors
40 du/ac
min.; 125
du/ac max.

5.0 FAR
5,000 sf
min.

NA 22’ min.;
135’ max.;
12 stories
max.
5’ min. front
setback
Public Cultural, &
Institutional (PCI)
City facilities, utilities,
schools, and other public
and quasi-public uses

1.0 FAR 10,000 sf
min.

NA 45’ max. When adjacent to
an RS or RM
zone, same as
that zone

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 121
Zone Intent/Uses Density/FAR Lot Size
Lot
Coverage
Building
Height Setbacks
Parks &
Recreation (PR)
Active and passive public
parks including indoor
and outdoor public and
private recreation
facilities.

0.5 FAR NA NA 35’ max. 10% of lot depth,
not to exceed 20’
Planned Area
(PA)
This zone designation facilitates the development of large sites (over 5 acres) in accordance with the General Plan through a Planned Area Plan
Richmond Bay Specific Plan (SP-2)
T5 Neighborhood
(T5N)
Medium- to high-density
residential to transition to
lower-density and mixed-
use environments.

Medium- to
high-density
Varies Small- to
Large-
footprint
buildings
20’ min.; 55’
max.
0’ min.; 15’ max.
front setback
T5 Main Street
(T5MS)
Urban main street
environment supporting
locally and regionally
serving commercial,
retail, and services
Medium- to
high-density
Varies Small- to
Large-
footprint
buildings
2 stories
min.; 55’
max. (85’
with
bonuses)
0’ min.; 15’ max.
front setback

Richmond Parkway Transit Center and Hilltop Mall
Figure 59 Richmond Parkway Transit Center / Hilltop Mall Zoning Map from City Zoning Update

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 122
Figure 60 Zoning Details Surrounding Richmond Parkway Transit Center / Hilltop Mall Zones Intent/Uses
Density/
FAR Lot Size
Lot
Coverage
Building
Height Setbacks
Richmond General Plan / Zoning Update
Medium Density
Multi-Family
Residential (RM 1)
Single- and multi-family
residential with a limited
amount of neighborhood
supporting uses
10 du/ac
min.; 27
du/ac max.
5,000 sf
min.
75% max. 35’ max. 10’ min.
front
setback
Single Family Low
Density Residential
(RL2)
Low density residential with a
limited amount of
neighborhood supporting uses
12 du/ac
max.
3,750 sf
min.
50% max. 30’ max. 15’ min.
front
setback
Commercial Mixed-
use (CM-5)
Mid- and high-rise mixed-use
with office, retail,
entertainment and residential
uses.
40 du/ac
min.;125
du/ac max.

5.0 FAR
5,000 sf
min.

N/A 22’ min.;
135’ max.;
5 stories
max.
5’ min. front
setback
Public Cultural, and
Institutional (PCI)
City facilities, utilities, schools,
and other public and quasi-
public uses.

1.0 FAR 10,000 sf
min.

N/A 45’ max. Same as RS
or RM
Parks and
Recreation (PR)
Active and passive public
parks.

0.5 FAR N/A N/A 35’ max. 20% of lot
depth, not to
exceed 40
ft.

Regional
Commercial (CR)
Mid-rise mixed-use
development and regional
shopping centers with
primarily retail as well as
office and residential uses.

2.0 FAR 5,000
min.

N/A 2 ½ stories 0’ min. front
setback
Open Space (OS) Vertical Mixed-use.

Commercial on ground floor
with residential allowed on
upper floors.

0.5 FAR N/A N/A 20’ min.; 3
stories
max.
20% of lot
depth, not to
exceed 40
ft.

Commercial Mixed-
Use, Neighborhood
(CM-2)
Residential and
neighborhood-serving retail
uses. Residential above
ground floor commercial is
preferred.
10 du/ac
min.; 30
du/ac max.

0.5 FAR
5,000 sf
min.

N/A 45’ min.;
135’ max.;
4 stories
max.
0’ min. front
setback
Commercial Mixed-
Use, Neighborhood
(CM-3)
Mixed-use development with
commercial or office/light
industrial uses at street-level
along corridors.
15 du/ac
min.; 50
du/ac max.

2.0 FAR
5,000 sf
min.

N/A 55’ min.;
135’ max.;
5 stories
max.
0’ min. front
setback
Industrial, Business
(IB)
Flex and industrial buildings
accommodating a diverse
range of business and light
industrial uses.

0.5 FAR N/A N/A 55’ max. 15’ min.

Industrial, Light (IL) Industrial complexes, flex and
industrial buildings

0.65 FAR N/A N/A 55’ max. 0’ min.

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 123
Zones Intent/Uses
Density/
FAR Lot Size
Lot
Coverage
Building
Height Setbacks
accommodating a diverse
range of light industrial uses.

El Cerrito del Norte BART Station
City of Richmond Zoning in proximity to El Cerrito del Norte BART Station includes:
 Re gio n al Co m m e rcial ( CR) : Intended for mid- rise mixed -use regional shopping centers. High -intensity retail development in a pedestrian -friendly environment. Can also support some office, services, and residential uses .
 Commercial General (CG): Intended to support retail, service, office, resear ch & development, and limited industrial uses. No reside ntial uses allowed.  Co m m e rcial Mixe d -Us e , Re s id e n tial (CM-1) : Intended to support mixed -use and Residential -only development. Commercial -only development is not allowed. New development is required to inc orporate pedestrian -oriented design standards.  Co m m e rcial Mixe d -Us e , Co m m e rcial (CM -3 ): Intended to support mixed -use development with commercial and office uses along c orridors. Allows residential -only and commercial -only development. New development is required be de signed to pedestrian -oriented design standards.
 Co m m e rcial Mixe d -Us e , Gate w ay/ N o d e ( CM-4 ) : Intended to support mid -rise mixed -use development at key gateways and nodes. Allows c ommercial at ground floor and allows office or residential uses on upper floors. New development is required be designed to pedestrian -oriented design standards.
 Me d iu m D e n s ity Mu lti-Fam ily Re s id e n tial ( RM 1): Primarily single- and multi - family residential (10 du/ ac min, 27 du/ ac max) up to 35 feet. Allows a limited amou nt of neighborhood supporting uses.
 Me d iu m -H igh -de n s ity Multi -Fam ily Re s id e n tial (RM 2 ) : Primarily multi -family residential (15 du/ ac min, 40 du/ ac max) up to 35 f eet. Also allows a limited amount of neighborhood supporting uses
 Sin gle Fam ily Lo w De n s ity R e s id e n tial ( RL 2 ): Primarily low -density residential (15 du/ ac max). Can also support a range of neighbo rhood supporting uses.  Plan n e d Are a ( PA) : Facilitates the development of large sites (over 5 acres) in accordance with the General Plan through a Plann ed Area Plan  Public, Cultural, an d In s titutio n al (PCI) : City facilities, utilities, schools, and other public and quasi -public uses.
 Parks an d Re cre atio n ( PR) : Intended to support active and passive public parks including indoor and outdoor public and priv ate recreation facilities.

El Cerrito Plaza BART Station
City of Richmond Zoning in proximity to El Cerrito Plaza BART Station includes:
 Re gio n al Co m m e rcial ( CR) : Intended for mid- rise, mixed -use regional shopping centers. High -intensity retail development in a pedestrian -friendly environment. Can also support some office, services, and residential uses .

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 124
 Sin gle Fam ily Lo w De n s ity Re s id e n tial ( RL 2 ): Primarily low -density residential (15 du/ ac max). Can also support a range o f neighborhood supporting uses.

Contra Costa College Transit Center
City of Richmond Zoning in proximity to Contra Cost a College Transit Center includes:
 Me d iu m D e n s ity Mu lti-Fam ily Re s id e n tial ( RM 1): Primarily single- and multi - family residential (10 du/ ac min, 27 du/ ac max) up to 35 f eet. Also allows a limited amount of neighborhood supporting uses.
 Me d iu m -H igh -de n s ity Multi -Fam ily Re s id e n tial (RM 2 ) : Primarily multi -family residential (15 du/ ac min, 40 du/ ac max) up to 35 f eet. Also allows a limited amount of neighborhood supporting u ses
 Sin gle Fam ily Lo w De n s ity Re s id e n tial ( RL 2 ): Primarily low -density residential (15 du/ ac max). Can also support a range of neighbo rhood supporting uses.  Public, Cultural, an d In s titutio n al (PCI) : Intended to support City facilities, utilities, school s, and other public and quasi -public uses  Parks an d Re cre atio n ( PR) : Intended to support active and passive public parks including indoor and outdoor public and private rec reation facilities.  In dus trial Light (IL): Intended to support a variety of light in dustrial uses as well as office and research uses.

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
City of Richmond
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 125

APPENDIX C

MOBILITY HUB URBAN DESIGN AND

PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS
Please see attached PDF. This appendix provides sup porting photos and details for each mobility hub’s site overview and pedestrian a ccess assessment in Chapter 3.

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
Key Blvd
Potrero Ave
Blake St
Hill St
Berk Ave
r a C
Wall Ave
Donal A
Gladys Ave
Rifle Range Rd
Hagen Blvd
Ells Ln
52nd St
h t 5 4
Ganges Ave
Fall Ave
Creely Ave
apscott Ave
Cypress Ave
46th St
Mound St
t S h t 9 4
h t 7 4
t S h t 5 4
t S d r 3 4
Elm St
80 ¬
123
80 0 0.5 1 Miles
Eastshore Blvd
STUDY AREA: DEL NORTE BART STATION ACCESS
POTRERO AVENUE: SOUTH 52ND STREET-EASTSHORE BOULEVARD

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
ZONING: RL-2: Single Family Low Density Residential, Commercial Emphasis. PC-1-Public, Cultural, and Institutional Photo Documentation: Google Earth Software and Digital Photography Figure 1 - Sidewalk section at Interstate 80 overpass
Figure 2 - Typical road condition and bicycle striping / signage Infrastructure and Amenities
Corridor Synopsis
Rating- Out of 5
Richmond’s section of Potrero Avenue
is within low density residential zoning.

Sidewalks are often narrowed and / or
impeded by utilities and disrepair, with
crossings not fully accessible with missing
curb ramps, striping, and signal indicators.

An Interstate 80 on-ramp creates a barrier
in accessing BART, however a pedestrian
island is available which increasing visibility,
and a complete sidewalk is available on
the north side of the street, connecting to
Eastshore Boulevard.

Safety
Accessibility
Amenities / Aesthetics

2.7 2

2.6 Safety
• Vehicular lighting
• Visibility from street and adjacent structures sometimes impeded by structures or vegetation
• Pedestrian island and freeway on-ramp
Accessibility
• Some crosswalk indicators / striping missing
• Narrow sidewalks
• Some curb ramps missing at intersections
Amenities / Aesthetics
• Some street tree planting
• Small residential setbacks, small allotment of pedestrian right-of-way
• Minimal bicycle infrastructure
Constraints / Issues
• Interstate overpass is significant barrie
• Maintenance issues at sidewalks and road
• Generally not accessible

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
Key Blvd
Potrero Ave
Blake St
Hill St
Berk Ave
r a C
Wall Ave
Donal A
Gladys Ave
Rifle Range Rd
Hagen Blvd
Ells Ln
52nd St
h t 5 4
Ganges Ave
Fall Ave
Creely Ave
apscott Ave
Cypress Ave
46th St
Mound St
t S h t 9 4
h t 7 4
t S h t 5 4
t S d r 3 4
Elm St
80 ¬
123
80 0 0.5 1 Miles
Eastshore Blvd
STUDY AREA: DEL NORTE BART STATION ACCESS
CUTTING BOULEVARD: SOUTH 49TH STREET-INTERSTATE 80

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
ZONING: CM-1: Commercial Mixed Use, Residential
Photo Documentation: Google Earth Software and Digital Photography Figure 3 - Sidewalk section at Interstate 80 overpass
Figure 4 - Typical road condition and bicycle striping / signage Infrastructure and Amenities
Corridor Synopsis
Rating- Out of 5
Richmond’s section of Cutting Boulevard
is designed to accommodate pedestrian
and vehicular traffic, with sections of wide
sidewalks buffered from the street, pedestrian
and vehicular lighting, high contrast crossings,
and traffic calming devices that help reduce
vehicular speed. The Interstate 80 overpasses
poses a significant barrier to BART access,
requiring pedestrians to cross through on /
off ramps on both sides of the street. The
El Cerrito section of the street is in disrepair
and offers minimal safety considerations for
pedestrian travel.

Safety
Accessibility
Amenities / Aesthetics

3.8 3.3

2.8 Safety
• Pedestrian and vehicular lighting
• Good visibility from street and adjacent structures
• Buffered sidewal
• On-ramp crossing required, no signal available
Accessibility
• Curb ramps and detectable warning systems with signals installed at most residential intersections
• Large crossing without detectable warning system at
off-ram
Amenities / Aesthetics
• Partial street tree planting and private trees provide shade
• Large allotment for pedestrian right-of-way
• Sidewalks have large buffer from vehicular traffic on mo sections
• Partial Class II bicycle lane striping
• Bus Stops
Constraints / Issues
• Interstate overpass is significant barrie
• Bus Stops not covered
• Lack of street trees

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
Key Blvd
Potrero Ave
Blake St
Hill St
Berk Ave
r a C
Wall Ave
Donal A
Gladys Ave
Rifle Range Rd
Hagen Blvd
Ells Ln
52nd St
h t 5 4
Ganges Ave
Fall Ave
Creely Ave
apscott Ave
Cypress Ave
46th St
Mound St
t S h t 9 4
h t 7 4
t S h t 5 4
t S d r 3 4
Elm St
80 ¬
123
80 0 0.5 1 Miles
Eastshore Blvd
Safety
• Vehicular lighting
• Long crossing, often missing pedestrian island
• Multiple crossing required
• Minimal vehicular traffic buffer
• Narrow sidewalks / pedestrian righ-of-way
allocation
• Planted and hardscape medians for traffic calmi
Accessibility
• Curb ramps and detectable warning systems with
signals installed at most intersections
• Path-of-travel sometimes impeded by heaved
sidewalks / utilities
Amenities / Aesthetics
• Partial street tree planting and private trees provide shade
• Some sidewalk sections have furniture zone with
seating, trash / recycle
• Some public art / banners installed
• Some wayfinding signag
Constraints / Issues
• Width of street requires extensive crossing, often
only partially available, requiring multiple crossings
• high rate of vehicular traffic often not buffered fr
sidewalk
• No bicycle infrastructure
STUDY AREA: DEL NORTE BART STATION ACCESS

SAN PABLO AVENUE

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
Photo Documentation: Google Earth Software and Digital Photography Figure 5 - Sidewalk section at Interstate 80 overpass
Figure 6 - Typical road condition and bicycle striping / signage Infrastructure and Amenities
Corridor Synopsis
Rating- Out of 5
San Pablo Avenue is a wide arterial with
heavy vehicular traffic, composed of up
to 7 travel lanes for two-way traffic. Some
sidewalks are not buffered from vehicular
traffic and are narrowed or impeded by
utilities. Some street trees are installed
offering a buffer and partial shade. Accessible
crossings are available , sometimes requiring
same side crossing to access intersection
crossing signals. The width of San Pablo
Avenue requires extensive crossing distances
without pedestrian islands.

Safety
Accessibility
Amenities / Aesthetics

2.3 3.3

2.6 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
Key Blvd
Potrero Ave
Blake St
Hill St
Berk Ave
r a C
Wall Ave
Donal A
Gladys Ave
Rifle Range Rd
Hagen Blvd
Ells Ln
52nd St
h t 5 4
Ganges Ave
Fall Ave
Creely Ave
apscott Ave
Cypress Ave
46th St
Mound St
t S h t 9 4
h t 7 4
t S h t 5 4
t S d r 3 4
Elm St
80 ¬
123
80 0 0.5 1 Miles
Eastshore Blvd
STUDY AREA: DEL NORTE BART STATION ACCESS

DEL NORTE BART

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
Photo Documentation: Google Earth Software and Digital Photography Figure 7 - Sidewalk section at Interstate 80 overpass
Figure 8 - Typical road condition and bicycle striping / signage Infrastructure and Amenities
Station Synopsis
Rating- Out of 5
Del Norte Station is a two-block wide transit
center with extensive parking both in front
and back of the station entrance. The station
is accessible from Knott Avenue, Cutting
Boulevard, and Hill Street, with a center axis
pedestrian entrance from San Pablo Avenue.

No main entry exists and the station does
not offer a sense of place or visual que of a
destination. The setback of the station requires
navigating through parking lots and side streets
to access the BART entrance. The pedestrian
entrance splits the parking lot and requires
negotiating parking, drop off, and bus que.

Safety
Accessibility
Amenities / Aesthetics

3.2 3

3.4 Safety
• Vehicular lighting, pedestrian lighting near entrance • Entrances can require negotiating large parking
areas
• Center pedestrian entrance has buffered pathwa ,
decorative paving crossings. Requires passing
through bus que
• Multiple crossing required
• Minimal vehicular traffic buffer
• Narrow sidewalks / pedestrian righ-of-way allocation
Accessibility
• Curb ramps and detectable warning systems not
installed at all crossings
• Path-of-travel sometimes impeded by heaved
sidewalks / utilities
Amenities / Aesthetics
• Covered bus que seating
• Seating, trash / recycle
• Some public art / banners installed
• Some wayfinding signag
Constraints / Issues
• Unclear pick up / drop off are
• No bicycle infrastructure
• No sense of entry
• Parking frontage navigation feels unsafe, minimal
viewing / eyes on street

Crossing and Accessibility Treatments to El Cerrito Del Norte BART Entrance

BART ENTRANCE CROSSING AND ACCESSIBILITY
Knott Ave and San Pablo Ave.

Knott Avenue and Kearney
Street / Ohlone Greenway
Knott Ave. has a similar treatment to
Cutting and Hill with standard crosswalk
striping at one edge of the intersection,
however the sidewalk layout circulates
pedestrians onto the western edge of
the BART facility, requiring no additional
crossings. Striping has low visibility and is
in disrepair. Truncated domes at curb ramps
are installed at all sidewalk entrances from
crosswalk entries.

No curb ramp or crossing indicator is
installed at Kearney Street. Large ladder-
style crosswalk striping is installed at the
Ohlone Greenway crossing along with
Supplementary Pedestrian Crossing
Channeling Device (SPCCD). Ohlone curb
ramps do not contain truncated domes /
detectable warning systems.

Hill Street and San Pablo Ave.

Hill Street has a similar treatment to Cutting
with standard crosswalk striping at one edge
of the intersection, requiring multiple street
crossings to access BART.

Crossing at San Pablo provides a
pedestrian island refuge midway of vehicular
traffic. The BART entrance curb ramps are
City standard dimensions with truncated
domes / detectable warning surfaces and
provide proper clearance for accessible path
of travel.

Pedestrian and Vehicular Street Lighting

BART ENTRANCE LIGHTING
San Pablo Avenue-BART Frontage
Cutting Blvd. and San Pablo Avenue
11 Vehicular Lights are installed between
Knott Avenue and Hill Street. Posts are
installed on the sidewalk at uneven intervals
between 100’ and 130’. No pedestrian
lighting is installed.

Two Vehicular Lights are installed along
Cutting Blvd. between BART entrance and
San Pablo Ave. No pedestrian lighting is
installed.

Knott Avenue And San Pablo Avenue
Kearney Street and Knott Avenue
1 Vehicular Light installed at corner of Knott
and San Pablo. No Pedestrian lighting
installed.

No direct pedestrian or vehicular lighting
installed. 3 total lights installed in planting
buffer for adjacent parking lot at unequal
intervals. No pedestrian lighting installed.

Pedestrian and Vehicular Street Lighting

BART FACILITY LIGHTING
BART Entrance Lighting
Cutting Blvd. and San Pablo Avenue
Pedestrian scale lighting is only installed
along the main pedestrian access path
from San Pablo Avenue That starts in the
approximate center of the parking lot.

Approximately 17 vehicular lights are
installed along the bus queuing area and
BART entry plaza.

BART Parking Lot Along San Pablo
Frontage Between Knott Avenue and Hill
Approximately 35 vehicular light poles with
both one and two light fixtures each are
installed in the parking areas between Knott
Avenue and Hill Street.

Crossing and Accessibility
Bicycle Amenities and Lighting
POTRERO AVENUE AND EASTSHORE BLVD. ACCESS
Curb cuts are often not available along
Potrero Avenue, with crosswalks ending
into solid curbs, planting or utilities, not
meeting City Standard building codes. Some
intersections do not have crosswalk striping
or delineation installed.

Sharrows and vehicular bike signage is
installed long both travel directions along
Potrero Avenue. Striping breaks at the
Interstate 80 underpass and picks up on
the eastern edge of Eastshore Blvd. with a
Class II bike lane.

Vehicular lighting is installed in the
residential section of Potrero Avenue,
unequally spaced. Approximately five
vehicular lights are installed along
Eastshore Drive between Potrero and San
Pablo Avenue. No pedestrian lighting is
installed.

Sidewalk widths average 3.5’-4’, often
impeded by utilities. Sidewalk heaving
occurs due to mature tree roots, make the
sidewalk inaccessible.

Typical Striping and Sidewalk
Accessibility
Bike Striping and Signage
Lighting
Sidewalks

Striping and Signage
Storage and Parking

BART ENTRANCE AND FACILITY BIKING AMENITIES
BART Station
Cutting Blvd. and San Pablo Avenue
126 rack parking stalls and 28 keyed bike
lockers are available per BART Bicycle Plan
2002. Bike parking occurs under the tracks,
bike lockers are not highly visible.

Two Vehicular Lights are installed along
Cutting Blvd. between BART entrance and
San Pablo Ave. No pedestrian lighting is
installed.

Knott Avenue and Hill Street Entries
San Pablo Avenue and Cutting Blvd.

Sharrow striping is installed in one location
at Hill Street and San Pablo Avenue
entering the BART station. Bike crossing
signage is installed at Knott Avenue and
Kearney Street near the Ohlone Greenway
Crossing.

Class II bike lane is available at Cutting
Blvd. at the Interstate 80 overpass
heading westward. It discontinues near the
intersection of San Pablo Avenue. No bike
striping or signage is installed San Pablo
Avenue.

Signal Treatments

BART ENTRANCE CROSSING AND ACCESSIBILITY
Accessible pedestrian signals controlling
countdown timers are provided at
crosswalks leading to BART entrances at
Knott Avenue, Cutting Blvd. and Hill Street.

An accessible signal button is available in
the median of San Pablo Avenue at Cutting
Blvd. This signal is installed at the concrete
nose of a median planter, not an island
refuge.

San Pablo Avenue at BART Frontage
Cutting Blvd. at Ohlone Greenway
Solar powered crosswalk signal is installed
at the Bus exit at Cutting Blvd. along with
pedestrian detection signal bollards at the
ladder crosswalk that connects the Ohlone
Greenway to the BART entrance.

Crossing and Accessibility
Bicycle Amenities and Lighting

CUTTING BOULEVARD
Curb cuts with detectable warning surfaces
are installed at crosswalk entrances.

Standard sidewalk striping is installed
at most intersections, missing in some
locations. Intersections have accessible
signals with pedestrian countdown timers.

Class II bike lanes are available in the
residential section of Cutting Blvd. and
includes striping and vehicular signage.

Bike striping ends at the beginning of the
Interstate 80 on-ramps.

Pedestrian lighting is available at 60’ on-
center spacing along the buffered sidewalk
in the residential section of Cutting Blvd.

Vehicular lighting is also installed at approx.
150’ on-center spacing. The pedestrian
lighting stops at Cutting Blvd. the Interstate
80 off-ramp.

Off-street sidewalks and buffered sidewalks
are available in the residential section of
Cutting, Buffering is removed toward the
Interstate on ramps and toward the San
Pablo Avenue intersection. Sidewalk widths
vary from 4-6’.

Typical Striping and Sidewalk
Accessibility
Bike Striping and Signage
Lighting
Sidewalks

Crossing and Accessibility Treatments to El Cerrito Del Norte BART Entrance

BART ENTRANCE CROSSING AND ACCESSIBILITY
Pedestrian crossing at Cutting Blvd.

Standard striping installed on the western
edge of the intersection with a 2’ decorative
paving stamp treatment with a contrasting
finish. Pedestrian circulation from the est
side of Cutting Blvd toward BART is required
to first cross Cutting then San Pablo then
back across Cutting in order to adhere
to crosswalks and utilize accessible curb
ramps.

Cutting Blvd. and San Pablo Ave.

San Pablo Avenue at Pedestrian BART
Entrance
Cutting Blvd. at Bus Exit
Crosswalk patterns on Cutting Blvd. include
standard striping at San Pablo Avenue and
the Bus loading exit adjacent to the Kearney
Street intersection. Ladder patter striping
is installed under the BART tracks at the
Ohlone Greenway crossing.

Decorative sidewalk treatments with
contrasting color-stamped pattern between
standard striping delineates pedestrian
crossing from vehicular traffic. Truncated
domes / detectable warning surfaces have
been installed at curb ramps located at
all sidewalk entrances from crosswalks.
sidewalks.

Some paths of travel are partially interrupted
by vegetation. Some ramps and are not per
City standard for new work of 4’-0” width.

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
Marina Way
Regatta Blvd
t S h t 8
Wright Ave
Seacliff Dr
2 t S h t 4
Marina Bay Pkwy
2 Hall Ave
Wharf St
Peninsula Dr
Meeker Ave
Bayfront Dr
Lakeshore Ct
Melville Sq
Southwind Cir
Scott Ave
Hoffman Blvd
S h t 1 1
t
S
h t 9 1
t 4
t S h t 3 1
h t 5 1
Potrero Ave
t S h t 2 1
17th St
22nd St
0 0.5 1 Miles
Harbour Way South
STUDY AREA: FERRY TERMINAL

HARBOUR WAY SOUTH

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
ZONING: CM-3: Commercial mixed use, Commercial Emphasis. CM-4: Commercial Mixed Use, Gateway / Node.

IL-Industrial, Light. IW-Industrial, Water related.

Photo Documentation: Google Earth Software and Digital Photography Figure 1 - Typical sidewalk section near Interstate 580 Figure 2 - Sidewalk section toward Hall Avenue
Figure 1 - Typical road condition near 580 Overpass
Infrastructure and Amenities
Corridor Synopsis
Rating- Out of 5
Harbour Way South is a two-way street that
crosses Interstate 580 within a primarily
industrial zoned development. Modest
pedestrian transportation infrastructure
is installed with partial class II bike lanes
and wayfinding signage toward the Ferry
Terminal site. Vehicular lighting is installed
along the street with pedestrian scale
lighting near the Ford building.

Safety
Accessibility
Amenities / Aesthetics

2.8 2.7
2 Safety
• Pedestrian and vehicular lighting
• Fair visibility from street and adjacent structures
• Pedestrian islands / vehicular buffer
• Wide sidewalks
Accessibility
• Most crossings have striping, some in disrepair
• Curb ramps at intersections
• Not all crossings have signals
Amenities / Aesthetics
• Planting areas
• Mature trees both street and in adjacent private
property
• Some wayfinding signag
Constraints / Issues
• Minimal bicycle infrastructure
• Some sidewalk heaving
• Some paths of travel narrowed due to furnishings
• Non buffered highway overpass crossin

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
Marina Way
Regatta Blvd
t S h t 8
Wright Ave
Seacliff Dr
2 t S h t 4
Marina Bay Pkwy
2 Hall Ave
Wharf St
Peninsula Dr
Meeker Ave
Bayfront Dr
Lakeshore Ct
Melville Sq
Southwind Cir
Scott Ave
Hoffman Blvd
S h t 1 1
t
S
h t 9 1
t 4
t S h t 3 1
h t 5 1
Potrero Ave
t S h t 2 1
17th St
22nd St
0 0.5 1 Miles
Harbour Way South
STUDY AREA: FERRY TERMINAL

MARINA WAY SOUTH

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
ZONING: SP-2: Richmond Bay Specific Plan. CG: General Commercial. LW: Live-Work. IL: Industrial, Light.

Photo Documentation: Google Earth Software and Digital Photography Figure 3 - Typical sidewalk section south of 580 overpass Figure 4 - Typical road section near Interstate 580
Infrastructure and Amenities
Corridor Synopsis
Rating- Out of 5
Marina Way South is a two-way street
that crosses Interstate 580 within
industrial, commercial and live-work zoned
developments. Non-buffered sidewalks
pass over Interstate 580 and transition
to moderate-width sidewalks adjacent to
vehicular traffic. Planted medians separate
traffic flow, and increased wayfinding
signage, public art and planting areas define
the corridor closer to Hall Avenue.

Safety
Accessibility
Amenities / Aesthetics

2.8 3

2.8 Safety
• Vehicular lighting
• Fair visibility from street and adjacent structures
• Traffic calming / planted media
• Wider sidewalks available south of 580
Accessibility
• Crossings have striping,decorative treatment closer
to Ferry site
• Curb ramps at intersections
• Not all crossings have signals
Amenities / Aesthetics
• Planting areas
• Mature trees, both street and in adjacent private
property
• Some wayfinding Signag
• Public art
• Connection to Class I trail at Regatta Blvd.

Constraints / Issues
• Minimal bicycle infrastructure
• Some sidewalk heaving
• Some paths of travel narrowed due to furnishings
• Non buffered highway overpass crossin

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
Marina Way
Regatta Blvd
t S h t 8
Wright Ave
Seacliff Dr
2 t S h t 4
Marina Bay Pkwy
2 Hall Ave
Wharf St
Peninsula Dr
Meeker Ave
Bayfront Dr
Lakeshore Ct
Melville Sq
Southwind Cir
Scott Ave
Hoffman Blvd
S h t 1 1
t
S
h t 9 1
t 4
t S h t 3 1
h t 5 1
Potrero Ave
t S h t 2 1
17th St
22nd St
0 0.5 1 Miles
Harbour Way South
STUDY AREA: FERRY TERMINAL

HALL AVENUE

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
ZONING: CM-5: Commercial Mixed Use, Activity Center. IL: Industrial, Light.

Photo Documentation: Google Earth Software and Digital Photography Figure 5 - Typical sidewalk section
Figure 6 - Typical road and striping condition
Infrastructure and Amenities
Corridor Synopsis
Rating- Out of 5
Hall Avenue connects Marina Way and
Harbour Way South with a moderate-width
sidewalk that is available on the north side
of the street. The street receives minimal
vehicular traffic. Amenities include a class II
bike lane, public art and wayfinding signage
at intersections.

Safety
Accessibility
Amenities / Aesthetics

2.7 2.7

2.2 Safety
• Vehicular lighting
• Sight lines partially obstructed by vegetation
• Minimal pedestrian and vehicular traffic, empty lot
provide less eyes on the street
Accessibility
• Crossings have striping,decorative treatment
• Curb ramps at intersections
• Not all crossings have signals
Amenities / Aesthetics
• Mature trees, in adjacent private property
• Some wayfinding Signag
• Public art
• Class II bike lane
Constraints / Issues
• Minimal use, can feel unsafe at night
• Some paths of travel narrowed due to furnishings

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
Marina Way
Regatta Blvd
t S h t 8
Wright Ave
Seacliff Dr
2 t S h t 4
Marina Bay Pkwy
2 Hall Ave
Wharf St
Peninsula Dr
Meeker Ave
Bayfront Dr
Lakeshore Ct
Melville Sq
Southwind Cir
Scott Ave
Hoffman Blvd
S h t 1 1
t
S
h t 9 1
t 4
t S h t 3 1
h t 5 1
Potrero Ave
t S h t 2 1
17th St
22nd St
0 0.5 1 Miles
Harbour Way South
STUDY AREA: FERRY TERMINAL

REGATTA BLVD

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
ZONING: SP-2: Richmond Bay Specific Plan, PA: Planned Area.

Photo Documentation: Google Earth Software and Digital Photography Figure 7 - Typical section of multi-use trail
Figure 8 - Typical crossing at residential housing
Infrastructure and Amenities
Corridor Synopsis
Rating- Out of 5
Regatta Boulevard connects a planned
community development to Marina Way
South. Two-way traffic is partially separated
by planted medians, with a class I multi-use
trail on the south edge of the street.

Safety
Accessibility
Amenities / Aesthetics

3.5 3

2.2 Safety
• Vehicular lighting
• Good visibility
• Moderate pedestrian and vehicular traffic
residential unit windows and doors facing street
• Unused lots and train tracks can feel unsafe during
passage
Accessibility
• Crossings have striping
• Curb ramps at intersections
• Not all crossings have signals
• Crossing at train tracks not accessible
Amenities / Aesthetics
• Mature trees in street and adjacent private property
• Some wayfinding Signag
• Public art
• Class II bike lane
Constraints / Issues
• No crossing at some sides of intersections that are
adjacent to property entries
• Sidewalk not complete on residential zoned side of
street

Crossing and Accessibility
Bicycle Amenities and Lighting
HARBOUR WAY SOUTH | CUTTING BLVD. TO WRIGHT AVE.

Curb ramps have been installed at
intersection crossings. Detectable warning
systems are not installed at all locations.

Accessible signal controls are available.

Standard striping has been installed at most
intersections. Wright Avenue does not have
crosswalk striping.

Class II bike lanes are installed between
Hoffman and Wright Avenue, ceasing
mid-block. Bay Trail signage installed on
standalone posts are installed in sidewalks.

Vehicular lighting between Cutting Blvd.
and Hoffman Blvd. at approximately 130’
on-center spacing, staggered. Installation
types is stand alone post. No vehicular
lighting is installed between Hoffman Blvd.
and Wright Avenue. No pedestrian lighting is
installed.

Sidewalk width ranges from 5’-7’. Some
areas have planting area buffers ranging
from 2’-3’. Throughways are sometimes
interrupted due to sidewalk heaving or utility
installation and narrow to less than 3’ wide.

Typical Striping and Sidewalk
Accessibility
Bike Striping and Signage
Lighting
Sidewalks

Crossing and Accessibility
Bicycle Amenities and Lighting
HARBOUR WAY SOUTH | WRIGHT AVE. TO FERRY TERMINAL
Some intersection crossings are missing
curb ramps. Detectable warning systems
are not installed at all locations. Accessible
signal controls are not available at all
intersections. Standard or ladder striping
has been installed at most intersections
crosswalks.

Class II bike lanes are installed between
Hall Avenue and the railroad crossing.

Sharrow striping is installed in southbound
lane. Bay Trail signage installed on
standalone posts are installed in sidewalks.

Vehicular lighting between Cutting Blvd. and
Hoffman Blvd. at approximately 90’-130’
on-center spacing. Installation types is
fixture attached to utlitiy / telephone pole.

Pedestrian lighting is installed along the
sidewalk at approximately 80’-100’ on-center
spacing.

Sidewalk width ranges from 3-10’.

Throughways are sometimes interrupted
due to sidewalk heaving or utility installation.

Typical Striping and Sidewalk
Accessibility
Bike Striping and Signage
Lighting
Sidewalks

Vehicular lighting is installed at
approximately 120’-150’ on-center spacing.

Installation type is fixture attached to utlitiy /
telephone pole and standalone post.

Crossing and Accessibility
Lighting
MARINA WAY SOUTH | CUTTING BLVD. TO WRIGHT AVE.

Some intersection crossings are missing
curb ramps. Detectable warning systems
are not installed at all locations. Accessible
signal controls are not available at all
intersections. Standard striping has been
installed at most intersections crosswalks.

Sidewalk width ranges from 3’-10’.

Throughways are sometimes interrupted
due to sidewalk heaving or utility installation
and narrow to less than 2’ wide.

Typical Striping and Sidewalk
Accessibility
Lighting
Sidewalks

Vehicular lighting is installed at
approximately 120’-150’ on-center spacing.

Installation types is standalone post. Posts
installed in medians have two fixtures
Bike lane signage is installed on utility
posts, no bike lane striping is installed. Bay
trail and wayfinding signage is installed in
medians and along sidewalks on standalone
posts.

Crossing and Accessibility
Lighting and Signage
MARINA WAY SOUTH | WRIGHT AVE. TO FERRY TERMINAL
Some intersection crossings are missing
curb ramps. Detectable warning systems
are not installed at all locations. Accessible
signal controls are not available at all
intersections. Standard striping has been
installed at most intersections crosswalks.

Sidewalk width ranges from 7’-15’.

Throughways are sometimes interrupted
due to sidewalk heaving or utility installation
Median sidewalks / islands are installed,
separating travel lane directions. Widths
vary from 2’-5’.

Typical Striping and Sidewalk
Accessibility
Lighting
Signage
Sidewalks

Vehicular lighting is installed at
approximately 130’ on-center spacing.

Installation type is fixture attached to
utlitiy / telephone pole and standalone
post. Wayfinding signage is installed near
intersections.

Class II bike lane striping is installed on both
sides of the street. Bike lane and Bay Trail
signage is installed on utility posts,
Crossing and Accessibility
Lighting and Signage

HALL AVENUE
Intersection crossings are marked with
standard striping. Decorative pattern with
contrasting pavement material is marked at
Marina Way intersection. Some curb ramps
do not have detectable warning systems.

Sidewalk width is approximately 7’, mostly
uninterrupated throughways. Some utilities
narrow throughway to approximately 5’.

Sidewalk only occurs on one side of the
street.

Typical Striping and Sidewalk
Accessibility
Lighting and Wayfinding Signag
Signage
Sidewalks

Vehicular lighting is installed at
approximately 180’ on-center spacing.

Installation type is standalone post in
center median with two fixtures. Public Art
is installed at the Regatta and Marina Way
South intersection.

A class I trail is installed on the north side
of the street. No striping or signage is
installed.

Crossing and Accessibility
Lighting, Public Art, and Multi-Use Trail

REGATTA BOULEVARD
Intersection crossings are marked with
standard striping. Curb ramps have
detectable warning systems / truncated
domes. North side sidewalk / trail interrupts
at the railroad crossing, not accessible.

Standard sidewalk width ranges from 5’-7’
width. Class I multi-use trail approximately
10’ wide is available on the north side of
the street with unutilized planting buffer
separating standard sidwalk and trail.

Typical Striping and Sidewalk
Accessibility
Lighting and Public Art
Multi-Use Trail
Sidewalks

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
%
Ohio Ave
t S h t 6
24th St
21st St
t S h t 5
20th St
Ripley Ave
S h t 2 1
11th St
17th St
13th St
Chanslor Ave
Grove St
20th St
Nevin Ave
Macdonald Ave
Barett Ave
t S h t 3 1
t
t S h t 8 1
t S h t 3 1
t S h t 5 1
Bissell Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
t S h t 8t S h t 4
25th St
Bissell Ave
80 12 3
0 0.5 1 Miles
STUDY AREA: RICHMOND BART STATION ACCESS
MACDONALD AVENUE: 6TH STREET- BART ENTRANCE

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
ZONING: CM3-Commercial mixed use, Commercial Emphasis. CM5-Commercial Mixed Use, Activity Center Photo Documentation: Google Earth Software and Digital Photography Figure 1 - Typical sidewalk section of commercial corridor Figure 2 - Sidewalk extension at Macdonald Ave. and Harbour Way Infrastructure and Amenities
Corridor Synopsis
Rating- Out of 5
Located in the commercial mixed use
zone, this section of Macdonald Avenue
is adjacent to major employment hubs,
with infrastructure that provides a strong
connection for pedestrians to multiple
transit opportunities. Macdonald Avenue
was redeveloped in 2008, implementing
contemporary urban design techniques that
promote first / last mile transit.

Safety
Accessibility
Amenities / Aesthetics

3.5 4

3.6 Safety
• Pedestrian and vehicular lighting
• Good visibility from street and adjacent structures
• Pedestrian islands / vehicular buffer
• Curb Extensions
• Traffic calming devic
• Wide sidewalks with zoning delineation
Accessibility
• Visible / Contrasting crossings
• Narrow street width
• ADA accessibility
Amenities / Aesthetics
• Seating
• Covered bus stops
• Trash / Recycle
• Wayfinding Signag
• Public art installation
• Street tree planting
• Planting areas
• Strong sense of place / identity
Constraints / Issues
• No bicycle infrastructure
• Some sidewalk heaving
• Some paths of travel narrowed due to furnishings
• Vacant / boarded structures block sight lines

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
%
Ohio Ave
t S h t 6
24th St
21st St
t S h t 5
20th St
Ripley Ave
S h t 2 1
11th St
17th St
13th St
Chanslor Ave
Grove St
20th St
Nevin Ave
Macdonald Ave
Barett Ave
t S h t 3 1
t
t S h t 8 1
t S h t 3 1
t S h t 5 1
Bissell Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
t S h t 8t S h t 4
25th St
Bissell Ave
80 12 3
0 0.5 1 Miles
STUDY AREA: RICHMOND BART STATION ACCESS
MACDONALD AVENUE: 22ND STREET- BART ENTRANCE

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
ZONING: CM5-Commercial Mixed Use, Activity Center
Photo Documentation: Google Earth Software and Digital Photography Figure 3 - Underpass road and sidewalk condition near BART entrance Figure 4 - Typical road and sidewalk condition at Macdonald Avenue near 22nd Street Infrastructure and Amenities
Corridor Synopsis
Rating- Out of 5
Located in the commercial mixed use zone,
this section contains heavy vehicular traffic
with minimal buffering from sidewalks. The
rail track underpass has off-street sidewalks
that connect to the Richmond BART Station.

There are contemporary urban design
techniques that promote first / last mile
transit. Some of the existing medians offer
pedestrian islands for crossing.

Safety
Accessibility
Amenities / Aesthetics

2.2 3

2.2 Safety
• Vehicular lighting
• Fair visibility from street and adjacent structures
• Pedestrian islands / vehicular buffers at some
crossings
• Higher vehicular speed than 6th Street-BART
• Separate sidewalk available at underpass
Accessibility
• Visible / Contrasting crossings
• Not all crossings are accessible
• Sidewalk path of travel narrows due to utilities
Amenities / Aesthetics
• Trash / Recycle
• Wayfinding Signag
• Some street tree planting
• Some public art / banners
Constraints / Issues
• No bicycle infrastructure
• Some sidewalk heaving
• Some paths of travel narrowed due to furnishings
• Higher vehicular speed with minimal traffic calmi

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
%
Ohio Ave
t S h t 6
24th St
21st St
t S h t 5
20th St
Ripley Ave
S h t 2 1
11th St
17th St
13th St
Chanslor Ave
Grove St
20th St
Nevin Ave
Macdonald Ave
Barett Ave
t S h t 3 1
t
t S h t 8 1
t S h t 3 1
t S h t 5 1
Bissell Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
t S h t 8t S h t 4
25th St
Bissell Ave
80 12 3
0 0.5 1 Miles
STUDY AREA: RICHMOND BART STATION ACCESS

MARINA WAY

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
ZONING: CM1-Commercial mixed use, Residential. CM5-Commercial Mixed Use, Activity Center Photo Documentation: Google Earth Software and Digital Photography Infrastructure and Amenities
Corridor Synopsis
Located in the commercial mixed use zone,
this section of Marina Way connects the
Richmond Greenway Trail to Macdonald
Avenue. The Greenway overpass is the
largest barrier but can be crossed via off-
street sidewalk with guardrail protection.

Setbacks along commercial and residential
frontages often provide minimal right-of-
way allocation to pedestrian traffic, with
often-impeded paths of travel and reduced
visibility.

Figure 5 - Typical sidewalk section showing narrow path of travel, maintenance issues Figure 6 - Typical road condition with minimal pedestrian right of way allocation / interference of path-of-travel
Rating- Out of 5
Safety
Accessibility
Amenities / Aesthetics

2.3 2
2 Safety
• Vehicular lighting only
• Visibility interrupted due to small setbacks / tall
buildings, fencing at property line
• Some landscape bufferin
Accessibility
• Narrow sidewalks
• ADA features not installed at all crossings
• Narrow street width
• Partial bicycle striping / signage infrastructure
Amenities / Aesthetics
• Trash / Recycle near Macdonald Ave. Intersection
• Street tree planting with some large canopy / mature
trees, not continuous
• Slower vehicle traffic / moderate street wid
• Wayfinding signage near Macdonald Ave.

Constraints / Issues
• Tall fencing along residential property lines and
taller buildings with minimal windows deter visibility
• Maintenance issues / disrepair in large sections of
sidewalks and roadways

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
%
Ohio Ave
t S h t 6
24th St
21st St
t S h t 5
20th St
Ripley Ave
S h t 2 1
11th St
17th St
13th St
Chanslor Ave
Grove St
20th St
Nevin Ave
Macdonald Ave
Barett Ave
t S h t 3 1
t
t S h t 8 1
t S h t 3 1
t S h t 5 1
Bissell Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
t S h t 8t S h t 4
25th St
Bissell Ave
80 12 3
0 0.5 1 Miles
STUDY AREA: RICHMOND BART STATION ACCESS
BISSELL AVENUE: HARBOUR WAY -MARINA WAY

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
CM5-Commercial Mixed Use, Activity Center
Photo Documentation: Google Earth Software and Digital Photography Infrastructure and Amenities
Corridor Synopsis
Located in the commercial mixed use
zone, this section of Bissell Avenue runs
east / west, one block from Macdonald
Avenue. 19th Avenue is adjacent to Carlson
Boulevard and the rail line which blocks
the connection to central Richmond. This
section consists mostly of single family
homes with sidewalks and roads in severe
disrepair. Setbacks often are minimal with
fencing or walls installed on the property
lines. Lighting is inconsistent with vehicular
lightings installed on utility / telephone poles.

Figure 7 - Typical sidewalk section showing narrow path of travel, maintenance issues Figure 8 - Typical road condition with minimal pedestrian right of way allocation / interference of path-of-travel
Rating- Out of 5
Safety
Accessibility
Amenities / Aesthetics

2.7 3

2.6 Safety
• Vehicular lighting only
• Visibility Partially interrupted due to small setbacks / tall buildings, fencing at property line
• Some landscape bufferin
Accessibility
• Some sidewalks narrow due to street tree
installation
• ADA features not installed at all crossings
• Narrow street width
Amenities / Aesthetics
• Street tree planting with some large canopy /
mature trees, relatively consistent
• Slower vehicle traffic / narrow street wid
Constraints / Issues
• Some fencing along residential property lines and
taller buildings with minimal setback deter visibility
• Maintenance issues / sidewalk heaving due to
mature tree species
• No bicycle infrastructure
• No wayfinding signag

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
%
Ohio Ave
t S h t 6
24th St
21st St
t S h t 5
20th St
Ripley Ave
S h t 2 1
11th St
17th St
13th St
Chanslor Ave
Grove St
20th St
Nevin Ave
Macdonald Ave
Barett Ave
t S h t 3 1
t
t S h t 8 1
t S h t 3 1
t S h t 5 1
Bissell Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
t S h t 8t S h t 4
25th St
Bissell Ave
80 12 3
0 0.5 1 Miles
STUDY AREA: RICHMOND BART STATION ACCESS
BISSELL AVENUE: 19TH -MARINA WAY

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
CM5-Commercial Mixed Use, Activity Center
Photo Documentation: Google Earth Software and Digital Photography Infrastructure and Amenities
Corridor Synopsis
Figure 9 - Typical road section with non-accessible crossings, maintenance issues Figure 10 - Typical sidewalk condition with minimal pedestrian right of way allocation / interference of path-of-travel
Rating- Out of 5
Safety
Accessibility
Amenities / Aesthetics
2 1

2.4 Located in the commercial mixed use
zone, 19th Avenue is adjacent to Carlson
Boulevard and the rail line which blocks
the connection to central Richmond. This
section consists mostly of single family
homes with sidewalks and roads in severe
disrepair. Fencing or walls installed on the
property lines causing sight line impairment.

Lighting is inconsistent with vehicular
lighting installed on utility / telephone poles.

Paths of travel are often obstructed by
utilities, most sidewalks are not accessible.

Safety
• Vehicular lighting only
• Visibility Partially interrupted due to fencing at
property line
Accessibility
• Sidewalks are narrow, in disrepair
• Crossings are not accessible / missing ramps
Amenities / Aesthetics
• Minimal vegetation/ mature trees, planting areas
typically empty
• Slower vehicle traffic / narrow street wid
Constraints / Issues
• Fencing along residential property lines and taller
buildings with minimal setback deter visibility
• Maintenance issues along sidewalks and roads
• No bicycle infrastructure
• No wayfinding signag

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
%
Ohio Ave
t S h t 6
24th St
21st St
t S h t 5
20th St
Ripley Ave
S h t 2 1
11th St
17th St
13th St
Chanslor Ave
Grove St
20th St
Nevin Ave
Macdonald Ave
Barett Ave
t S h t 3 1
t
t S h t 8 1
t S h t 3 1
t S h t 5 1
Bissell Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
t S h t 8t S h t 4
25th St
Bissell Ave
80 12 3
0 0.5 1 Miles
STUDY AREA: RICHMOND BART STATION ACCESS

BART ENTRANCE AT MACDONALD AVENUE

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
CM5-Commercial Mixed Use, Activity Center
Photo Documentation: Google Earth Software and Digital Photography Infrastructure and Amenities
Corridor Synopsis
Figure 11 - BART Station entrance
Figure 12 - Sidewalk and covered stop adjacent to tree and shrub planting in the bus que area
Rating- Out of 5
Safety
Accessibility
Amenities / Aesthetics

3.7 4

3.4 Located in the commercial mixed use zone,
The Macdonald Avenue BART station
entrance provides a strong sense of place,
utilizing decorative pedestrian and vehicular
lighting, decorative crossings, wayfinding
signage and public art to distinguish the
space. New amenities including accessible
crossings, bus queuing areas with covered
seating areas, storm water treatment
planters and trees add to the sense of entry
upon approaching the station.

Safety
• Decorative pedestrian and vehicular lighting
• Strong visibility / minimal structural blockage
Accessibility
• All crossings have curb ramps with detectable
warning systems and high-contrast crosswalks
• Large sidewalks buffer from vehicular traffic
Amenities / Aesthetics
• Large planting areas and mature trees
• Covered stop / waiting areas
• Public art and wayfinding signag
• Trash Recycle

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
%
Ohio Ave
t S h t 6
24th St
21st St
t S h t 5
20th St
Ripley Ave
S h t 2 1
11th St
17th St
13th St
Chanslor Ave
Grove St
20th St
Nevin Ave
Macdonald Ave
Barett Ave
t S h t 3 1
t
t S h t 8 1
t S h t 3 1
t S h t 5 1
Bissell Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
t S h t 8t S h t 4
25th St
Bissell Ave
80 12 3
0 0.5 1 Miles
STUDY AREA: RICHMOND BART STATION ACCESS

BART ENTRANCE AT NEVIN PLAZA

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
CM5-Commercial Mixed Use, Activity Center
Photo Documentation: Google Earth Software and Digital Photography Infrastructure and Amenities
Corridor Synopsis
Figure 13 - Nevin Plaza
Figure 14 - Sidewalk adjacent to BART entrance from Nevin Plaza Rating- Out of 5
Safety
Accessibility
Amenities / Aesthetics

3.8 3.3

3.6 Nevin Plaza provides access to the BART
station via Marina Way. The housing
development along Nevin Plaza was
completed within the last ten years and
provides many contemporary urban design
solution to balance vehicular and pedestrian
traffic for safe access to and from BART. A
wide thoroughfare and pedestrian lighting
create strong sightlines and overall safety.

Safety
• Decorative pedestrian and vehicular lighting
• Strong visibility / minimal structural blockage
• Residential windows and doors face plaza
Accessibility
• Curb extensions with ramps
• Narrow streets
• Wide pathways
Amenities / Aesthetics
• Large planting areas and mature trees
• Wayfinding signag
• Public art
• Seat wall planters
• Decorative paving
• Metal decorative seating and trash / recycle

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
%
Ohio Ave
t S h t 6
24th St
21st St
t S h t 5
20th St
Ripley Ave
S h t 2 1
11th St
17th St
13th St
Chanslor Ave
Grove St
20th St
Nevin Ave
Macdonald Ave
Barett Ave
t S h t 3 1
t
t S h t 8 1
t S h t 3 1
t S h t 5 1
Bissell Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
t S h t 8t S h t 4
25th St
Bissell Ave
80 12 3
0 0.5 1 Miles
STUDY AREA: RICHMOND BART STATION ACCESS
BARRETT AVENUE: 19TH STREET-22ND STREET

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
CM5-Commercial Mixed Use, Activity Center
Photo Documentation: Google Earth Software and Digital Photography Figure 15 - Typical section of Barrett Avenue
Figure 16 - Typical sidewalk condition
Infrastructure and Amenities
Corridor Synopsis
Rating- Out of 5
Safety
Accessibility
Amenities / Aesthetics

3.5 4

3.6 Barrett Avenue is a wide two-way traffic road
with moderate vehicular use and minimal
infrastructure for alternative transportation.

Crossings are wide and often not
consistently defined. Sidewalks are often
not buffered from vehicular traffic. Bicycle
sharrow striping is installed.

Safety
• Vehicular lighting only
• Moderate visibility, fencing / structures sometimes
impede sight lines
• Narrow sidewalks no buffered from vehicular traffic
• Fencing along property lines narrow path of travel /
cause visibility issues
Accessibility
• Missing crossings
• Newer curb ramps with detectable warning systems
installed at most intersections
Amenities / Aesthetics
• Minimal vegetation / trees
• Planting areas often empty
• No wayfinding signag
Constraints / Issues
• Wide road crossings
• Higher vehicular speed
• Minimal bicycle infrastructure
• Some sidewalk heaving
• Some paths of travel narrowed due to furnishings /
utilities
• Structures / fencing block sight lines

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
%
Ohio Ave
t S h t 6
24th St
21st St
t S h t 5
20th St
Ripley Ave
S h t 2 1
11th St
17th St
13th St
Chanslor Ave
Grove St
20th St
Nevin Ave
Macdonald Ave
Barett Ave
t S h t 3 1
t
t S h t 8 1
t S h t 3 1
t S h t 5 1
Bissell Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
t S h t 8t S h t 4
25th St
Bissell Ave
80 12 3
0 0.5 1 Miles
STUDY AREA: RICHMOND BART STATION ACCESS
HARBOUR WAY: CHANSELOR AVENUE-NEVIN AVENUE

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ANALYSIS
CM5-Commercial Mixed Use, Activity Center
Photo Documentation: Google Earth Software and Digital Photography Figure 17 - Road and sidewalk condition at Harbour Way toward Nevin Plaza Figure 18 - Typical road condition and Harbour Way and Bissell Avenue Infrastructure and Amenities
Corridor Synopsis
Rating- Out of 5
Safety
Accessibility
Amenities / Aesthetics

3.5 4

3.6 Harbour Way consists mostly of narrow
sidewalks where path of travel is often
impeded by utilities or maintenance
issues. Sight lines are impaired by large
building facades with minimal windows
and setbacks, with opaque fencing often
installed on the property line. Street
crossings have standard striping and
accessible curb ramps at sidewalks.

Safety
• Vehicular lighting only
• Low visibility, fencing / structures impede sight lines • Narrow sidewalks, often impeded by utilities
• Fencing along property lines narrow path of travel /
cause visibility issues
Accessibility
• Curb ramps and signals at intersections
• Standard crosswalk striping
Amenities / Aesthetics
• Some street tree planting
• Bicycle sharrow striping
Constraints / Issues
• Minimal bicycle infrastructure
• Some sidewalk heaving
• Some paths of travel narrowed due to furnishings /
utilities
• Structures / fencing block sight lines

Crossing and Accessibility
RICHMOND BART ENTRANCE | MACDONALD AVENUE AND NEVIN PLAZA Standard striping with contrasting pavement
treatment is installed at the Macdonald
Avenue BART entrance. Ladder striping is
used at the Bus ques and at the entrance
to the BART station. Truncated domes /
detectable warning systems are installed at
curb ramps.

Striping and Sidewalk Accessibility
Sidewalks
Nevin Plaza entrance is missing detectable
warning systems at curb ramps. Crosswalk
striping is not highly visible and not installed
in some locations.

Sidewalks at the Macdonald Avenue
entrance and within the BART facility range
in width between 7’-20’. Installation is newer
and pavement is in good condition.

Sidewalks at the residential development
entryways at Nevin Plaza range in width
between 4.5’-6’. Nevin Plaza thoroughfare
is 20’ between raised seatwall planters.

Crossing and Accessibility
RICHMOND BART ENTRANCE | MACDONALD AVENUE AND NEVIN PLAZA One curb extension is installed at the
Macdonald Avenue BART entrance. Curb
extensions are standard at Nevin Plaza
intersections, with vehicle lanes narrowed to
18’ wide for two-way traffic. Parallel parking
is marked within curb extensions.

Traffic Calmin
Public Art
Wayfinding Signag
Public art is installed as informational /
historical signage and as placards installed
in pavement.

Informational kiosks are installed at the
Macdonald Avenue entrance, the BART
entrance, and at Nevin Plaza and Marina
Way.

Lighting and Bicycle Amenities
RICHMOND BART ENTRANCE | MACDONALD AVENUE AND NEVIN PLAZA Vehicular lighting is installed on standalone
posts in the BART bus que / entrance
areas. Approximately 16 posts total with
both single and dual fixtures. Pedestrian
lighting is installed at the Macdonald Avenue
and Nevin Plaza entrances. Pedestrian
styles vary in locations, varying in spacing
between 50-90’ both staggered and linear
installation.

Lighting
Bicycle Amenities
Bike racks and lockers are available at the
BART station entrance. 60 spaces total: 42
rack stalls, and 18 lockers (16 electronic, 2
keyed). Bike hhhhhhhh and Class II lanes
are available along Marina way toward the
Nevin Plaza entrance.

Crossing and Accessibility
Traffic Calming Devices and Lightin
MACDONALD AVENUE | 8TH STREET TO BART
Standard striping is installed at crosswalks.

Some intersection crossings contain
decorative paving contrast between striping.

Some intersections do not have detectable
warnings. New improvements in the
commercial downtown district have new
curb ramps and detectable warning systems
/ truncated domes.

Planted medians containing mature trees
are installed to divide travel lane directions.

New street improvements between Harbor
Way and 16th include many modern traffic
calming and pedestrian-friendly tools
including curb extensions, decorative
crossings with accessible signals, and
angled parking.

Vehicular lighting between 6th Street and
Harbor Way is installed on standalone light
posts at approximately 120’ on center, both
sides of the street. From Harbor Way to
BART, newer pedestrian lighting is installed
at approximately 50’ on-center with dual
fixtures facing both sidewalk and street.

Sidewalk width ranges from 8’-20’,
with wider sections toward the newer
improvements along the commercial
downtown district. Commercial district
sidewalks have furniture zones in some
locations. Older sidewalks are heaved in
some locations due to mature tree roots
causing disrupted paths of travel.

Typical Striping and Sidewalk
Accessibility
Traffic Calmin
Lighting
Sidewalks

Crossing and Accessibility
Traffic Calming Devices and Lightin
MACDONALD AVENUE | 22ND STREET TO BART
Standard striping and ladder striping is
installed at crosswalks. Some intersections
have installed new curb ramps with
detectable warnings / truncated domes and
accessible signals. Some intersections do
not have detectable warnings at curb ramps.

Median islands are installed at 21st Street
toward BART separating direction of
vehicular travel. Some curb extensions have
been installed.

Vehicular lighting installed on standalone
posts at approximately 80’-120’ on center,
both sides of the street. No pedestrian
lighting is installed.

Sidewalk width ranges from 5’-10’. Older
sidewalks are heaved in some locations
due to mature tree roots causing disrupted
paths of travel. Curb extensions have been
retrofitted in some locations.

Typical Striping and Sidewalk
Accessibility
Traffic Calmin
Lighting
Sidewalks

Crossing and Accessibility
Bicycle Amenities and Lighting

MARINA WAY
At the Macdonald Ave. intersection,
curb extensions with detectable warning
systems provide access to standard striping
crosswalks with decorative contrast paving
between. Toward Bissell Ave. standard
crosswalk striping is installed only on one
side of the street, connecting curb cuts with
detectable warnings / truncated domes.

Class II bike lanes are available for a half
block between Macdonald and Bissell Ave.

Bike sharrows are installed on one side of
the street.

Vehicular lighting is installled at
approximately 100’-120’ on-center spacing,
staggered. Installation types include
stand alone post or fixture installation on
telephone / utility poles. No pedestrian
lighting is installed.

Buffered sidewalk between Ohio and
Chancellor Ave. transitions into residential
sidewalks ranging from 3.5’-7’. Sidewalks
often narrow due to tree and utility
installation.

Typical Striping and Sidewalk
Accessibility
Bike Striping and Signage
Lighting
Sidewalks

Crossing and Accessibility
Bicycle Amenities and Lighting

HARBOR WAY
At the Macdonald Ave. intersection, curb
ramps with detectable warning systems /
truncated domes provide access to standard
striping crosswalks with decorative contrast
paving between. Between Bissell Ave. and
Macondald Ave. have standard crosswalk
striping installed connecting curb ramps
with detectable warning systems / truncated
domes.

A bike sharrow is installed in a single
location between Nevin Ave. and Macdonald
Ave.

Vehicular lighting between Nevin Ave.
and Macdonald at approximately 110-130’
on-center spacing, staggered. Installation
types include stand alone post or fixture
installation on telephone / utility poles. No
pedestrian lighting is installed.

Between Bissell Ave. and Macdonald
Ave. sidewalk width range from 8’-10’,
often narrowing due to exposed tree well
installation and utilities. Between Nevin Ave.
and Macdonald Ave. sidewalk width ranges
from 5-8’
Typical Striping and Sidewalk
Accessibility
Bike Striping and Signage
Lighting
Sidewalks

Crossing and Accessibility
Lighting
BISSELL AVENUE | HARBOR TO MARINA WAY
Crosswalk striping is installed at intersection
, typically standard style, with a zebra
pattern installed at 13th Street. Striping
does not occur on all sides of intersections
containing curb ramps. Some curb ramps do
not have detectable warning systems.

Vehicular lighting is installed at
approximately 125’ on-center spacing,
staggered. Standalone post installation
type. No pedestrian lighting is installed.

Sidewalk width ranges from 8’-12’, often
narrowing due to exposed tree well
installation and utilities. Heaving occurs at
multiple locations due to mature tree roots
growing beyond tree well.

Typical Striping and Sidewalk
Accessibility
Lighting
Sidewalks

Crossing and Accessibility
Lighting
BISSELL AVENUE | 19TH STREET TO MARINA WAY
Crosswalk striping is not installed at
intersections. Majority of curb ramps
are not accessible and do not contain
detectable warning systems. Intersection
are controlled via stop sign, no signal
available. Curb ramps not installed at some
intersections.

Vehicular lighting is installed at
approximately 125’ on-center spacing on
one side of street. Light fixtures are installed
as retrofit on telephone / utility poles.

Sidewalk width ranges from 4’-6’ with
planting areas, often empty, between the
sidewalk and the street. Sidewalks often
have uneven surfaces due to empty sunken
tree wells, and heaving. Fencing ranging
from 3-6’ is consistently installed along the
property line.

Typical Striping and Sidewalk
Accessibility
Lighting
Sidewalks

Crossing and Accessibility
Bicycle Amenities and Lighting

BARRETT AVENUE
Curb ramps with detectable warning
systems / truncated domes have been
installed as a retrofit at intersection
crossings. Standard striping has been
installed at some intersections.

Bike sharrows are installed at the beginning
of each block in both directions, with
adjacent signage installed in the sidewalk.

Vehicular lighting between Nevin Ave.
and Macdonald at approximately 110-130’
on-center spacing, staggered. Installation
types include stand alone post or fixture
installation on telephone / utility poles. No
pedestrian lighting is installed.

Sidewalk width ranges from 5’-10’, often
narrowing due to exposed tree well
installation and utilities. Some areas have
planting area buffers ranging from 2’-3’.

Typical Striping and Sidewalk
Accessibility
Bike Striping and Signage
Lighting
Sidewalks

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN | FINAL REPORT City of Richmond

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc.

Appendix C Community Engagement
Summary

This section summarizes the community engagement ac tivities as part of the Richmond First Mile/ Last Mile Transportation Strategic Plan.

Activities and Events, April 2017 – November, 2018
 Advisory Group Meetings:
− April 24, 2017, 1:00 pm – 2:30, City Manager Conference Room − August 4, 2017, 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm, City Manager Conference Room − August 24, 2018, 11:00 am – 12:30 pm, City Manager Conference Room

 Chevron Environmental Community Investment Agreemen t (ECIA) Transportation Oversight Committee (community member appointees):
− J une 16, 2017 – phone interview with Marena Brown and Erica Benita Haywood − J une 20, 2017 – phone interview with Martha Serianz and Carolyn Doug las − August 24, 2018 – meeting with ECIA members , Richmond Room, Civic Center − November 18, 2018 – meeting with ECIA members, City Manager Conference Room

 Stakeholder Focus Groups:
− Richmond Bicycle/ Pedestrian Advisory Committee (RBP AC):
− J uly 10, 5:30 – 6:30 pm, P oint Molate Room, Civic Center – project overview, input regarding challenges and opportunities and key issu es to address

 J uly 12th Stakeholder Focus Group Meetings:
− City Manager Meeting with City Department Directors , 10:30 – 11 am: project briefing, inp ut on needs, relevant policies and planning activit ies, and goals for the project
− Transit Agencies, 1:00 – 2:30 pm: project overview, relevant policies and pl anning activities, and key issues to address

 August 30 th Stakeholder Focus Group Meetings:
− Community Based Organizations, 10 -11:30 am, Richmond Room, Civic Center − Employer/ Business/ Economic Development, 1 -2:30 pm, Richmond Room

 Contact with Large Employers

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN | FINAL REPORT City of Richmond

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc.
− Review of Commuter Benefits Program Richmond employ er practices to promote transit and other commute modes to reduce SOV commu te trips, traffic congestion, GHG emissions and other air pollutants from motor v ehicles. − Phone interview with Chevron, September 22: TDM pra ctices and employee transportation needs
− Blue Apron: provided information abou t transportation program for employees Richmond
 October 16 th Neighborhood Coordinating Council Meeting (RNCC), R ichmond City Hall − Overview of project objectives, discussion of neigh borhood -focused needs and opportunities.

 Community Workshop: Existing Tra nsportation Conditions, Possibilities, Needs & Potential Strategies. Thursday, September 28th, 6:0 0 pm – 8:00 pm, Richmond Memorial Auditorium

 Bike to Work Day Pop ups, May 10, 2018
− Pop up tables at the Richmond BART station and East Brother Tap Room in conjunction with Bike to Work Day to collect input a nd preferences for infrastructure improvements and citywide policies, programs and se rvices for enhanced mobility and access to transit.

 First Mile/ Last Mile Transportation Plan Open House , J une 7, 2018 − In partnership w ith Main Street Initiative, Open House at the City’s R -Transit building at the Richmond BART Station in which stak eholders, community members, transit riders and others weighed in on proposed im provements and potential citywide policies and programs.

 J une 23 rd Richmond Healthy Village Festival , J une 23, 2018 − Booth at the annual Healthy Village Festival in whi ch visitors weighed in on proposed improvements and potential citywide policies and pr ograms.

Technical Advisory Group Participants
Affiliation Member Name(s)
AC Transit Michael Eshleman, Stephen Newhouse, and Kathryn Vo BART Niki Foletta, Ian Griffiths, Rachel Factor
Caltrans Blesilda Gebreyesus
CCTA Brad Beck
City Manager Bill Lindsay
City Manager’s Office Lori Reese-Brown
EICA Transportation Oversight Committee Eric Anderson and Marena Brown

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN | FINAL REPORT City of Richmond

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc.

Engineering and Capital Improvements Patrick Phelan
Environmental Manager Adam Lenz
Fire Department Robin Poindexter
IT Director Sue Hartman
Mayor’s Office and RBPAC Sequoia Erasmus
Planning and Building Services Lina Velasco
Police Department Aaron Pomeroy
Richmond Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee and
Bike East Bay
Cynthia Armour and Susie Hustader
Transportation Department Denée Evans
WCCTAC Joe Nemeth and Leah Greenblat
WETA Chad Mason and Taylor Rutsch

Organizations Contacted or Engaged
City of Richmond (all departments) East Bay Municipal Utility District Environmental and Community and Investment
Agreement (ECIA) Transportation Oversight Committee
PG&E
Richmond Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee
(RBPAC)
West County Wastewater District
Bike East Bay West Contra Costa Unified School District AC Transit Bayside Council of PTAs
Bay Area Rapid Transit University of California Berkeley Contra Costa Transportation Authority Richmond Neighborhood Coordinating Council West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee Richmond Main Street Initiative Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Richmore Village-Metro Square Neighborhood Council Bay Area Air Quality Management District Richmond Annex Neighborhood Council Caltrans, District 4 Point Richmond
Port of Richmond Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council
Water Emergency Transportation Authority Belding Woods Neighborhood Council Kaiser Permanente East Bay Disabled People's Recreation Center Healthy Richmond Reentry Success Center
Richmond Senior Center Rubicon Programs
Bay Area Rescue Mission Rich City Rides
Contra Costa Interfaith Supporting Community
Organization
Pogo Park

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN | FINAL REPORT City of Richmond

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc.

Community Housing Development Corporation First 5 Contra Costa Neighborhood House of North Richmond Bay Area Rescue Mission San Francisco Estuary Institute Social Security Administration Richmond Chamber of Commerce Rosie the Riveter Trust
Chevron General Chemical
Sims Metal Management Restoration Hardware
Park Plaza R and B Cellars
Assemble Restaurant Auto Warehousing Company
Chevron Galaxy Deserts
Richmond Courtyard Connexsys Engineering
Republic Services Amazon
SunPower BP Lubricants
Nutiva Parker-Hannifin Corporation
Blue Apron Rubicon Bakery
Auto Warehousing Company DiCon Fiberoptics
Colliers International California Oils Corporation
Sims Metal Management SunPower
Courtyard Marriott Food Service Partners

Summary of Key Issues and Needs
 Need to coordinate with existing plans, including regional, San Pablo and El Cerrito  Explore city shuttle
 Take into consideration improvements to operation a nd services as well as infrastructure  Transit expansion needed in anticipation of future development (e.g., Marina, Giant Hwy/ Atlas Road, Hilltop)
 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans need updating
 Improve bike security and parking
 Opportunities for connectivity downtown to shorelin e, but more challenging to the north  Nighttime safety concerns for biking and walking
 Need signage, wayfinding
 Affordable options needed for low income residents
 Many local Richmond station users, high opportunity for trip conversion  AC GO service expansion plan, partner to improve hi gh priority stops, high capacity transit study to coordinate earlier plans

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN | FINAL REPORT City of Richmond

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc.
 Important for community to be heard; connect with C BOs such as RYSE Center, Healthy Richmond, Rubicon
 Rail track safety, safety at crossings
 Bike access and walkability to Bay Trail and Greenw ay  General bike access and network co ntinuity to transit  Pedestrian comfort on sidewalks while accessing tra nsit  Address the needs of young people (look at school d istrict and charter school data)  Make improvements aesthetically pleasing – want elegant inviting public spaces, how they will lo ok and feel
 Consider maintenance costs associated with installa tions and improvements  Update development standards (e.g., number of vehic les per unit augmented by area car share)
 Communications: wifi throughout the entire network; wifi at bus stops

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN | FINAL REPORT City of Richmond

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc.

Appendix D Complete List of Recommended Projects

This section includes the list of projects recommen ded as part of the Richmond First Mile/ Last Mile Tr ansportation Strategic Plan.

Figure 14 First Mile/Last Mile Recommended Infrastructure Projects #
Mobility
Hub
Proj
#
Location
Street
Location
Extents Category Treatment Description/Rationale Source 1 El Cerrito
Del Norte
E-7 Cutting
Boulevard
Ohlone
Greenway
to
Hoffman
Boulevard
Bicycle Class II Bike
Lanes
Consistent Class II (or more protected) bike lane with
high-visibility markings and reflectors -- all the way
through the I-80 overpass and San Pablo Avenue
(building on proposed design for buffered bike lanes
from 49th St to the City limits, planned for construction this year). Wayfinding signage at both ends. Long term
consideration of a bus and bicycle only lane in the long run.

Richmond Bicycle Master Plan
(Recommends Class II)
Richmond Pedestrian Plan
2 Richmond
BART
R-2 23rd
Street
Emeric
Avenue-
Bissell
Avenue
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Streetscape
Improvement
s
23rd Street Streetscape Improvements to develop bike
share services and improve pedestrian, bicycling, and
transit access to the station
WCCTAC Transit
Enhancement & Wayfinding
Plans (2011) Project #101
3 Richmond
BART
R-27 Macdonal
d Ave and
Nevin
Ave
Between
4th Street
and
Richmond
BART
Station
Pedestrian Safe, green,
and clean
walking and
biking route
These are “Branch Routes” in the Yellow Brick Road
network. While they have proposed improvements and
have been studied in further detail in other plans, the range of proposed treatments should be presented in
the Design Guidelines section of this Plan.

Yellow Brick Road Iron
Triangle Walkable
Neighborhood Plan

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN | FINAL REPORT City of Richmond

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc.
#
Mobility
Hub
Proj
#
Location
Street
Location
Extents Category Treatment Description/Rationale Source 4 Ferry
Terminal
F-18 Harbour
Way
South,
Cutting
Blvd,
Richmond
Ave,
Garrard
Ferry
Terminal
to Point
Richmond
and
Richmond
Greenway
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Wayfinding
Complete
street
Provide a more comfortable walking and bicycling
connection between Point Richmond and non-vehicular
transportation options (bicycling and ferry)
2018 City of Richmond STP
grant application for Ferry to
Bridge Complete Streets Plan
and Project Prioritization
5 Richmond
BART
R-25 Barrett
Avenue
Marina
Way to
19th Street
Pedestrian Crossing
improvement
s along
Barrett
Avenue at
Marina Way
and 19th
Street
Marina Way/Barrett Avenue Intersection Crossing
Enhancements = Stripe crosswalk on east leg of Barrett
Avenue; 19th Street/Barrett Avenue Intersection
Crossing Enhancements = Provide crosswalk
connection to proposed multi-use path to North
Richmond and upgrade traffic signal to include
pedestrian countdown
WCCTAC Transit
Enhancement and Wayfinding
Plan
BART Walk and Bicycle Gap
Study
6 Richmond
BART
R-4 Marina
Way
Marina
Way/
Barrett
Avenue
Pedestrian Crosswalk
and
pedestrian-
scale lighting
Install crosswalk on east leg of intersection (Marina
Way/Barrett Avenue Intersection); Crossing
Enhancements: Stripe crosswalk on east leg of Barrett
Avenue Intersection Crossing Enhancements.

Construct pedestrian-scale lighting on approaches.

WCCTAC Transit
Enhancement & Wayfinding
Plans (2011) Project #104
BART Walk and Bike Gap
Study
7 Ferry
Terminal
F-4 Regatta
Boulevard
and 23rd
Street
23rd Street
and
Marina
Way
Bicycle Class II bike
lane
Install Class I multi-use paths along Regatta Boulevard and 23rd Street to provide continuous, low-stress
bikeway access to the Marina and Ferry area
WCCTAC Transit
Enhancement and Wayfinding
Plan

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN | FINAL REPORT City of Richmond

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc.
#
Mobility
Hub
Proj
#
Location
Street
Location
Extents Category Treatment Description/Rationale Source 8 Richmond
BART
R-23 Intersecti
on of
22nd
Street,
Broadway
, and
Carlson
Boulevard
N/A Pedestrian
Bicycle
Wayfinding
Improved
crossing and
signals at
Intersection
of 22nd
Street,
Broadway,
and Carlson
Boulevard
Improve crossings at the Carlson Boulevard/ Broadway/
22nd Street intersection to create a seamless
connection between the two sides of the Greenway and
with on‐street facilities. Provide a pedestrian/bicycle actuated signal phase to allow Greenway users to cross
diagonally across the intersection. Add signage for
bicyclists and drivers to navigate the intersection safely.

Bicycle Master Plan
9 Ferry
Terminal
F-9 Hall Ave
and
Marina
Way
N/A Pedestrian Cross walks
and mid-
block
crosswalks
Install crosswalks across Marina Way and Hall Ave on
north side of the intersection and pedestrian-scale
lighting to increase visibility of pedestrians crossing and slow vehicle traffic safely. Consider midblock crossings on Hall and Marina approaches.
n/a
10 Ferry
Terminal
F-10 Hall Ave Marina
Way and
Harbour
Way
Pedestrian Sidewalks Install sidewalks and pedestrian-scale lighting to increase visibility of pedestrians crossing at driveways n/a
11 Richmond
BART
R-15 Richmond
BART
Station
N/A Bicycle Bike station,
Class I bike
parking,
Class II bike
parking,
additional
BikeLink
card vending
machines or
purchasing
locations
Recommended by WCCTAC Transit Enhancement and
Wayfinding Plan: Intermodal Transit Center Bike Station

Recommended by Bicycle Master Plan: Remove
existing locker and replace with Class 1 parking for 8
total bicycles with perforated metal box-style lockers or pie-shaped lockers in the free area. Monitor demand
and consider additional lockers to accommodate
increased activity resulting from RTV development.

WCCTAC Transit
Enhancement and Wayfinding
Plan
BART 2015 Bike Parking
Capital Program
Bicycle Master Plan
Richmond BART Station
Access Plan

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN | FINAL REPORT City of Richmond

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc.
#
Mobility
Hub
Proj
#
Location
Street
Location
Extents Category Treatment Description/Rationale Source 12 Ferry
Terminal
F-16 Harbour
Way
South
Ferry
Terminal
to Hall
Ave.

Pedestrian Sidewalks
and bulbouts
Provide a more comfortable safer walking environment
along Harbour Way South, increase visibility of
pedestrians crossing, reduce crossing distances
Ferry Terminal Design
Summary
13 Richmond
BART
R-11 Barrett
Ave,
Nevin
Plaza,
and
Macdonal
d Ave
Between
Marina
Way and
19th Street
Wayfinding Wayfinding
signs and
lighting along
local streets
and in the
transit village
Provide wayfinding signs and lighting along Nevin,
Barrett, and Macdonald avenues. Ensure the RTV
signage and BART pathfinding signage are compatible.

Richmond BART Station
Access Plan
14 Ferry
Terminal
F-5 I-580
interchan
ge with
Harbor
Way
Cutting
Blvd and
Wright
Ave
Bicycle Class II bike
lane
Install Class II buffered bike lane along Harbour Way to provide continuous, low-stress bikeway access to
BART and Ferry Terminal.

South Richmond Connectivity
Plan
15 Ferry
Terminal
F-7 I-580
interchan
ge with
Harbor
Way
Cutting
Blvd and
Wright
Ave
Pedestrian High- visibility
pedestrian
crossing
lights and
signage
Install high-visibility pedestrian crossing lights and
STOP lines and pedestrian-scale lighting to increase
visibility of pedestrians crossing and slow vehicle traffic safely. Install striped curb extensions and soft-hit posts at on- and off-ramps.

Consider a new pedestrian routing in the long-term
through this interchange.

WCCTAC Transit
Enhancement and Wayfinding
Plan
South Richmond Connectivity
Plan
16 Ferry
Terminal
F-8 Harbour
Way
At railroad
crossing
Pedestrian ADA-
compliant
railroad
crossing
Install ADA-compliant sidewalk/crossing and
pedestrian-scale lighting to increase visibility of
pedestrians crossing. Add warning lights, gates and
traffic signals.

South Richmond Connectivity
Plan

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN | FINAL REPORT City of Richmond

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc.
#
Mobility
Hub
Proj
#
Location
Street
Location
Extents Category Treatment Description/Rationale Source 17 Ferry
Terminal
F-13 Ferry
Terminal
N/A Auto Point-to-
point
carsharing
Enable access to the Ferry Terminal for people without
personal vehicles or live beyond the reach of walking,
biking, and taking transit
n/a
18 Richmond
BART
R-6 Richmond
BART
Station
N/A Station
Amenities
Security
cameras,
especially for
bike parking
areas and
bus rider
waiting areas
Provide security cameras for bicycle parking areas and
bus rider waiting areas.

WCCTAC Transit
Enhancement and Wayfinding
Plan
Richmond BART Station
Access Plan
19 Ferry
Terminal
F-3 At Ferry
Terminal
N/A Transit
Marketing
Real-time
transit and
ferry arrival
information
Install real-time arrival information near AC Transit
stops to reassure passengers about bus and ferry
departures
n/a
20 Ferry
Terminal
F-6 At Ferry
Terminal
N/A Bicycle Secure
bicycle
parking
Install secure bicycle parking (e.g. bike lockers) to
provide a secure and easily accessible location for
bicycle riders to store their bikes close to their
destinations
Ferry Terminal Design
Summary
21 Richmond
BART
R-10 Richmond
BART
Station
N/A Wayfinding Map of
bicycle
facilities and
parking
around
station
incorporated
with transit
information
Install a map of biking routes and parking facilities in the Richmond BART/Amtrak station along with
wayfinding signage/directions for specific bus lines and bike/ped routes once out of the BART station
Bicycle Master Plan

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN | FINAL REPORT City of Richmond

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc.
#
Mobility
Hub
Proj
#
Location
Street
Location
Extents Category Treatment Description/Rationale Source 22 Ferry
Terminal
F-14 N/A N/A Marketing Wayfinding Provide integrated and consistent information on potential paths and options, including nearby
destinations
n/a
23 Ferry
Terminal
F-11 Ferry
Terminal
N/A Auto Passenger
loading area
Establish designated passenger loading areas for taxis
and TNCs that clarifies vehicle circulation and reduces conflicts with pedestrian paths of travel
n/a

Figure 15 First Mile/Last Mile Recommended Policy and Program Projects # Location Strategy Description
1 Citywide Develop Local Shuttle The City of Richmond formerly offered the Richmond Circular Shuttle, a free service connecting BART stations and employment centers. Buses were operated by transMetro and funded by the Bay Area Air Quality Mitigation District (BAAQMD) until 2013, when funding was no longer available. This strategy recommends developing a new shuttle service for Richmond residents and employers with the use of ECIA, Regional and State funding. 2 Citywide Evaluate Curbside
Space Demand At
Richmond Bart Station
And Ferry Terminal
Conduct annual curbside space demand study to assess management needs at the Richmond BART Station and Ferry Terminal. If there is a need to manage the curb space, the City should work with BART and the Ferry Terminal and apply BART’s curbside management guidelines for next steps.

As BART ridership grows, so does demand for BART’s limited station area parking and curb space as more people are picked-up and dropped-off at stations via shuttles, carpools, taxis and ride-hail services. These pressures and the rapid growth of ridesharing services is leading to more curb congestion on BART property, driving the need to manage curb space to maximize access for BART riders and improve the customer experience.

The City of Richmond should work with BART to manage the curb space at the Richmond BART Station through BART’s existing curbside management they use for other station. This same methodology can also be applied to the Ferry Terminal.
3 Citywide Prepare for
Autonomous Vehicles

The City of Richmond should prepare for autonomous vehicle technology (AV) by implementing policies that support safe and successful AV operations. Specifically, the City should pursue three efforts.  Provide space for companies to test different types of AV technology

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN | FINAL REPORT City of Richmond

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc.
# Location Strategy Description
− Provide space for low-speed testing of higher capacity AVs within circumscribed areas with as few natural modal conflicts as possible. Such AVs might be a natural fit for first/last-mile situations, though the complicated mix of modal conflicts around major transit stations would need to be managed carefully.  Adjust the City’s approach to managing curb-space in street design − Develop a context-sensitive approach to managing curb space citywide. − Consider how to incorporate passenger loading and unloading behavior in places where curb space is allocated to bicycles or transit vehicles to minimize conflicts.
− Consider shifting incentive structure created by allocating most curb space to private vehicle parking. Tipping the balance toward active loading and unloading could be one way to encourage the use of shared vehicles.  Adjust the City’s parking regulations and the extent to which these regulations provide and/or operate public space for vehicle storage
− Eliminate parking minimums and implement parking maximums, reducing the incentives to use private vehicles that are built into new buildings through the ample provision of free parking. − Where parking is necessary, ensure that it is shared flexibly across different uses and, as possible, discourage its incorporation into buildings with primary land uses (i.e. residential or commercial). Rather, encourage any new supply to be in stand-alone areas or structures, to more easily enable conversion to primary land uses in the future.
− Shift the allocation of space around major transit stations, reducing parking and increasing the prominence of passenger pick-up and drop-off facilities.
− For new developments, consider adopting TransForm’s GreenTRIP certification which allows developers to opt into an EasyPass program in lieu of parking requirements. 4 Citywide Prioritize the
Transportation
Demand Management
Program and
Commuter Benefits
Ordinance
The City of Richmond should require residential and commercial developments to implement transportation demand management programs with the goal of reducing single-occupant vehicle trips generated by the development. The City also currently has a Commuter Benefits Ordinance (CBO), which requires employers with 10 or more employees to implement a Commuter Benefits Program (CBP).

The results of the CBO have been mixed. The City should amend its CBO to consider increased oversight to ensure existing and future businesses are complying with requirements.

RICHMOND FIRST MILE/LAST MILE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN | FINAL REPORT City of Richmond

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc.
# Location Strategy Description
5 Citywide Implement Transit
Wayfinding
Recommendations
The City of Richmond should implement the recommendations from the Transit Enhancement and Wayfinding Plan (WCCTAC, 2011) to provide enhanced signing for people walking and bicycling to and from transit hubs. The recommendations are shown on
pages 42-43 of the WCCTAC Plan.14
6 Citywide Develop a Parking
Management Plan
This Plan recommends the City of Richmond develop a Parking Management Plan.

Parking is a way for people to access transit and other modes, but it requires effective parking management to avoid incentivizing driving and adding to congestion and GHG emissions. Without effective management, pricing, and right- sizing the parking supply, the amount of land devoted to parking will expand and incentivize more people to drive for all trips and purposes. Additionally, the pricing and regulation of parking, if not intentionally managed, can exacerbate congestion as drivers will devote time to searching for the most convenient and cheapest spaces available, or undo any TDM policies that aren’t as attractive as free guaranteed parking. 7 Citywide Implement an E-
Scooter Program

Establish an e-scooter share program to Richmond. The program should work with a private company to launch the e- scooter systems in Richmond to promote first- and last-mile scooter rides from the transit hubs. The program should include a scooter parking policy so that scooters do not become obstacles on the sidewalk or inhibit pedestrian travel.

8 Citywide Plan for Ferry
Terminal Development
and Specific Plan
The General Plan encourages the implementation of the ferry terminal specific plan (GP Action LU1.I) to create high- intensity housing adjacent to the ferry terminal. The current zoning will allow development up to 125 du/acre. This strategize recommends the City capitalize on improvements and increase residential and mixed use development potential along Richmond South Shoreline. Zoning from the Richmond Bay Specific Plan allows for a range of housing intensities within a half-mile radius. CM-5 zoning designation allows for intense development along water frontage and a mix of uses. Light Industrial and Port uses remain a key use type in this area. Transitions between industrial and residential/retail are key to study.

The current development proposal for Richmond Riviera proposes detached single-family homes resulting in 120 du/ac. Because of the location adjacent to the Ferry Terminal, this site should be considered for a more intense transit oriented housing development with some mixed-use. The zoning and land use would allow up 40 du/ac min.; 125 du/ac max. and 12 stories max. building height. Increased housing development is key to success of the site as a TOD. This area is projected to provide 1,550 residential units as studied in the 2008 TOD Plan, however, the allowed density has since increased. The General Plan recommends studying this area further through a specific plan to understand capacity and guide development.

14 H6ttp://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/Grants/final_products/2012/4WestContraCostaTransitEnhancementandWayfindingPlan.pdf

[Site Partner
Logo]

Transportation Survey

[EBALDC / FCH / RCF / City of Richmond ] is partnering with TransForm and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to launch a new “mobility hub” at [l ocation]. This will be a central location where you can access a variety of new transportation services at a low cost . The mobility hub will include a car sharing service , and may also include bike sharing, e-scooters, and more .

Please answer the following quest ions about your personal and household transportation needs. This survey takes about [xx] minutes to complete, and all personally-identifiable information will be confidential. You are welcome to skip questions you do not feel comfortable answering. No information you provide will be used against you, or used to jeopardize your housing.

Please return your completed survey to [Site Coordinator name and best method for returning ]. After finishing the survey you will receive a $ [xx] gift card to [xx]. If you have any questions , or would like assistance , please contact [Site Coordinator contact information].

This project is supported by the “California Climate Investments” (CCI) program.

Key Terms
[Each term will have a photo next to it – TransForm is working on finding copyright -free images]

Public Transportation
The system of travel options on public vehicles, suc h as buses, trains, and ferries. Local examples include AC
Transit, VTA, BART and Caltrain.

Electric Cars
Cars that run on electricity, rather than gas. They are an environmentally-friendly option to traditional cars, and help reduce air pollution. They need to be charged period ically at designated charging stations.

Car Share
A service that allows you to rent a car by the minute or hour. You may have seen these cars parked around town
– some examples are ZipCar, Getaround, and GIG. You
are charged by time and/or distance. Car sharing provides most of the benefits of owning a car, without many of the costs, like insurance, repairs, and gas.

Electric Bicycles
An electric bicycle, or e -bike, looks a lot like a traditional bicycle, but has an electric motor that provi des a boost when you pedal. The motor makes it possible to use the bike with less effort, especially up steep hills.

Bike Share
Bicycles that are available around the city to rent by the minute or hour. To ride, you either check out the bike
from a dock (as with Ford GoBike) or use your
smartphone to locate and unlock the bikes wherever
they’re available (as with Jump or Lime). They are
usually found at bike racks or on sidewalks. Some
services offer electric bikes as well as regular bik es.

Scooter Share
Electric scooters, or e -scooters, that are available to rent by the minute or hour. Scooters are parked around the city, usually on sidewalks. They can be located and unlocked
using a smartphone. There are many different scooter
services in the Bay Area – some examples are Bird, Lime, Skip, and Scoot.

1 About You

First Name: ______________________________ Last Name:_______________ __________________

Address: _________________________________ Apartment #: _______________ ________________

City: ____________________________________ Zip Code: __________________ ________________

Age: ___________________ Gender: _____________________

1) How would you describe your race/ethnicity ? (check all that apply):
☐ American Indian or Alaskan Native
☐ Asian
☐ Black or African American
☐ Caucasian/White
☐ Hispanic or Latino
☐ Middle Eastern
☐ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
☐ South Asian (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, etc.)
☐ Other________________________________

2) What is your primary language (i.e., the language yo u speak most of the time)? _____________________

3) What is the highest level of education you have comp leted? ☐ Some high school
☐ High school diploma or GED
☐ Some college, or associate degree
☐ Bachelor’s/undergraduate degree
☐ Master’s degree
☐ Professional degree or doctorate (MD, JD, PhD, etc.) ☐ Other: _______________________________

4) What is your current work status? (check all that apply):
☐ Full-time employed
☐ Part-time employed
☐ Full-time student
☐ Part-time student
☐ Not working
☐ Other______________________________________

5) Which of the following do you use regularly? ( check all that apply):
☐ Smartphone ☐ Cell phone (not a smartphone, e.g. flip phone) ☐ Phone data plan ☐ Credit card ☐ Debit card ☐ Bank account ☐ Prepaid cash cards

6) I have a physical condition that makes it more difficu lt to:
☐ Walk ☐ Bike ☐ Drive ☐N / A

2 Household Information

7) What is your annu al household income ? (check one):
☐ Less than $25,000 ☐ $25,000 - $ $34,999 ☐ $35,000 - $49,999 ☐ $50,000 - $64,999 ☐ $65,000 - $79,999 ☐ $80,000+

8) Besides yourself, h ow many of the following people usually live with you in your residence? (please write numbers in the blanks) :

______ Spouse/partner ______ My parents/parents-in-law ______ Children (age 13-15) ______ Adult siblings ______ My grandparents ______ Children (age 16+) ______ Roommates/tenants ______ Children (age 0-12) ______ Other Getting Around

9) Do you have a driver’s license?
☐ Yes ☐ No

10) How many cars does your household own or lease?
☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2 or more

11) How many cars do you own or lease?
☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2 or more

12) If you do not own or lease a car, please indicate why (c heck all the apply):
☐ I can access everything I need without a car ☐ I can’t afford to purchase and/or repair a car ☐ I can’t afford gas or insurance ☐ I don’t have a license ☐ Other _______________________________________

13) Is it hard to find a parking spot on the street where you live? ☐ Always ☐ Most of the time ☐ Sometimes ☐ Rarely ☐ Never ☐ I don’t know

If you live in an apartment building (or any building with multiple units) , please answer questions 14 - 17:

14) Does your household have access to your own parking space(s) at your building? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Not sure

15) If yes, how much do you pay per space ?
☐ It is free ☐ I pay $___________ per day / week / month / year (circle one)

16) If no, where do members of your household park? (check all that apply):
☐ On the street ☐ In a visitor parking space
☐ Other _______________________________________________

3 17) Where do your guests or visitors park? (check all that apply):
☐ I let them use my parking space ☐ On the street ☐ In a visitor parking space ☐ Other _______________________________________________

If you live in a house, please answer questions 18 and 19:

18) Does anyone in your household regularly park on the street? ☐ Yes ☐ No

19) Where do your guests or visitors park? (check all that apply) ☐ On my property (e .g., in my driveway or garage) ☐ On the street ☐ Other _______________________________________________

20) How many bicycles do you own?
☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2 or more

21) If you don’t own a bicycle, please indicate why (check all the apply):
☐ I’m not interested in biking ☐ I can’t afford to buy one ☐ I don’t know how to ride ☐ Other _______________________________________________

22) Do you use public transit (e.g., bus, BART) regularly? ☐ Yes ☐ No

23) If not, please indicate why (check all that apply):
☐ It takes too long ☐ It doesn’t arrive often enough ☐ It doesn’t take me where I need to go ☐ I don’t feel safe ☐ The fare is too expensive ☐ There is not enough parking at the station ☐ The parking at the station is too expensive
☐ Other ______________________________________________ _

24) On average, how much do you spend per month total on transportation ( bus fare, car payment, car insurance, gas, tolls, parking, etc.)?

$ ____________ per month

25) What are the cross streets and city of your current work or school location? (if you currently do not work or do not go to school, please leave blank):

______________________ and ____________________________ , city: ____________________________

Please answer this question if you own a car:

26) Instead of owning a car, do you think you could use ca r sharing and other options (like riding your bike or taking the bus) to meet your daily needs?

☐ Yes ☐ Probably ☐ Not sure ☐ Probably not ☐ Definitely not

4 27) Please indicate how often you CURRENTLY use the following :

Never
Less than
once a
month
Once a
month
About
once every
other
week
1 to 3
days per
week
4 to 6
days per
week
Every day
Drive alone ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Drive with others (e.g., co -workers,
family, friends, etc.) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Carpool service (e.g. Waze, Scoop)
If yes, which? ________________ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Bus or light rail (e.g. AC Transit,
VTA) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
BART ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Caltrain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Bicycle ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Walk ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Uber/Lyft ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Taxi ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Car share (e.g., Zipcar, Getaround)
If yes, which? ________________ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Bike share (e.g., Ford GoBike)
If yes, which? ________________ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
E-scooter (e.g., Lime, Bird)
If yes, which? ________________ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Shuttle (e.g., Kaiser Shuttle)
If yes, which? ________________ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Other:
_______________________ _____
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

5 28) Please indicate which transportation options you CURRENTLY use for each of the purposes below (check all that apply):

Commute
to/from
work/school
Groceries/
errands
Pick up/drop
off children
Social/
Recreational
Job
interviews
Medical
appointments
Drive alone ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Drive with others (e.g., co-
workers, family, friends, etc.) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Carpool service (e.g. Waze,
Scoop) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Bus or light rail (e.g. AC Transit,
VTA) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
BART ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Caltrain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Bicycle ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Walk ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Uber/Lyft ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Taxi ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Car share (e.g., Zipcar,
Getaround)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Bike share (e.g., Ford GoBike) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
E-scooter (e.g., Lime, Bird) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Shuttle (e.g., Kaiser Shuttle) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Other:
_______________________ ___
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

6 29) How familiar are you with each of the followi ng? Circle one answer for each:

Not Familiar Somewhat
Familiar
Moderately
Familiar Familiar Very Familiar
Electric cars 1 2 3 4 5
Car share (e.g., Zipcar,
Getaround) 1 2 3 4 5
Public transit (e.g., bus, BART) 1 2 3 4 5
Bike share (e.g., Ford GoBike) 1 2 3 4 5
E-bikes 1 2 3 4 5
E-scooters (e.g., Lime, Bird) 1 2 3 4 5
Lyft/Uber 1 2 3 4 5

30) Have you tried any of the transportation options above (in Question 29) ? ☐ Yes ☐ No

31) If yes, which one(s)? __________________________________________

32) Did you experience any challenges using them?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A – I haven’t used any of them

Please explain the challenges you experienced :

For example: required a driver’s license or smartpho ne.

33) What do you think is an affordable price to rent a c ar for one hour? $________________

34) If a free or low-cost shuttle service was available from [ Lion Creek Crossings / Betty Ann Gardens ] to a common destination (such as a grocery store) on a regular basis (e.g., once a week), would you be interested? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Possibly

7 35) You may qualify for free or discounted transportatio n services through this program.

Please rank the following services in order of interest from 1 – 4, where 1 is of most interest to you and 4 is of least interest to you.

Ranking (1 – 4)
Free or discounted p ublic transit passes (e.g., AC Transit, VTA) Free or discounted e -scooter rides
Free or discounted Lyft or Uber rides
Free or discounted b ike share rides
Contacting You

36) What is the best way for you to receive updates on t his program? We may send invitations for future surv eys, or information about free transportation benefits you qualify for. ☐ Phone call ☐ Text Message ☐ Email ☐ US Mail

Phone number (optional): _______________________ _
☐ I can receive text messages at this phone number

Email (optional): ___________________________

37) What is the best time to contact you?
☐ Weekdays ☐ Weekends

38) For residents of the City of Richmond, do you want to be added to the City’s email list-serv regarding this project?
☐ Yes ☐ No

39) Which social media platform (s) do you use regularly? (check all that apply):
☐ Facebook ☐ Twitter
☐ Instagram ☐ Snapchat ☐ Other: ___________________

40) Would you be interested in attending an in -person training on the following? (check all that apply):
☐ How to ride a bike ☐ How to use e-scooters ☐ How to fix a bike ☐ How to use Uber/Lyft ☐ How to use bike share ☐ How to ride the bus or BART

8 41) Do you have any other feedback or suggestions you wo uld like to share?

Thank you for completing the survey!

This publication (or project) was supported by the “Cal ifornia Climate Investments” (CCI) program.

Nystrom Neighborhood Transportation Survey Results

Richmond Community Foundation (RCF) and the City of Richmond are planning to create a new “mobility hub” in the Nystrom neighborhood. This will be a central location where you can access a variety of new transportation services at a low cost. The mobility hub will include a car sharing service, and may also include bike sharing, electric scooters, and more.

Residents from the Nystrom neighborhood recently completed a survey about their personal and household transportation needs. Results from the survey are now being used to help design a program that best reflects the needs and interests of those in the Nystrom community.

Demographics of Survey Participants
Total surveys collected= 315

Black or
African
American
39%
White/
Caucasian
4%
Latino or
Hispanic
49%
Mixed or
Other
8%
Race/Ethnicity
Female
58%
Male
42%
Gender

This publication (or project) was supported by the “Cal ifornia Climate Investments” (CCI) program.

Current Transportation Needs and Travel Behaviors
• When asked to select their top 3 transportation benefits, residents were most interested in Clipper Cash and Lyft/Uber credits

• A majority of residents take public transportation regularly o 54% said “Yes” when asked if they “use public transit regularly” § 38% take AC Transit at least once a month, and 42% take BART at least once a month

0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+ Count of Age
Age Group
Age

Range 16-88 yrs of age

43%
21%
11%
12%
8%
5%
Annual Household Income
Less than $20,000
$20,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $64,999
$65,000 - $79,999
$80,000+
239
211
127 133
Clipper
Cash
Lyft/Uber
Credit
Bike share E-scooter
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
Transportation Benefits
Top Choices

This publication (or project) was supported by the “Cal ifornia Climate Investments” (CCI) program.

• Although several residents are familiar with Lyft/Uber, more than half of respondents indicated they currently never use the service
o 55% of residents said they currently “Never” take Lyft/Uber o 73% of residents have some level of familiarity with Lyft/Uber § Only 27% of residents said they are “Not Familiar” with Lyft/Uber

• A majority of residents said they don’t currently use bike share or e-scooters o 93% of residents indicated they currently “Never” use bike share or e-scooters

• Resident’s also indicated they aren’t familiar with bike share or e-scooters o 58% said they are “Not Familiar” with bike share, and 59% of residents are “Not Familiar” with e-scooters
• Residents walk a lot
o 45% walk at least once a week
o 81% walk at least once a month

• Far fewer residents currently use a (personal) bicycle o 72% said they “Never” use a bicycle as a mode of transportation

Interest in Car Sharing for the Nystrom Neighborhood and Household Vehicle Ownership • When asked if they would use car sharing, 67% of residents said “Yes” or “Probably” o Although residents are interested in a car sharing, several residents indicated they are not familiar with car share
§ 58% said they are “Not Familiar” with car share

• Household car ownership ranges from 0-7 cars

0 50
100
150
200
0 cars 1-2 cars 3-4 cars 5 or more cars
Count of Households with Cars
# of Cars per Household
Household Car Ownership

This publication (or project) was supported by the “Cal ifornia Climate Investments” (CCI) program.

Transportation Cost

• The average monthly transportation cost for residents is $285 o The range of monthly transportation cost varies from $0-$1500

• When asked “How affordable is your everyday transportation costs” o 32% of residents who responded said their everyday transportation costs is “Very Affordable” or “Affordable”
§ 42% said their transportation costs are “Neutral”
§ 26% said their transportation costs are “Very Unaffordable” or Unaffordable”

Smart Phone/Non-Smart Phone and Banking Access
• Residents were asked to select which type of phone they currently use and to indicate their access to bank accounts and other cashless payment options (i.e., Debit card and Prepaid debit card) o Of the residents who responded, a majority said they have access to a smartphone (n=185) and a debit card (n=129)

0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
200

 













 










 


 












 !"#$%!"#"!$&


 ##'"$'!"#$

 
 (
)


*+



+




 
,


-.)





)/





#&!"!".


/0
1









2  







 



3
1






11

 1

4

51678

7
4

 

2


4


7 

4
 6
16
 

1



 



7
5
 
2
 
 !

"9
 


1
9)









1



#:!"!"2

#
$%
##

 




&




+,:$,;


7
 



-



4

78
 






-



 
7 










2

LLC-12 Secretary of State
Statement of Information

/LPLWHG/LDELOLW\&RPSDQ\

IMPORTANT — 5HDGLQVWUXFWLRQV before completing this form.

Filing Fee – $20.00
Copy Fees – )LUVWSDJH
HDFKDWWDFKPHQWSDJH

&HUWLILFDWLRQ)HHSOXVFRS\IHHV
This Space For Office Use Only

1. Limited Liability Company Name
(QWHUWKHH[DFWQDPHRIWKH//&,I\RXUHJLVWHUHGLQ&DOLIRUQLDXVLQJDQDOWHUQDWHQDPHVHHLQVWUXFWLRQV 

2. 12 -Digit Secretary of State File Number 3. State, Foreign Country or Place of Organization RQO\LIIRUPHGRXWVLGHRI&DOLIRUQLD


4. Business Addresses
D6WUHHW$GGUHVVRI3ULQFLSDO2IILFH'RQRWOLVWD32%R[ &LW\ QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
  6WDWH =LS&RGH
E0DLOLQJ$GGUHVVRI//&if different than item 4a &LW\ QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
 6WDWH =LS&RGH
CA
 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
'DWH
 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 7\SHRU3ULQW1DPHRI3HUVRQ&RPSOHWLQJWKH)RUP
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
7LWOH
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
6LJQDWXUH


ª º
¬ ¼
F6WUHHW$GGUHVVRICalifornia 2IILFHLI,WHPDLVQRWLQ&DOLIRUQLD'RQRWOLVWD32%R[ &LW\ QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
 6WDWH =LS&RGH
,I QRmanagers KDYHEHHQDSSRLQWHG RUHOHFWHGSURYLGHWKHQDPH DQG DGGUHVVRIHDFK member$WOHDVWRQHQDPH and DGGUHVV PXVWEHOLVWHG,IWKHPDQDJHUPHPEHULVDQLQGLYLGXDOFRPSOHWH,WHPVD DQGF OHDYH,WHPEEODQN
,IWKHPDQDJHUPHPEHU LV
DQHQWLW\FRPSOHWH,WHPVEDQGF
OHDYH,WHPDEODQN
1RWH
7KH//&FDQQRWVHUYHDVLWVRZQPDQDJHURUPHPEHU,IWKH//& KDVDGGLWLRQDOPDQDJHUVPHPEHUVHQWHUWKHQDPH
V
DQGDGGUHVVHVRQ)RUP//&$
VHHLQVWUXFWLRQV


5. Manager(s) or Member(s)
D)LUVW1DPHLIDQLQGLYLGXDO'RQRWFRPSOHWH,WHPE 0LGGOH1DPH /DVW1DPH 6XIIL[ E(QWLW\1DPH'RQRWFRPSOHWH,WHPD
F$GGUHVV &LW\
QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
  6WDWH =LS&RGH

6. Service of Process
0XVWSURYLGHHLWKHU,QGLYLGXDOOR &RUSRUDWLRQ

INDIVIDUAL ±&RPSOHWH,WHPVDDQGERQO\0XVWLQFOXGHDJHQW¶VIXOOQDPHDQG&DOLIRUQLDVWUHHWDGGUHVV D&DOLIRUQLD$JHQW
V)LUVW1DPH
LIDJHQWLVnot DFRUSRUDWLRQ
 0LGGOH1DPH /DVW1DPH 6XIIL[
E6WUHHW$GGUHVV
LIDJHQWLVnot DFRUSRUDWLRQ
Do not enter a P.O. Box &LW\
QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
 6WDWH
CA
=LS&RGH
CORPORATION ±&RPSOHWH,WHPFRQO\2QO\LQFOXGHWKHQDPHRIWKHUHJLVWHUHGDJHQW&RUSRUDWLRQ F&DOLIRUQLD5HJLVWHUHG&RUSRUDWH$JHQW¶V1DPH
LIDJHQWLVDFRUSRUDWLRQ
±'RQRWFRPSOHWH,WHPDRUE

7. Type of Business
D'HVFULEHWKHW\SHRIEXVLQHVVRUVHUYLFHVRIWKH/LPLWHG/LDELOLW\&RPSDQ\

8. Chief Executive Officer, if elected or appointed
D)LUVW1DPH 0LGGOH1DPH  /DVW1DPH 6XIIL[
E$GGUHVV &LW\
QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
  6WDWH =LS&RGH

9. The Information contained herein, including any attachments, is true and correct.

Return Address (Optional)
)RUFRPPXQLFDWLRQIURPWKH6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHUHODWHG WRWKLVGRFXPHQWRULISXUFKDVLQJDFRS\RIWKHILOHGGRFXPHQWHQWHUWKHQDPHRID SHUVRQRUFRPSDQ\DQGWKHPDLOLQJDGGUHVV7KLVLQIRUPDWLRQZLOOEHFRPHSXEOLFZKHQILOHG6((,16758&7,216%()25(&203/(7,1* 
1DPH

&RPSDQ\

$GGUHVV

&LW\6WDWH=LS

//&
5(9
 2017 California Secretary of State
www.sos.ca.gov/business/be

19-D92012
FILED
In the office of the Secretary of State
of the State of California
OCT 17, 2019

NOMAD TRANSIT LLC
201732010274 DELAWARE
NY 10014
10014 NY95 MORTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR NEW YORK
95 MORTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR NEW YORK
95 MORTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR NEW YORK 10014

CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC - LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE (C1592199)
NY

LAVOIEALEX

SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS
10/17/2019 ERIN ABRAMS MEMBER


//&$$WWDFKPHQW
(67


2016 California Secretary of State
www.sos.ca.gov/business/be


  










  











  











  











  











  











  











Attachment to
Statement of Information

/LPLWHG/LDELOLW\&RPSDQ\

LLC-12A
Attachment
7KLV6SDFH)RU2IILFH8VH2QO\
A. Limited Liability Company Name
B. 12-Digit Secretary of State File Number C. State or Place of Organization RQO\LIIRUPHGRXWVLGHRI&DOLIRUQLD

D. List of Additional Manager(s) or Member(s) - ,I WKH PDQDJHUPHPEHU LV DQ LQGLYLGXDO HQWHU WKH LQGLYLGXDO¶V QDPH DQG DGGUHVV ,I WKH PDQDJHUPHPEHUL VDQHQWLW\HQWHUW KHHQWLW\¶VQDPHDQGDGGUHVV1RWH 7KH//&FDQQRWVHUYHDVLWVRZQPDQDJHUR UPHPEHU )LUVW1DPH  0LGGOH1DPH /DVW1DPH 6XIIL[
(QWLW\1DPH 
$GGUHVV &LW\
QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
 6WDWH =LS&RGH
)LUVW1DPH   0LGGOH1DPH /DVW1DPH 6XIIL[
(QWLW\1DPH 
$GGUHVV &LW\
QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
 6WDWH =LS&RGH
 )LUVW1DPH 0LGGOH1DPH  /DVW1DPH 6XIIL[
(QWLW\1DPH 
$GGUHVV &LW\
QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
 6WDWH =LS&RGH
 )LUVW1DPH 0LGGOH1DPH /DVW1DPH 6XIIL[
 (QWLW\1DPH
$GGUHVV &LW\
QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
 6WDWH =LS&RGH 
 )LUVW1DPH 0LGGOH1DPH /DVW1DPH 6XIIL[
(QWLW\1DPH 
$GGUHVV &LW\
QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
 6WDWH =LS&RGH
)LUVW1DPH  0LGGOH1DPH /DVW1DPH 6XIIL[
 (QWLW\1DPH
$GGUHVV &LW\
QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
 6WDWH =LS&RGH
)LUVW1DP H  0LGGOH1DPH /DVW1DPH 6XIIL[
(QWLW\1DPH 
$GGUHVV &LW\
QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
 6WDWH =LS&RGH
19-D92012

NOMAD TRANSIT LLC
201732010274 DELAWARE

DANIEL RAMOT
95 MORTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR NEW YORK NY 10014

ERIN ABRAMS
95 MORTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR NEW YORK NY 10014

Exhibit G: Resolution/Project Approval

Exhibit H: Conflict of Interest Declaration

Clean Mobility Voucher Pilot Program: CONF LICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION The awardee must disclose any Conflict of Interest with their ability to fulfill the duties of the Clean Mobility Voucher Pilot Program Voucher Agreement (Voucher Agreement). Please summarize all of your organization’s or any subcontractor’s/project partner's direct or indirect interests which may pose an actual, apparent, or potential conflict of interest with your ability to fulfill the duties of the Voucher Agreement. Please note that a potential or actual conflict of interest exists when commitments and obligations under the Voucher Agreement are likely to be compromised by the awardee’s or any subcontractor’s/project partner's other interests (including but not limited to financial interests), or relationships, particularly if those interests or commitments are not disclosed. The Program Administrator may consider the nature and extent of any potential or apparent conflict of interest in reviewing, considering, or processing the voucher application or voucher implementation activities, and may disqualify the awardee/voucher recipient at the Program Administrator's sole discretion.

Please describe below any interests (including but not limited to financial interests), relationships, or positions you or any of your organization’s or subcontractor’s/project partner’s hold (volunteer or otherwise), or circumstances that you believe could contribute to a conflict of interest:

To my knowledge, my organization/ subcontractor/ project partner does not have a C
onflict of Interest to disclose.

My organization/ subcontractor/ project partner has a Conflict of Interest to d
isclose and I have included the appropriate documentation.

Signature of Res ponsible Party Date
Typed Name of Responsible Party
Typed Name of Organization
Sep 12 2021
Tom Butt
_________________
City Clerk Signature
_________________
City Attorney Signature
X
Mayor
City of Richmond California
Exhibit I: Confidentiality Statement

Clean Mobility Voucher Pilot Program
CO

NFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
As an authorized representative and/or officer of the organization named below, I warrant my organization and its employees will not disclose and will keep confidential any documents, diagrams, Personally Identifiable Information ( see next page for the definition of PII), and information storage media (i.e., databases, cloud storage, etc.) made available to us by the State, the Program Administrator, or community members for the purpose of implementing the Clean Mobility Voucher Pilot Program Voucher Agreement (Voucher Agreement) or in conjunction with any sub-contract agreement arising there from. I warrant that only those employees who are authorized and required to use such materials will have access to them and that they will sign confidentiality statements at least as restrictive as this one applicable to the organization named below.

I further warrant that all materials provided by the State, the Program Administrator or community members will be physically and/or electronically destroyed once the information is no longer necessary for the implementation to meet the Voucher Agreement requirements. I will include a letter attesting to documenting the destruction of copies to the Program Administrator as part of the completion of the project milestones. Failure to so comply will subject this organization to potential liability, including all damages to the State and third parties. I authorize the State and Program Administrator to inspect and verify compliance with this statement. _____________________________________ ___________________ Signature of Responsible Party Date
_____________________________________
Typed Name of Responsible Party
_____________________________________
Typed Name of Organization
Sep 12 2021
Tom Butt
_________________
City Clerk Signature
________________
City Attorney Signature
Mayor
City of Richmond California
For purposes of this confidentiality statement, Personally Identifiable Information (PII) includes but is not limited to an individual’s:

• Social Security number
• Driver license or state-issued ID number
• Military ID number
• Passport number
• Credit card (or debit card) number, CVV2, and expiration date • Financial account numbers (with or without access codes or passwords) • Customer account numbers
• Unlisted telephone numbers
• Date or place of birth
• Mother’s maiden name
• PINs or passwords
• Password challenge question responses
• Account balances or histories
• Wage & salary information
• Tax filing status
• Biometric data that can be used to identify an individual, including finger or voice prints
• Digital or physical copies of handwritten signature
• E- mail addresses
• Medical record numbers
• Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including license plate numbers • Medical histories
• National or ethnic origin
• Religious affiliation(s)
• Physical characteristics (height, weight, hair color, eye color, etc.) • Insurance policy numbers
• Credit or payment history data
• Full face photographic images and any comparable images • Certificate/license numbers
• Internet Protocol (IP) address numbers
• Geolocation or physical address

Audit Trail
Document Details
Title MP20W1A-11, City of Richmond: CMO MP Voucher Agreement for Your Signature File Name A-11 City of Richmond MPV Voucher Agreement_9.07.21.pdf Document ID c74e40a6b8654bbb85db651289f6de0e
Fingerprint a14d55410044aad5dc2b92413dc88821
Status Completed
Document History
Document Created Document Created by Cayla McDonell ([email protected]) Fingerprint: a14d55410044aad5dc2b92413dc88821
Sep 08 2021
03:10PM UTC
Document Sent Document Sent to Tom Butt ([email protected]) Sep 08 2021 03:10PM UTC
Document Viewed Document Viewed by Tom Butt ([email protected]) IP: 174.194.137.0
Sep 08 2021
03:14PM UTC
Document Viewed Document Viewed by Tom Butt ([email protected]) IP: 174.194.137.0
Sep 08 2021
03:14PM UTC
Document Viewed Document Viewed by Tom Butt ([email protected]) IP: 40.94.28.225
Sep 08 2021
03:16PM UTC
Document Viewed Document Viewed by Tom Butt ([email protected]) IP: 40.94.28.225
Sep 08 2021
03:16PM UTC
Document Viewed Document Viewed by Tom Butt ([email protected]) IP: 174.194.137.0
Sep 12 2021
03:40PM UTC
Document Signed Document Signed by Tom Butt ([email protected]) IP: 174.194.137.0
Sep 12 2021
03:41PM UTC
Document Sent Document Sent to Piero Stillitano ([email protected]) Sep 12 2021 03:41PM UTC
Document Viewed Document Viewed by Piero Stillitano ([email protected]) IP: 64.52.177.75
Sep 13 2021
04:02PM UTC
Document Signed Document Signed by Piero Stillitano ([email protected]) IP: 64.52.177.75
Sep 13 2021
04:03PM UTC
Document Sent Document Sent to Cayla McDonell ([email protected]) Sep 13 2021 04:03PM UTC
Document Viewed Document Viewed by Cayla McDonell ([email protected]) IP: 24.10.98.171
Sep 16 2021
06:58PM UTC
Document Signed Document Signed by Cayla McDonell ([email protected]) IP: 24.10.98.171
Sep 16 2021
07:00PM UTC
Document
Completed
This document has been completed.

Fingerprint: b41c86da3e5a3303a1f524d6c181e6a8
Sep 16 2021
07:06PM UTC