Steering Committee Draft | Ocotber 2020

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority

Steering Committee Draft | Ocotber 2020

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority

Prepared By:

1625 Shattuck Avenue Suite 300 Berkeley, California 94709 510.848.3815

ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE • SAN DIEGO

www.placeworks.com

Table of Contents

List of Figures & Tables ii Executive Summary 3

1. Introduction 13 1.1 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Lifeline Transportation Program 13 1.2 CBTP Guidelines 14 1.3 2004 Richmond-Area CBTP 15 1.4 Current Richmond Area CBTP 15 1.5 COVID-19 and CBTP Development 17

2. Study Area Profile 18 2.1 Demographic Analysis 18 2.2 Transportation Patterns 24 2.3 Transportation Network 28

3. Previous Studies and Mobility Gaps 33 3.1 Local Studies 33 3.2 Countywide Studies 37 3.3 Current Studies 39 3.4 Thematic Mobility Challenges 40

4. Outreach and Engagement Summary 43 4.1 CBTP Advisor Groups 43 4.2 Outreach Strategy 44 4.3 Outreach Awareness 44 4.4 Outreach Results 46 4.5 Outreach Summary 54

5. Methodology and Recommendations 56 5.1 COVID-19 and CBTP Development 56 5.2 Evaluation Criteria 57 5.3 Evaluation Process 60 5.4 Recommended Projects and Plans 62

Appendix A Existing Conditions Report Appendix B Outreach Materials and Results Appendix C Recommendations Scoring Results

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan i Contra Costa Transportation Authority List of Figures & Tables

Figure ES-1 2004 and Current Community-Based Transportation Planning (CBTP) Study Areas 4 Table ES-1 Key Findings from Community Outreach Events 7 Table ES-2 High Need + High Potential Active Transportation Projects and Programs 10 Table ES-3 High Need + High Potential Transit Projects and Programs 10 Table ES-4 High Need + High Potential School Safety Projects and Programs 11 Table ES-5 High Need Active Transportation Projects and Programs 11 Table ES-6 High Need Transit Projects and Programs 12 Table ES-7 High Need School Safety Projects and Programs 12 Table 1-1 Cycle 5 Lifeline Transportation Program Funding 14 Figure 1-1 Community Based Transportation Plan Study Areat 16 Table 2-1 Race and Ethnicity in the Study Area and Contra Costa Countyt 19 Figure 2-1 Age Distribution, Study Area (2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates) 19 Figure 2-2 Age Distribution, Contra Costa County (2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates) 19 Figure 2-3 Population Under 18 Years of Age 20 Figure 2-4 Population Age 65 and Over 21 Figure 2-5 Limited English Proficiency, Study Area and Contra Costa County (2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates) 22 Figure 2-6 Median Household Income, Study Area and Contra Costa County (2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates) 22 Figure 2-7 Population in Poverty (200% of Federal Poverty Level) 23 Figure 2-8 Percentage of People with Sensory Disabilities 24 Figure 2-9 Percentage of People with Physical Disabilities 25 Figure 2-12 Household Vehicle Availability 26 Table 2-2 Mode of Travel to Work in the Study area and Contra Costa County 27 Figure 2-13 Long Distance Commute 28 Figure 2-14 Existing Transit Facilities 29 Table 2-3 Transit Routes Serving the Study area 30 Figure 2-15 Bicycle Facilities 32 Figure 4-1 Richmond Outreach Flyer 45 Figure 4-2 Richmond Outreach Flyer (Spanish Verison) 45 Figure 4-3 Richmond Outreach Locations Map 46 Figure 4-4: County Planning Event Attendance 47 Figure 4-5: GRIP Popup Event Responses 48 Figure 4-6: GRIP Popup Event Feedback by Type 49 Figure 4-7: Richmond Youth Council Meeting Responses 51 Figure 4-8: Richmond youth Council Meeting Feedback by Type 51 Figure 4-9: Senior Produce Brownbag Responses 52 Figure 4-10: Senior Brown Bag Feedback by Type 53 Figure 4-11: Total Outreach Counts 54 Figure 4-12: Total Responses Collected by Type 55 Figure 5-1 High Need + High Potential Recommendations 63 Table 5-1 High Need + High Potential Active Transportation Projects and Programs 64 Table 5-2 High Need + High Potential Transit Projects and Programs 65 Table 5-3 High Need + High Potential Transit Projects and Programs 65 Table 5-4 High Need Active Transportation Projects and Programs 67 Table 5-5 High Need Transit Projects and Programs 67 Table 5-6 High Need School Safety Projects and Programs 68 ii Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Executive Summary

This Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) addresses transportation- chal Study Area Profile lenges in low-income Communities of Concern (CoC) across areas of Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, and unincorporated Contra Costa County. The CBTP was developed Demographic Profile by Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) with Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) grant funding. In conformance with MTC guidelines, it represents The last Richmond Area CBTP was completed in 2004. The study’s target areas were a collaborative effort between CCTA, community members, local stakeholders, and the neighborhoods of North Richmond, the Iron Triangle, Coronado, Santa Fe, Old 1 transit operators to identify and fill local mobility gaps that impact low-income and Town San Pablo, and Parchester Village. At the time, it had a residential population challenged communities. of under 40,000. The 2004 CBTP recommended 11 mobility projects ranging from additional bus and shuttle services to new bicycle and pedestrian paths. Of those, The CBTP recommends a series of projects and programs identified during communi- five have been fully implemented and three have been partially implemented. ty outreach and review of existing studies. These recommendations were prioritized using evaluation criteria developed with plan advisors. The current CBTP study area represents a significant expansion from 2004, as shown in Figure ES-1. It includes parts of the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, and El Cerrito, and now includes unincorporated Rollingwood, Montalvin Manor, Tara Hills, and COVID-19 Statement Bayview. The current population exceeds 93,000. In 2017, the median household income in the study area was $53,200, with approximately 46 percent of residents The COVID-19 pandemic emerged following the outreach process of this CBTP. As a living in poverty (defined here as below 200 percent of the federal poverty thresh- result, community feedback in this plan does not reflect new mobility habits, priori- old). ties, and challenges associated with COVID-19 and shelter-in-place orders. The study area is more diverse than Contra Costa County as a whole. It contains However, development of CBTP recommendations and plan drafting began about higher percentages of Hispanic or Latino and Black or African-American residents four months into the crisis. The transportation environment, as well as the financial than the County, the same percentage of Asian residents, and a much lower per- feasibility and implementability of various project types, shifted greatly during that centage of white residents. Less than 12 percent of CBTP area residents are white time. Projects and programs in this plan reflect pre-COVID community feedback and non-Hispanic or Latino, compared to about 45 percent countywide. Approximately post-COVID feasibility evaluation. 6,500 households in the study area (17 percent of total households) are designated Predicating the long-term impact of COVID-19 on future mobility habits and gaps is as “Limited English-Speaking Households,” as compared to 7 percent of households difficult. The MTC CBTP program operates on a 10-year cycle, and CCTA determined countywide. that it is in the interest of communities to adopt this plan in the current context, rather than re-initiate the existing conditions, community outreach, and recommen- 1 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2004, Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan, page ES-1. dations processes.

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 3 Contra Costa Transportation Authority Richmond Community Based Transportation Plan • Final Report METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Figure ES-1 Richmond-Area Community-Based Transportation Planning Communities

Figure ES-1 2004 and Current Community-Based Transportation Planning (CBTP) Study Areas Page ES-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

Transportation and Transit Profile The study area includes the Richmond, El Cerrito del Norte, and El Cerrito Plaza Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stations, served by the Richmond-Millbrae and Rich- Of the approximately 55,000 commuters aged 16 years and over in the study area, mond-Berryessa BART lines. Amtrak service (Capitol Corridor and California Zephyr about 78 percent travel to work by personal vehicle. Two-thirds of those workers lines) is available at the Richmond Transit Center, adjacent to the Richmond BART drive alone. Residents of the northwest portions of the study area experience longer station. These trains provide direct connections to Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose, commutes—37 minutes or more—than others in the study area. However, there Sacramento, and points beyond. has been a doubling in the use of public transportation in the study area, from 7 percent in 2010 to 14 percent in 2017.

4 Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), 2018; Contra Costa County 2018; Placeworks, 2018. Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Local and intercity bus transit is primarily provided by Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Steering Committee Oversight District (AC Transit), West Contra Costa Transportation Authority (WestCat), and A CBTP Steering Committee was convened twice to ensure an inclusive outreach Golden Gate Transit. AC Transit serves the entire study area through 10 bus routes, process, provide direction on reaching specific communities, and prioritize outreach 3 transbay routes, and 1 24-hour route. WestCat operates six local and two regional opportunities. Members of the Steering Committee included: bus routes in the study area. ■■ Ben Choi, Richmond City Council An active transportation network includes a mix of bicycle facility types that provides ■■ Elizabeth Pabon-Alvarado, San Pablo City Council some connectivity with transit. Multiple future bicycle projects are proposed adopt- ■■ Janet Abelson, El Cerrito City Council ed plans, including the 2018 Contra Costa County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. ■■ Robert Rogers, Office of Supervisor Gioia ■■ Jan Mignone, President, Richmond Neighborhood Coordinating Council Past and Current Studies ■■ Myrtle Braxton-Ellington, Chair, Richmond Commission on Aging ■■ Trina Jackson, Staff Liaison, Richmond Youth Council The recommendations in this CBTP respond to and build on previous and ongoing ■■ Cecilia Perez-Mejia, Community Liaison, First Five Contra Costa transportation studies. Due to the size and multijurisdictional make-up of the study ■■ Nikki Beasley, Executive Director, Richmond Neighborhood Housing Service area, understanding common mobility themes and adopted policies was significant to the development of relevant recommendations. Project Working Group Oversight A Project Working Group (PWG) composed of local jurisdiction and transit agency As detailed in Chapter 3, 19 local and countywide studies, spanning 1999 to the staff convened five times throughout the outreach process to review the Outreach present, were reviewed. Strategy, help identify stakeholders in various COCs, and provide practical guidance on coordinating outreach events and stakeholders. Members of the PWG for the Outreach and Engagement Pittsburg-Bay Point CBTP included: ■■ Martin Engelmann, Deputy Executive Director, Planning, CCTA All CBTP recommendations are based on a community coordination campaign con- ■■ Matt Kelly, Senior Transportation Planner, CCTA sistent with MTC Guidelines. ■■ James Hinkamp, Associate Transportation Planner, CCTA Outreach and engagement in this plan included the following components: ■■ Aileen Hernandez, Principal Grants Officer, BART ■■ Celestine Do, Senior Planner BART 1. Advisory group oversight ■■ Rachal Factor, Principal Planner, BART 2. Project web page ■■ Nathan Landau, AC Transit 3. Project awareness campaign ■■ Ryan Lau, AC Transit 4. County planning events ■■ Denee Evans, Transportation Demand and Sustainability Manager, City of Richmond 5. “Pop-up” sessions at events in the study area ■■ Tawfic Halaby, Senior Civil Engineer, City of Richmond 6. In-depth interviews with community members ■■ Misha Kaur, Paratransit Coordinator, City of Richmond ■■ Patrick Phelan, Infrastructure Administrator, City of Richmond ■■ Lori Reese Brown, Transportation Project Manager, City of Richmond ■■ Lina Velasco, Community Development Director, City of Richmond

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 5 Contra Costa Transportation Authority ■■ Dane Rodgers, Senior Civil Engineer, City of Richmond Approximately 50 attendees contributed feedback concerning transportation ■■ Ana Bernardes, Engineering Manager/Senior Engineer, City of El Cerrito challenges, most related to the pedestrian safety and security, transit delays and ■■ Clayton Johnson, Senior Health Education Specialist, Contra Costa Health Services frequencies, gaps in bicycle infrastructure, and conditions on San Pablo Avenue. ■■ Alexander Zandian, Engineer, Contra Costa County ■■ Mary Halle, Senior Civil Engineer, Contra Costa County Public Works Pop-Up Sessions CBTP team members worked with Community Based Organizations (CBO), non-prof- Project Web Page its, and various local agencies to schedule “pop-up” outreach sessions at pre-sched- The CBTP team developed a project web page on the CCTA website. The web page uled events targeting low-income and other potentially transportation-challenged included background information on the CBTP process, links to project submittals communities. The goals of these events were to collect detailed feedback about such as Existing Conditions Reports and Outreach Strategies, and notification of transportation challenges directly from COC residents and record personal narratives events using customized fliers. describing how these challenges impact daily life. English- and Spanish-speaking CBTP project staff facilitated “map and dot” study board exercises, on-site surveys, Awareness Campaign and “infrastructure gap” sticker exercises to allow participants to visually identify The CBTP team developed a graphics-rich Outreach Awareness Notice in English (see existing mobility gaps. Figure 4-1) and Spanish (see Figure 4-2) to notice the public of outreach events in various COCs. The flier was adapted to each event and posted digitally on websites The CBTP team also conducted detailed interviews with volunteers, to develop of agencies and stakeholders involved in the project. personal vignettes about daily mobility challenges in the study area.

The team also distributed information and fliers about the CBTP outreach process to Pop-up sessions were conducted at the following events with the following partici- over 150 Richmond community members at the Martin Luther King Day of Service pation rates: and Celebration event at Unity Park Community Plaza, and distributed outreach in- 1. Greater Richmond Interfaith Program (GRIP) Community Lunch at GRIP’s formation materials to about 40 ferry riders at the Richmond Ferry Plaza “Energizer central location at 165 22nd Street in Richmond on November 26, 2019. Station” on Bike-to-Work Day. Approximately 25 attendees participated in interactive exercises, and eight in-depth interviews were conducted. County Planning Events 2. Richmond Youth Council Meeting on December 10, 2019. Youth Councilmem- Contra Costa County is currently updating its General Plan, a process titled Envision bers discussed their transportation needs as well as those faced by the popu- Contra Costa 2040. The CBTP team attended the following outreach events associat- lation of Richmond youth they represent. PlaceWorks staff completed detailed ed with this process to gauge community mobility priorities in Richmond: interviews of all five councilmembers at the meeting. All five councilmembers, as well as 15 additional meeting attendees, also completed interactive exercises. ■■ Contra Costa County General Plan Update Community Meeting, North Rich- 3. Booker T. Anderson Community Center Brown Bag Lunch on December 13, mond. This meeting was held on May 13, 2019, at the Community Heritage 2019. Team members interviewed participants in the grocery program about Senior Apartments. their transportation experiences in Eastshore/Panhandle Annex neighborhoods ■■ Contra Costa County General Plan Update Community Meeting, Bayview, Mon- of Richmond. PlaceWorks staff recorded two detailed interviews and facilitated talvin Manor, and Tara Hills. This meeting was held on May 14, 2019, at the map exercises and/or discussions with 16 individuals Montara Bay Community Center.

6 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Key Findings

Table ES-1 summarizes the key findings and feedback from each outreach compo- GRIP Community Bicycle Challenges: nent. Lunch ●● Gaps in bicycle facilities on San Pablo Avenue and major corridors. ●● Bike lane on San Pablo Avenue starting at the intersection with Rumrill Boulevard and College Lane does not extend Table ES-1 Key Findings from Community Outreach Events westward towards Richmond. ●● No protected lanes on San Pablo Avenue and Carlson Contra Costa County Pedestrian Challenges: Boulevard. ●● Need bike improvements along Ohio Avenue east of 2nd General Plan Update ●● Evening neighborhood safety and lighting conditions Street North Richmond in North Richmond neighborhoods ●● Need better bike lanes on MacDonald behind Nicholl Park Meeting ●● Area-wide sidewalk conditions and gaps on major ●● Bicycle Conditions Surrounding Nicholl Park area are difficult Cyclists avoid the greenway behind Nicholl Park because of streets ●● safety issues and lack of lighting. Bicycle Challenges: Pedestrian Challenges: ●● Gaps in local bicycle infrastructure ●● Dangerous conditions on BART line crossings Transit Challenges: ●● Lack pedestrian overcrossings in key locations • Over Richmond Parkway at Goodrick Avenue, for access to ● Too many delays and poor system linkages ● Point Pinole Park. ●● Insufficient fixed-route coverage across Richmond • Over the train tracks to the West of Richmond so that people can access views of the San Rafael and San Pablo Bay. ●● Insufficient bus frequencies Transit Challenges: ●● Poor BART/transit access ●● Poor Bus Shelter Conditions (8 + comments) ●● Poorly design bus stops and transit curb management ●● Lack of seating and lighting at stops along MacDonald Avenue ●● Lack of Transit Access to Support Services (5 comments) Contra Costa County Transit Challenges: ●● Need for subsidized evening shuttle access to GRIP and General Plan Update ●● Overall lack transit connections to BART and transit other facilities ●● WestCat Route 19 does not provide direct access to Social Bayview, Montalvin types Security office Manor and Tara Hills Pedestrian Challenges: ●● Need for Dial-a-Ride shuttle between the Richmond BART Meeting station and Kaiser Permanente ●● Fear of Tara Hills Drive and Shawn Drive due to vehicle ●● Route 72 is Inconsistent speeds Other ●● Sidewalk and bicycle gaps and dangerous intersections ●● Large commercial trucks in the ‘flats’ of Richmond create on San Pablo Avenue danger for other drivers and people walking or biking. Children walk in areas that are not safe for pedestrians due to commercial trucks, people speeding, and incomplete sidewalks.

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 7 Contra Costa Transportation Authority Table ES-1 Key Findings from Community Outreach Events Booker T. Anderson Pedestrian Challenges: (Continued) Community Center ●● Difficult to walk near bike paths in Richmond; Senior Produce Brown markings a re confusing Richmond Youth Pedestrian Challenges: Bag ●● Conditions on Potrero Avenue between Carlson and Council ●● Poor pedestrian conditions on San Pablo Avenue 80 are poor ●● Poor pedestrian conditions surrounding Nicholl Park • Intersection of Carlson Boulevard and Potrero ●● Poor pedestrian conditions surrounding the Shoppes Avenue is dangerous at Hilltop • Lack of adequate lighting • Lack of sidewalk lighting • Cars use segment to get to highway, but it is also • Lack of crosswalk reflectors and signalization a route to Stege Elementary School and Booker T. ●● Students walking to/from Kennedy High School face Anderson Community Center poor conditions ●● Area need more and better curb cuts, with gentler ●● Cutting Boulevard between South 49th Street and the slopes, for people in wheelchairs and using mobility highway has unsafe crossings, which students must devices use. Transit Challenges: ●● Unsafe driving Conditions around Pacific East Mall ●● Kaiser Permanente and Richmond Care Center are difficult to get to on transit for those who can’t walk far • Roads and signage are confusing for motorists around Central Avenue, which impacts pedestrian ●● AC Transit Routes are unreliable safety. ●● Route 72 needs more busses daily • Multiple stop-controlled intersections where you ●● Route 71 bus is often late can’t see oncoming cross traffic ●● Stops and shelters on 71 and 40 are inadequate; lack Transit Challenges: seating ●● WestCat bus stop at Cutting Boulevard and Key ●● There is a general lack of real-time signage along bus Boulevard is highly used but has no shelter or seats routes ●● Many AC Transit stops along San Pablo Avenue lack ●● Signage and timetables along routes are written in seats and/or shelters font size that is too small to read ●● Lack of safety measures for young riders on BART and Safety Challenges busses. ●● Iron Triangle needs better lighting and signage for ●● Inconsistent service and lateness of Route 76 to El non-auto mobility Cerrito Del Norte BART ●● Overall high crime rates in CBTP area make evening ●● Young people feel Lyft/Uber are better alternatives mobility frightening

8 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Recommendations Methodology High Need Recommendations High Need Recommendations received an Area Need Score of 3.5 or above and a Evaluation Criteria Project Potential Score of below 3.5. These projects will fulfill community priorities and increase community access but may be difficult to complete due to funding The CBTP project team worked with the PWG to establish four evaluation criteria and costs, cross-jurisdictional management, engineering, and other implementation to rank projects and programs by their ability to improve mobility for challenged challenges. communities:

1. Reflects Community Priorities Project Types 2. Increases Access Recommendations fall within the following groups of projects and plans: 3. Is Financially Feasible Active Transportation. These are generally capital improvements that increase safe, 4. Ease of Implementation healthy, active transportation choices, namely walking and biking, for everyday trips.

Scoring Methodology Transit. Transit projects may include new routes, expanding operating hours of cer- tain lines, increasing transit line frequency, or improving transit stops with lighting, Recommendations were scored one through five for each evaluation criteria. A score shelter, and seating. of one reflects the lowest potential for fulfillment of that category; five the highest. For all project and plans, the following score averages were calculated: School Safety. School safety projects provide safe, non-motorized routes between ■■ Area Need Score: The average score of Criterion 1 (Community Priorities) and where people live and local schools. Criterion 2 (Increases Access) ■■ Project Potential Score: The average score of Criterion 3 (Financial Feasibility) Recommendations and Criterion 4 (Ease of Implementation) The following tables summarize recommendations across project type. Each table Projects and plans were categorized into the following groups based on the results includes recommendations,Area Need score, Project Potential score, and estimated of this scoring system. cost. High Need + High Potential Recommendations High Need + High Potential Recommendations These recommendations received an Area Need Score of 3.5 or above and a Project Potential Score of 3.5 or above. These are projects and programs consistent with Active Transportation Projects and Programs community priorities, have the highest potential to reduce access gaps, and are Active Transportation Projects comprise most High Need + High Potential Recom- unlikely to face implementation challenges. mendations. Not only were such projects identified by the community, in current studies and during CBTP advisor coordination, but funding for active transportation and multi-modal safety remains available in the wake of COVID-19.

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 9 Contra Costa Transportation Authority Table ES-2 High Need + High Potential Active Transportation Projects and Programs

Area Need Score Project Potential Estimated Recommendation (3.5+) Score (3.5 +) Cost

Fill bicycle gaps on street networks surrounding public schools and neighborhood parks:

Fill bicycle gaps surrounding Nicholl Park/DeJean Middle School by installing a Class III Bike Boulevard Route on Harry 3.5 4.25 $105,000 Ells Place from Richmond Greenway to Nevin Avenue.

Fill bicycle gaps surrounding John F. Kennedy High School and Laurel Park by installing a Class III Bike Boulevard Route 4 3.65 $330,000 along entire Berk Avenue/49th Street loop.

Fill bicycle gaps surrounding Unity Park Community Plaza by installing a Class III Bike Boulevard Route on 16th Street 3.75 3.5 $125,000 from McDonald Avenue to Richmond Greenway.

Install a Class III Super Sharrow Route on Macdonald Avenue from Richmond Parkway to Key Boulevard. 3.75 3.75 $90,000

Increase pedestrian safety along San Pablo Avenue from Cutting Boulevard to Rumrill Boulevard, with crosswalks, $3.5 million to 5 3.5 signals and lighting improvements coordinated with future transit services planned by WCCTAC and AC Transit. $5 million

Close sidewalk gaps, improve existing sidewalk conditions and improve access to bus stops along the west side of San $750,000 to 4.5 4 Pablo Avenue between Tara Hills Drive and Murphy Drive in San Pablo. $1.25 million

Increase pedestrian safety along MacDonald Avenue from San Pablo Avenue to Richmond Parkway, with crosswalks, $5 million to 4.5 3.5 signals and lighting improvements coordinated with future transit services planned by WCCTAC and AC Transit. $10 million

Install or improve ADA-compliant curb ramps in high-use areas of Tara Hills, Montalvin Manor and Rollingwood 4.5 5 $12,000 per ramp communities.

Initiate City of San Pablo and City of El Cerrito Vision Zero Plans 3.5 4 $250,000 per plan

Table ES-3 High Need + High Potential Transit Projects and Programs Transit Projects and Programs Public transit projects are a high priority for communities in the Richmond Area Project Need Potential Estimated CBTP study area. However, declining transit revenues and loss of funding Recommendation Score Score Cost in the wake of COVID-19 have reduced the current financial feasibility of (3.5+) (3.5 +) transit projects. As a result of current conditions, most transit recommen- dations received a lower Project Potential score. Install lighting, signage and shelter improvements 4.5 3.5 $20,000 to consistent with 2019 NACTO and ADA standards at up $30,000 per stop to 10 bus stops along AC Transit Route 71 and Golden Gate Transit Route 40, or other high-use corridors.

10 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority School Safety Projects and Programs High Need Recommendations As of this draft CBTP, all schools and facilities within the West Contra Active Transportation Projects and Programs Costa County School District are closed to classroom learning for the 2020 through 2021 school year. As noted in Section 5.1, these conditions Table ES-5 High Need Active Transportation Projects and Programs make it difficult to predict implementation of school safety projects. However, funding for previously identified Safe Routes to School pro- Project Area Need Potential grams increases the potential for these projects. Estimated Recommendation Score Score Cost (3.5 +) (below Table ES-4 High Need + High Potential School Safety 3.5)

Projects and Programs Widen sidewalks, improve lighting, and increase $5 million to maintenance conditions of the Barrett Avenue/BART 3.75 2 Project $8 million Area undercrossing. Potential Estimated Recommendation Need Score Widen sidewalks, improve lighting, and increase Score Cost $5 million to (3.5+) maintenance conditions of the Macdonald Avenue/BART 4 2 (3.5 +) $8 million undercrossing. Implement Safe Routes 5 4 $400,000 to Widen sidewalks, improve lighting, and increase main- $700,000 $5 million to to School infrastructure tenance conditions of the Pennsylvania Avenue/BART 3.75 1.5 $8 million improvements along overcrossing. segment of Cutting Extend current terminus of recent San Pablo Avenue $1.6 million Boulevard that connects complete streets improvements from Rivers Street to 3.75 2.75 to $2.4 El Cerrito Del Norte BART Rumrill Boulevard. million Station and Kennedy High School (between South Develop pedestrian, bicycle and transit user safety program, th including infrastructure, signalization and striping compo- 45 Street and San Pablo 4.5 3 $4 million nents, on Central Avenue from San Pablo Avenue through Avenue). Interstate 80 intersection.

Implement circulation 4.5 3.5 $300,000 to Develop Barrett Avenue “road diet” program at Interstate and safety improvements, $600,000 80 to reduce auto speeds and increase pedestrian safety. $2 million to 4 2.5 including potential Components include speed humps, bulb-outs, rapid flashing $4 million beacons and lane diet. secondary entrance, on the Verde Elementary Reduce impacts of commercial truck by-passes on local $20,000 School campus. travel routes with recommendations from the Development for signage Program Report for the North Richmond Area of Benefit, 3.75 3.25 program to such as truck restriction signage, truck calming measures $3 million in and improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. infrastructure

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 11 Contra Costa Transportation Authority Transit Projects and Programs School Safety Projects and Programs

Table ES-6 High Need Transit Projects and Programs Table ES-7 High Need School Safety Projects and Programs

Project Project Area Need Potential Area Need Potential Estimated Estimated Recommendation Score Score Recommendation Score Score Cost Cost (3.5 +) (below (3.5 +) (below 3.5) 3.5)

Increase the frequency of AC transit Route 76 Implement a near-term safe routes to school $1.5 million from 30 minutes to 15 minutes to increase program on streets surrounding Verde 4.5 2.5 $75,000 4 1.5 to $2.5 access to BART stations throughout the CBTP Elementary School. million study area. Improve signalization and striping at I-80/ Amend the Shoppes at Hilltop loop of San Pablo Dam Road Interchange for safety of 4.5 2.5 $500,000 WestCat Route 19 to provide direct service to $500,000 to 3.5 2.5 Riverside Elementary School students. the Richmond Social Security Office at 3164 $1 million Garrity Way.

Program a City-subsidized shuttle service routed from BART Stations in the CBTP study area to social service facilities that support mobility-challenged communities, Up to including: Greater Richmond Interfaith 3.5 2 $350,000 Program, Richmond Senior Citizens Center, El Cerrito Senior Center, San Pablo Senior Center, Richmond Health Center and North Richmond Center for Health.

Close gaps in R-Transit programming by 4 1.5 $500,000 expanding holiday and weekend service.

Improve coordination between R-Transit program and East Bay Paratransit to avoid 4 3 $50,000 duplicating services.

Install new paratransit bays at Richmond Area BART stations to accommodate expanded 4 1 $750,000 service and improve vehicle access.

12 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1. Introduction

1.1 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Lifeline Transportation Program

In 2001, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) published two reports identifying gaps in the provision of transportation services in low-income Bay Area neighborhoods and initiated two programs to allocate funding for transportation improvement projects based on outreach to low-income communities. The Lifeline Transportation Program (LTP) allocates state and federal funds to provide grants for projects that meet mobility and accessibility needs in low-income communities. The Community-Based Transportation Planning (CBTP) Program is an outreach-based program to improve travel needs in specific low-income Communities of Concern (COC) throughout the Bay Area. Each CBTP is a collaborative effort between commu- nity members, transit operators, and congestion management agencies to identify local mobility challenges and community-oriented solutions.

The projects identified in CBTPs then become eligible for funding through the LTP. Per its 2018 guidelines, the goal of the LTP is to fund projects that result in improved mobility for low-income residents of the San Francisco Bay Area. Eligible projects must: ■■ Be developed through an inclusive planning process that engages a broad range of stakeholders, ■■ Improve a range of transportation choices by adding new or expanded services, and ■■ Address transportation gaps and/or barriers identified in CBTP Programs.

Both operating projects and capital projects are eligible for funding under the LTP.

LTP Cycle 5, which covers Fiscal Year 2016–2017 through Fiscal Year 2017–2018 was funded by two sources: State Transit Assistance (STA) and Federal Transit Administra- tion (FTA) Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula funds. Table 1-1 details allocations to Contra Costa County.

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 13 Contra Costa Transportation Authority Table 1-1 Cycle 5 Lifeline Transportation Program Funding

FY 2016–2017 ($ Millions) FY 2017–2018 ($ Millions) County and Share of Total Regional % Low-income Population ($ Millions) Estimate STA Actual FTA Actual STA Actual FTA Estimate

Contra Costa 14.7% $1.08 M $0.50 M $1.07 M $0.50 M $3.10 M

Rest of Bay Area 86.3% $6.22 M $2.87 M $7.19 M $2.93 M $19.36 M

Total $7.30 M $3.37 M $8.26 M $3.43 M $22.36 M

Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Lifeline Transportation Program Cycle 5 Guidelines.

1.2 CBTP Guidelines 1.2.1 Communities of Concern MTC has established guidelines to ensure that CBTP mobility recommendations are As noted in Section 1.1, CBTP study areas are composed of MTC-identified COCs. the result of community input. Per the 2018 MTC guidelines: These are census tract-based geographies that exhibit either:

■■ All CBTP recommendations must be based on a Community Engagement Plan 1. A low-income population (<200-percent federal poverty level) that exceeds 30 that includes at least three best practices for outreach to low-income residents. percent and a minority population that exceeds 70 percent; or 2. A low-income population that exceeds 30 percent and a population that ■ Community outreach must be coordinated with community stakeholders, such ■ surpasses MTC thresholds for at least three of the following: as Community Based Organizations (CBO) and non-profits working with the underserved. ■■ Level of English Proficiency ■■ Elderly ■■ Each CBTP must convene a Steering Committee composed of social service, ■■ Zero-Vehicle Households CBO, agency, and/or non-profit leadership to review outreach strategies, rec- ■■ Single-Parent Households ommendation selection criteria, and milestones. ■■ Disabled ■■ Rent-Burdened Households ■■ Each CBTP must identify funding sources for “high-priority” projects.

14 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1.4 Current Richmond Area CBTP

1.4.1 Study Area The boundaries of the current Richmond CBTP study area were determined primarily by the location of local COCs according to MTC’s 2017 COC database. The current CBTP study area is depicted in Figure 1-1. It is larger and more populous than the 2004 study area, with a residential population of roughly 123,000—about three times the population of the previous CBTP.

As shown in Figure 1-1, the current CBTP study area encompasses COCs in the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, and El Cerrito, as well as unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County, including North Richmond, Rollingwood, Montalvin Manor, Tara Hills, and Bayview. It is roughly bounded by San Pablo Bay to the north, Interstate 80 to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, the Chevron Richmond Refinery and San Pablo Bay to the west, and San Francisco Bay to the south. Major destinations include El Cerrito del Norte and Richmond Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stations, Downtown Richmond, Kaiser Permanente Richmond Medical Center, and Contra Costa Com- 1.3 2004 Richmond-Area CBTP munity College. The study area encompasses many distinct neighborhoods and 26 public schools. The original Richmond CBTP study area was identified in MTC’s 2001 Regional Trans- Key transit and commercial hubs are immediately adjacent the study area, including portation Plan (RTP). It was limited to Richmond and immediately adjacent areas. the recently opened Richmond Ferry Terminal, the El Cerrito Plaza BART station, MTC initiated the CBTP planning grant program to address transportation gaps in this and the adjacent San Pablo Avenue commercial corridor. These resources and sur- area and three others in Contra Costa County. The first, and most recent, Richmond rounding areas have been integrated into the study area to provide opportunities to CBTP was completed in 2004. The study area included North Richmond, the Iron include them into comprehensive CBTP recommendations. Triangle, Coronado, Santa Fe, Old Town San Pablo, and Parchester Village, an area with a residential population of under 40,000 people at that time. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, that area contained the greatest density of residents in poverty within Contra Costa County. The 2004 CBTP recommended transit shelter enhance- ments, additional bus and shuttle services, subsidized taxi and bus pass programs, driver safety workshops, transit information centers, and construction of bicycle and pedestrian paths. Of the 11 2004 Richmond CBTP recommendations, 5 have been fully implemented and 3 have been partially implemented.

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 15 Contra Costa Transportation Authority Richmond Ferry Terminal 4 4 Richmond Ferry Terminal Sycam ore Ave Sycam BAYVIEW BART Station or Transit Center ore Ave BAYVIEW BART Station or Transit Center Communities of Concern San Pablo Bay MONTALVIN HERCULES Communities of Concern MANOR San Pablo Bay TTARAARA City of Richmond MONTALVIN HERCULES HILLS PINOLE MANOR TTARAARA City of Richmond Richmond Parkway Other Jurisdictions HILLS Transit Center PINOLE d Pkwy Pin on ole m ValleyRd Contra Costa County ch Richmond Parkway Other Jurisdictions San Pablo Strait Ri Hilltop Dr Transit Center Study Area Boundary d Pkwy Pin on ole EL SOBRANTE m ValleyRd Contra Costa County ch Ri d San Pablo Strait Blv RICHMOND Areas Included for CBTP Recommendations NORTHNORTH rill Hilltop Dr um Rd RICHMOND R Dam RROLLINGWOODOLLINGWOOD ablo Study Area Boundary San P SAN PPABLOABLO EL SOBRANTE EL SOBRANTE

t S d d lv RICHMOND Areas Included for CBTP Recommendations r ll B 3 NORTHNORTH ri 2 m RICHMOND Ru am Rd RROLLINGWOODOLLINGWOOD blo D an Pa S EL SOBRANTE t SAN PPABLOABLO S CCONTRAONTRA COSTTAA o RICHMOND r t t s S a COUNNTYTY C EASTEAST d

r RICHMOND 3 RICHMOND HEIGHTSHEIGHTS 2 Barrett Ave

22nd St MacDonald Ave Richmond BART Station t Carlson Blvd S CCONTRAONTRA COSTTAA o RICHMOND r t s a COUNNTYTY Cutting Blvd El Cerrito del Norte C EASTEAST

S yaW aniraM yaW S BART Station RICHMOND Arlin HEIGHTSHEIGHTS gto RICHMOND n B lv Barrett Ave d 22nd St MacDonald Ave S a EL CERRICERRITOTO Richmond n P San Francisco Bay a BART Station b Carlson Blvd lo A v e KENSINGTONKENSINGTON El Cerrito del Norte El Cerrito Plaza Cutting Blvd

S yaW aniraM yaW S BART Station BART Station Richmond Arlin gto Inner Harbor n B lv d

ALAMEDAALAMEDA COUNTYCOUNTY S 00.25 0.5 1 a EL CERRICERRITOTO n rin Ave P Miles Ma a San Francisco Bay b Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), 2018; Contra Costa County 2018; Placeworks, 2018. lo A Figure 1 v e KENSINGTONKENSINGTON RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN CBTP Study Area CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY El Cerrito Plaza Richmond BART Station Inner Harbor ALAMEDAALAMEDA COUNTYCOUNTY 00.25 0.5 1 in Ave Miles Mar Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), 2018; Contra Costa County 2018; Placeworks, 2018. Figure 1-1 Community Based Transportation Plan Study Areat Figure 1 RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN CBTP Study Area CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 16 Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), 2018; Contra Costa County 2018; Placeworks, 2018. Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1.4.2 CBTP Advisors 1.4.2.1 Project Steering Committee Per MTC’s 2018 CBTP Guidelines, the Richmond CBTP project team convened a Steering Committee (SC) consisting of representatives from CBOs, non-profits, and agencies with an interest in the CBTP outcome. The role of the SC was to ensure transparency and inclusivity throughout the process, review milestones, and assist in program evaluation. The SC provided input on reaching specific groups inthe community, prioritized outreach opportunities, and evaluated the list of policy and project recommendations for the study area. The SC met twice during key points during the process. See Chapter 4 for a complete list of all project SC members.

1.4.2.2 Project Working Group The project team also convened a Project Working Group (PWG), which included the project team as well as partners from local jurisdictions, transit agencies, and MTC. The PWG met five times throughout the outreach process to provide practical guidance on local input, review deliverables, and provide input on project review criteria and CBTP draft recommendations. See Chapter 4 for a complete list of all PWG members.

1.5 COVID-19 and CBTP Development

The COVID-19 pandemic emerged following the community outreach process of this CBTP (see Chapter 4). As a result, the community feedback that influences recom- mendations in this CBTP does not reflect the changes in mobility context, habits, priorities, and challenges due to COVID-19 and formal shelter-in-place orders.

However, scoring of the recommendations, which includes financial feasibility and ease of implementation (see Chapter 5) occurred about four months into shelter-in- The Contra Costa Transportation Authority determined that it is in the interest of place regulations. COVID-19 and the resulting mobility habits have shifted the fund- communities in the CBTP study area to adopt this plan in the current context, rather ing and implementation potential of key project types. The projects and programs in than re-initiate the existing conditions, community outreach, and recommendations this plan reflect pre-COVID community feedback and post-COVID feasibility. processes.

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 17 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2. Study Area Profile

The current Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) study area is large and diverse, composed of a range of existing land uses. The most common land use is residential, with low- to medium-density housing of about 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre distributed throughout the CBTP area. Mixed-use and commercial areas are concentrated along the San Pablo Avenue and 23rd Street corridors, as well as Richmond’s downtown area. Industrial uses are interspersed throughout the west- ern and northern sections of the study area, with a concentration of light and heavy industrial uses around North Richmond.

A full CBTP Study Area Existing Condition Report is provided in Appendix A.

2.1 Demographic Analysis

The demographic profile presented in this report is based on census tract data from Household size in the study area is about 16 percent larger than households in Con- the 2010 U.S. Census. Data from the American Community Survey (ACS) five-year tra Costa County and is expected to increase. Households in the study area increased estimates (2006–2010 and 2013–2017) are compared to show trends since the last from 3.22 people in 2010 to 3.27 people in 2017 in the CBTP study area (a growth CBTP. In addition, future projections are provided on key demographic variables from of 1.6 percent), while households countywide have increased 3.2 percent from 2.77 the 2017 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which MTC published in July 2017. people to 2.86 people. By 2040, household size in the study area is expected to Also known as Plan Bay Area (PBA) 2040, this RTP contains forecasts for population, increase to 3.31 people and be 15 percent higher than the rest of the county, which housing, and employment for the horizon year of 2040. is projected to increase to 2.89 people per household.

2.1.1 Population and Housing 2.1.2 Race and Ethnicity The population of the study area in 2017 was approximately 123,414, an increase The study area contains higher percentages of Hispanic or Latino and Black or Afri- of 5 percent from the 2010 Census, when the population was 117,754. The study can-American residents versus Contra Costa County, while having approximately the area has seen approximately half the countywide population growth over the past same percentage of Asian residents and a much lower percentage of white residents seven years, the latter of which grew 9 percent from 1,049,030 residents in 2010 to versus the county (Table 2-1). 1,147,439 in 2017. This trend is forecasted to reverse in the future, with an expected growth rate of 30 percent from 2018 to 2040 to 159,907 residents within the CBTP study area. This growth rate will be twice of the county’s long-term growth rate, which is expected to grow by only 17 percent (less than 1 percent per year) from 2018 to 2040 to a population of 1,338,240.

18 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Table 2-1 Race and Ethnicity in the Study Area and Contra Costa Countyt

2017 ACS % of Population 2010 Census % of Population Race Category Study Area Contra Costa County Study Area Contra Costa County

White 12% 45% 14% 49% Black or African American 17% 8% 23% 9% American Indian or Alaska Native <1% <1% <1% <1% Asian 14% 16% 14% 14% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander <1% <1% <1% <1% Other <1% <1% <1% <1% Two or More Races 3% 5% 2% 3% Hispanic or Latino 53% 25% 47% 23% Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: 2013–2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, 2010 U.S. Census. Note: Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Figure 2-1 Age Distribution, Study Area (2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates) Source: 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates (2013-2017).

Figure 2-2 Age Distribution, Contra Costa County (2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates) Source: 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates (2013-2017).

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 19 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2.1.3 Age Distribution Percentage of Youth (UnderPercentage Age 18) of Seniors (Above 65 Per Census Tract Years) Per Census Tract

Age distribution in the study area is similar to Contra Costa County, although the se- 3% - 4% BAYVIEW BAYVIEW 16% - 21% nior population is smaller in the study area (see Figures 2-1 and 2-2). Approximately 5% - 7% 25 percent of the study area’s total population is under 18 years of age, or around 22% - 23% San Pablo San Pablo MONTALVIN MONTALVIN 8% - 10% MANOR MANOR 24% - 26% 31,000 people. This youth rate is similar to that of Contra Costa County (23 percent). Bay Bay TARA TARA HERCULES HERCULES HILLS PINOLEHILLS PINOLE 11% - 13% Figure 2-3 shows the percentage of persons under the age of 18 in the study area 27% - 29%

by census tract. It reveals a greater concentration of young people in the south and 14% - 16% 30% - 34% Richmond Parkway Richmond Parkway west census tracts. Since 2010, it appears that the youth population in both the Transit Center Transit Center County and the study area is decreasing as a percentage of total population.San Pablo San Pablo jk Richmond Ferry Terminaljk Richmond Ferry Terminal Strait Strait EL SOBRANTE EL SOBRANTE The senior population (65 years of age and older) in the study area constitutes -ap BART Station or Transit CenterBART Station or Transit Center proximately 10 percent of the total population, compared to 15 percent countywide. NORTH NORTH RICHMOND ROLLINGWOODRICHMOND ROLLINGWOOD Study Area Boundary Study Area Boundary Figure 2-4 shows the percentage of seniors in the study area by census tract. By SAN PABLO SAN PABLO EL SOBRANTE EL SOBRANTE Areas Included for CBTP Areas Included for CBTP 2040, it is expected that the percentage of senior citizens (age 65 years and older) Recommendations Recommendations will increase to 21 percent of the area’s population, while the youth population will decrease from 27 percent today to 20 percent of the area’s total population by 2040.

Percent Population with Income Below EAST EAST RICHMOND RICHMOND 200 Percent of Federal Poverty Level Richmond HEIGHTSRichmond HEIGHTS Percentage of Youth RICHMOND RICHMOND BAYVIEW (Census Tract Level) (UnderPercentage Age 18) of Youth (Under Age 18) 28% - 34% El Cerrito El Cerrito San Pablo MONTALVIN Per Census Tract MANOR 35% - 39% Per Census Tract del Norte del Norte Bay TARA HERCULES HILLS PINOLE 40% - 45% BAYVIEW 16% - 21% EL CERRITO EL CERRITO 46% - 50% Richmond Parkway Transit Center 51% - 56% San San San Pablo 22% - 23% Francisco Francisco Strait EL SOBRANTE 57% - 62% El Cerrito KENSINGTON El Cerrito KENSINGTON MONTALVIN Bay Bay San Pablo Plaza Plaza MANOR Richmond Richmond Bay NORTH HERCULES 24% - 26% RICHMOND TARA jk Richmond Ferry Terminal Inner Inner ROLLINGWOOD HILLS EL SOBRANTE PINOLE Harbor Harbor SAN PABLO BART Station or Transit Center 27% - 29% ALAMEDA ALAMEDA Study Area Boundary 00.25 0.5 1 00.25 0.5 1 COUNTY COUNTY Miles Miles Areas Included for CBTP Source: American30% Community - 34% Survey 5-Year Es�mates,Source: American 2010 and Community 2017; Contra Survey Costa 5-Year County Es�mates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2010 and 2017; 2019. Contra Costa County 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. Richmond Parkway Recommendations Figure 5 Figure 6 RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATIONRICHMONDFigure PLAN AREA COMMUNITY2-3 Population BASED TRANSPORTATION Under PLAN 18 Years of Age EAST TransitRICHMOND Center CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYCONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Population Under 18 YearsPopulation of Age Age 65 and Over Richmond HEIGHTS San Pablo RICHMOND jk Richmond Ferry Terminal 12 Strait EL SOBRANTE El Cerrito del Norte BART StationSource: orAmerican Transit Community Center Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010 and 2017; Contra Costa County 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019.

NORTH EL CERRITO RICHMOND ROLLINGWOOD 20 Study Area Boundary Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan San EL SOBRANTE Contra Costa Transportation Authority Francisco KENSINGTON Bay SAN PABLO El Cerrito Areas Included for CBTP Plaza Richmond Recommendations Inner Harbor ALAMEDA COUNTY 00.25 0.5 1

Miles Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Es�mates, 2010 and 2017; Contra Costa County 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. Figure 11 RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Population in Poverty (200% of Federal Poverty Level) EAST RICHMOND 19 Richmond HEIGHTS RICHMOND

El Cerrito del Norte

EL CERRITO

San

Francisco KENSINGTON Bay El Cerrito Plaza Richmond Inner Harbor ALAMEDA 00.25 0.5 1 COUNTY Miles Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Es�mates, 2010 and 2017; Contra Costa County 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. Figure 5 RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Population Under 18 Years of Age Percentage of Seniors (AbovePercentage 65 of Seniors (Above 65 2.1.4 Language and YearsEnglish) Per CensusProficiency Tract Years ) Per Census Tract

In the Richmond Area CBTP, approximately3% - 4% 6,500 households (173% - 4%percent of total BAYVIEW BAYVIEW households) are designated as “Limited English-Speaking Households.” These are 5% - 7% 5% - 7% households in which all members 14 years and over speak a non-English language, San Pablo San Pablo MONTALVIN MONTALVIN MANOR MANOR 8% - 10% 8% - 10% Bay Bay TARA TARA with varyingHERCULES degrees of difficultyHERCULES with English. This population segment is consid- HILLS PINOLEHILLS PINOLE erably larger in the study area relative11% to - 13%the countywide rate of11% 7 - 13%percent of total

households (Figure 2-5). 14% - 16% 14% - 16% Richmond Parkway Richmond Parkway Transit Center Transit Center San Pablo San Pablo 2.1.5 Income and Povertyjk Richmond Ferry Terminaljk Richmond Ferry Terminal Strait Strait EL SOBRANTE EL SOBRANTE According to 2017 ACS 5-year estimates,BART the Station median or household Transit CenterBART income Station in the or study Transit Center

NORTH NORTH area is $53,200, as compared $88,500 for the entire county (Figure 2-6). The rate of RICHMOND ROLLINGWOODRICHMOND ROLLINGWOOD Study Area Boundary Study Area Boundary EL SOBRANTE increase ofEL SOBRANTE household income in the study area from 2010 to 2017 was also slower SAN PABLO SAN PABLO than the county. Census tracts in the studyAreas area Included with thefor CBTP lowestAreas median Included household for CBTP Recommendations Recommendations income (under $50,000) are located in the Iron Triangle, Atchison Village, and Cor- tez/Stege neighborhoods in the City of Richmond, as well as the southern half of the City of San Pablo. EAST EAST RICHMOND RICHMOND Richmond HEIGHTSRichmond HEIGHTS RICHMOND RICHMOND Percentage of Seniors (Above 65 Years) Per Census Tract El Cerrito El Cerrito del Norte del Norte 3% - 4% BAYVIEW

5% - 7% EL CERRITO EL CERRITO San Pablo MONTALVIN MANOR 8% - 10% Bay TARA HERCULES San SanHILLS PINOLE 11% - 13% Francisco Francisco KENSINGTON KENSINGTON Bay Bay El Cerrito El Cerrito Plaza Plaza Richmond Richmond 14% - 16% Richmond Parkway Inner Inner Transit Center Harbor Harbor San Pablo ALAMEDA jkALAMEDARichmond Ferry Terminal Strait 00.25 0.5 1 00.25 0.5 1 EL SOBRANTE COUNTY COUNTY Miles Miles BART Station or Transit Center Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Es�mates,Source: American 2010 and Community 2017; Contra Survey Costa 5-Year County Es�mates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2010 and 2017; 2019. Contra Costa County 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. NORTH Figure 6 Figure 6 RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATIONRICHMONDFigure PLAN AREA COMMUNITY2-4 Population BASED TRANSPORTATION Age PLAN 65 and Over RICHMOND ROLLINGWOOD Study Area Boundary CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYCONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Population Age 65 andPopulation Over Age 65 and Over EL SOBRANTE SAN PABLO Areas Included for CBTP 12 12 Recommendations

Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010 and 2017; Contra Costa County 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019.

Richmond Area Community-BasedEAST Transportation Plan 21 RICHMOND RichmondContra Costa TransportationHEIGHTS Authority RICHMOND

El Cerrito del Norte

EL CERRITO

San

Francisco KENSINGTON Bay El Cerrito Plaza Richmond Inner Harbor ALAMEDA 00.25 0.5 1 COUNTY Miles Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Es�mates, 2010 and 2017; Contra Costa County 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. Figure 6 RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Population Age 65 and Over 12 Figure 2-5 Limited English Proficiency, Study Area and Contra Figure 2-6 Median Costa County (2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates) Household Income, Study Area and Contra Costa County (2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates)

Source: 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates (2013-2017).

As shown in Figure 2-7, the study area has a relatively significant number of house- holds with annual household income lower than the poverty threshold. Five census tracts in the study area exhibit over 50 percent of the population with income below 200 percent of federal poverty level. These are primarily located in neighborhoods in the southwest section of the study area: Iron Triangle, Atchison Village, Richmore

Source: 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates (2013-2017). Village/Metro Square, and Cortez/Stege in the City of Richmond, as well as unincor- porated North Richmond and the City Center neighborhood in San Pablo.

2.1.5.1 Poverty Status 2.1.5.2 Unbanked Households The U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and Unbanked households do not have an account at an insured institution or do have composition to determine the population living in poverty. If a family’s total income an account but obtained (nonbank) alternative financial services in the past 12 is less than the poverty threshold, then that family and every individual in it is con- months. According to Prosperity Now, 16 percent of households in the study area sidered to be living in poverty. To reflect high living costs and wages in the Bay Area, are unbanked.1 the poverty threshold used in the CBTP analysis is 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold. These 200-percent thresholds for the 2013–2017 ACS five-year estimates range from $31,754 for a family of two to $101,362 for the largest families (nine 1 Prosperity Now, formerly Corporation for Enterprise Development, 2014, Local Data Center Mapping Tool, http:// people or more). According to 2013–2017 ACS five-year estimates, approximately 46 assetsandopportunity.org/localdata/ percent of residents in the study area were living in poverty. This figure is significant when compared to 23 percent in Contra Costa County as a whole.

22 Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010 and 2017; Contra Costa County 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Percent Population with Income Below 200 Percent of Federal Poverty Level

BAYVIEW (Census Tract Level)

28% - 34% San Pablo MONTALVIN MANOR 35% - 39% Bay TARA HERCULES HILLS PINOLE 40% - 45%

46% - 50% Richmond Parkway Transit Center 51% - 56% San Pablo Percent Population with Income Below Strait EL SOBRANTE 57% - 62% Percent200 Percent Population of Federal with PovertyIncome LevelBelow

NORTH 200 Percent of Federal Poverty Level RICHMOND jk Richmond Ferry Terminal ROLLINGWOOD BAYVIEW EL SOBRANTE (Census Tract Level) SAN PABLO BART Station or Transit Center BAYVIEW (Census Tract Level) Study Area Boundary 28% - 34% San Pablo MONTALVIN 28% - 34% Areas Included for CBTP SanBay Pablo MONTALVINMANOR 35% - 39% Recommendations TARA HERCULES MANOR 35% - 39% EAST Bay TARAHILLS PINOLE HERCULES RICHMOND Richmond HEIGHTS HILLS PINOLE 40% - 45% RICHMOND 40% - 45% 46% - 50% El Cerrito Richmond Parkway 46% - 50% del Norte RichmondTransit Center Parkway Transit Center 51% - 56% San Pablo 51% - 56% EL CERRITO SanStrait Pablo EL SOBRANTE 57% - 62% Strait EL SOBRANTE 57% - 62% San

Francisco KENSINGTON Bay El Cerrito NORTH Plaza RICHMOND jk Richmond Ferry Terminal NORTH ROLLINGWOOD Richmond RICHMOND jk Richmond Ferry Terminal Inner ROLLINGWOOD EL SOBRANTE Harbor ALAMEDA SAN PABLO EL SOBRANTE BART Station or Transit Center COUNTY SAN PABLO BART Station or Transit Center 00.25 0.5 1

Miles Study Area Boundary Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Es�mates, 2010 and 2017; Contra Costa County 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. Study Area Boundary Figure 11 RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN Areas Included for CBTP CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Population in Poverty (200% of Federal Poverty Level) AreasRecommendations Included for CBTP 19 EAST Recommendations RICHMONDEAST Percent Population Richmond RICHMONDHEIGHTS RICHMOND Richmond HEIGHTS withPercent Income Population Below with Income Below 200 Percent of RICHMOND 200 Percent of Federal Poverty Level El Cerrito Federal Poverty Level BAYVIEW Eldel Cerrito Norte del Norte (Census Tract Level) 28% - 34% San Pablo MONTALVIN EL CERRITO MANOR EL CERRITO 35% - 39% Bay TARA HERCULES HILLS PINOLE San 40% - 45% FranciscoSan KENSINGTON Francisco El Cerrito Bay KENSINGTON 46% - 50% Bay Richmond Parkway ElPlaza Cerrito Transit Center Richmond Plaza RichmondInner 51% - 56% San Pablo HarborInner ALAMEDA Strait EL SOBRANTEHarbor 57% - 62% ALAMEDACOUNTY 00.25 0.5 1 COUNTY 00.25 0.5 1 Miles NORTH RICHMOND jk Richmond Ferry Terminal Source: AmericanMiles Community Survey 5-Year Es�mates, 2010 and 2017; ContraROLLINGWOOD Costa County 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. Source:Figure American 2-7 Community Population Survey 5-Year in Es�mates, Poverty 2010 (200%and 2017; Contra of Federal Costa County Poverty 2018; PlaceWorks, Level) 2019. EL SOBRANTE Figure 11 RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATIONSAN PLAN PABLO BARTFigure Station 11 or Transit Center RICHMONDCONTRA C AREAOSTA COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION BASED A TRANSPORTATIONUTHORITY PLAN Population in Poverty (200% of Federal Poverty Level) Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 23 CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Population in Poverty (200% of Federal Poverty Level) Contra Costa Transportation Authority Study Area Boundary 19 19 Areas Included for CBTP Recommendations EAST RICHMOND Richmond HEIGHTS RICHMOND

El Cerrito del Norte

EL CERRITO

San

Francisco KENSINGTON Bay El Cerrito Plaza Richmond Inner Harbor ALAMEDA COUNTY 00.25 0.5 1

Miles Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Es�mates, 2010 and 2017; Contra Costa County 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. Figure 11 RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Population in Poverty (200% of Federal Poverty Level) 19 Areas Included CBTP Recommendations W il lo Areas Included CBTPw Recommendations W A v Richmond Study Area Boundary il e lo w CA A -4 W v

e Richmond Study Area Boundary 2.1.6 Disability San Pablo Bay Percentage of Disabled Population CA S -4 W ycamo BAY re Ave The U.S. Census separates disability type into sensory (hearing- and sight-impaired) San Pablo Bay Percentage of People with Sensory Per Census Tract S VIEW ycamo e and physical disabilities. Both are considered significant barriers to mobility. As shown BAY re Av Disabilities (Hearing and Visual) VIEW 5% - 10% in Figure 2-8, populations with high rates of sensory disabilities are concentrated in MOUNTALVIN Per Census Tract MANOR TARA HERCULES El Cerrito, Rollingwood, and central Richmond census tracts. Populations with high MOUNTALVIN 1% - 2% 11% - 12% MANOR HILLS PINOLE TARA HERCULES rates of physical disabilities (Figure 2-9) are concentrated in Tara Hills, Rollingwood, HILLS PINOLE 3% - 4% 13% - 14% and between the MacArthur and Cutting Boulevard corridors. P i w y no nd Pk le o Val 15% - 16% San m P 5% - 6%le y Rd ch i y Ri n Rafael d Pkw ol on e Va H San San Pablo m lle y Rd illtop Dr Bay ich 17% - 20% 2.2 Transportation PatternsRafael Strait R EL SOBRANTE 7% - 8% San Pablo Hilltop Dr Bay Strait EL SOBRANTE lvd NORTH ill B 9% - 10% The following sections describe current transportation and commute patterns in the mr RICHMOND Ru m Rd d ROLLINGWOOD lo Da NORTH Blv n Pab Percent Population with Income Below rill Sa EL SOBRANTE CBTP study area and countywide. um Rd RICHMOND R ROLLINGWOOD am SAN PABLO 200 Percent of Federal Poverty Level ablo D San P %&'(80 SAN PABLO EL SOBRANTE BAYVIEW 2.2.1(Census Tract Vehicle Level) Availability %&'(80 28% - 34%

23rd St MONTALVIN The rate of household vehicle ownership is lower in the study area than Contra Costa t San Pablo S MANOR o 35% - 39% r Bay HERCULES 23rd St t TARA s EAST County as a whole. As shown in Figures 2-10 and 2-11, the percentage of households t a HILLS PINOLE S C o RICHMOND r 40% - 45% t s EAST without a private vehicle in the study area is 10 percent, as compared to 6 percent a HEIGHTS C RICHMOND Barrett Ave 46% - 50% Areas Included CBTP Recommendations Richmond Parkway countywide. Similarly,W 35 percent of households in the study area have one vehicle, RICHMONDHEIGHTS MacDonald Ave

Richmond 22nd St il Barrett Ave Transit Center lo El Cerrito del compared51% to - 56% 28 percentw countywide. RICHMOND MacDonald Ave BART Station

San Pablo A Richmond 22nd St Norte BART v %&'(580 Arling Carlson Blvd to

e Richmond Study Area Boundary Strait El Cerrito del n EL SOBRANTE 57% - 62% BART Station Station B CA Norte Cutting Blvd lv -4 W %&'(580 d San Pablo Bay Carlson Blvd BART Station NORTH Percentage of People with Sensory Cutting Blvd SRichmondycamo Ferry Terminal RICHMOND ROLLINGWOOD BAY jk re Ave EL CERRITO Disabilities (Hearing and Visual) San Pablo Ave EL SOBRANTE SAN PABLO VIEW BART Station or Transit Center EL CERRITOMarinaWay S Per Census Tract San Pablo Ave %&'(580 San MarinaWay S Study Area Boundary San kj MOUNTALVIN Francisco %&'(580 KENSINGTON 1% - 2% Bay Francisco kj MANOR Areas Included for CBTP Bay

TARA HERCULES KENSINGTON A

Recommendations rl i

Richmond n EAST HILLS PINOLE g A El Cerrito t

RICHMOND 3% - 4% o

rInnerl Harbor i n

P n Plaza BART Richmond HEIGHTS ara Richmond A d g i El Cerrito v e Dr t e s Inner Harbor o Station RICHMOND P Plaza BART n A ALAMEDA arad i 0 1,550 3,100 6,200 v P s5%e Dr - 6% e in Station Ave Pkw y o arin COUNTY El Cerritond le V Feet ALAMEDA M o all Rd 0 1,375 2,750 5,500 San hdelm Norte e y Source: United States Census Bureau, S1810: Disability Characteristics, 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates. ic rin Ave COUNTY Rafael R Feet7% - 8% Ma San Pablo Hilltop Dr Figure 2-8 Percentage of People with Sensory Disabilities Bay Source: United States Census Bureau, S1810: Disability Characteristics,Richmond 2013-2017 Study ACS 5-Year Area Estimates. Strait EL CERRITO EL SOBRANTE Richmond9% Study - 10% Area PERCENTAGE OF DISABLED POPULATION PER CENSUS TRACT

San lvd PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WITH SENSORYPLACEWORKS DISABILITIES NORTH ll B Francisco ri um KENSINGTON Rd Bay RICHMOND R El ROLLINGWOODCerrito Dam PLACEWORKS Plaza Pablo San EL SOBRANTE Source: United States Census Bureau, S1810: Disability Characteristics, 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates. Richmond SAN PABLO Inner %&'(80 Harbor ALAMEDA COUNTY 24 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 00.25 0.5 1 Contra Costa Transportation Authority Miles

Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Es�mates, 2010 and 2017; Contra Costa County 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. 23rd St t S Figure 11 RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN o r t CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY s Population in Poverty (200% of FederalEAST Poverty Level) a C RICHMOND 19 HEIGHTS Barrett Ave RICHMOND MacDonald Ave

Richmond 22nd St BART Station El Cerrito del %&'(580 Norte

Carlson Blvd BART Station Cutting Blvd

EL CERRITO San Pablo Ave

San MarinaWay S Francisco %&'(580 Bay kj KENSINGTON

A

rl i

Richmond n g El Cerrito t Inner Harbor o P Plaza BART n arad A i v e Dr e s Station ALAMEDA 0 1,375 2,750 5,500 rin Ave Feet Ma COUNTY Source: United States Census Bureau, S1810: Disability Characteristics, 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates. Richmond Study Area PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WITH SENSORY DISABILITIES

PLACEWORKS Areas Included CBTP Recommendations W il lo Areas Included CBTPw Recommendations W A v Richmond Study Area Boundary il e lo w CA A -4 W v Richmond Study Area Boundary San Pablo Bay e Percentage of Disabled Population CA S -4 W ycamo FigureBAY 2-10 re Ave San Pablo Bay Percentage of Disabled Population Per Census Tract S ycamo VIEW BAY re AvVehiclee Availability, Study Area Per Census Tract VIEW 5% - 10% MOUNTALVIN(2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates) MANOR 5% - 10% MOUNTALVIN Source:TARA 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates (2013-2017). HERCULES 11% - 12% MANOR HILLS PINOLE TARA HERCULES 11% - 12% HILLS PINOLE 13% - 14%

P 13%i - 14% Pkw y no nd le V o all Rd 15% - 16% San hm P e y ic i Pkw y R no Rafael nd le V o all Rd Hilltop Dr 15% - 16% San San Pablo hm e y Bay ic 17% - 20% Rafael Strait R EL SOBRANTE San Pablo Hilltop Dr Bay 17% - 20% Strait EL SOBRANTE lvd NORTH ill B mr RICHMOND Ru m Rd d ROLLINGWOOD lo Da NORTH Blv n Pab rill Sa EL SOBRANTE um Rd RICHMOND R ROLLINGWOOD am SAN PABLO ablo D San P %&'(80 SAN PABLO EL SOBRANTE %&'(80

23rd St t S Figure 2-11 o r 23rd St t s EAST t a Vehicle Availability, Contra Costa S C o RICHMOND r t s EAST a CountyHEIGHTS C RICHMOND Barrett Ave RICHMONDHEIGHTS MacDonald Ave (2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates) Barrett Ave Richmond 22nd St BART Station El Cerrito del RICHMOND MacDonald Ave Source: 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates (2013-2017). Richmond 22nd St %&'(580 Norte BART Arling Carlson Blvd to Percent Population with Income Below El Cerrito del n BART Station StationAreas IncludedB CBTP Recommendations W lv 200 Percent of Federal Poverty Level %&'(580 Norte BART Arling Cutting Blvd d Carlson Blvd il to lo n Station w B lv Cutting Blvd A d BAYVIEW v Richmond Study Area Boundary (Census Tract Level) e EL CERRITO C San Pablo Ave A- 28% - 34% 4 W MarinaWay S EL CERRITOMONTALVIN San Pablo Bay San Pablo San Pablo Ave MANOR Percentage%&'(580 of Disabled Population MarinaWay S S 35% - 39% Bay y am TARA HERCULES c ore Ave kj BAYSan HILLS PINOLE %&'(580 Per Census Tract KENSINGTON FranciscoVIEW kj 40% - 45% San Bay

KENSINGTON A

Francisco rl 46% - 50% i

RichmondRichmond Parkway 5% - 10% n Bay El Cerrito g

MOUNTALVIN TransitA Center t o

rInnerl Harbor i 51% - 56%

P n Plaza BART n ara Richmond A d MANORSan Pablo g i El Cerrito v e Dr HERCULESt e s TARA o Strait Inner Harbor EL SOBRANTE 11% - 12%Station P Plaza BART n 57% - 62% A ALAMEDA arad HILLS PINOLE v i 0 1,550 3,100 6,200 se Dr Station e rin Ave Feet ALAMEDA Ma COUNTY 0 1,550 3,100 6,200 NORTH RICHMOND 13% - 14% jk Richmond Ferry Terminal Source: United States Census Bureau, S1810: Disability Characteristics, 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates.ROLLINGWOODrin Ave Feet Ma COUNTY P EL SOBRANTE Figure 2-9 Percentage of People with Physicalin SAN Disabilities PABLO BART Station or Transit Center Source: United States Census Bureau, S1810: Disability Characteristics,Pkw y 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates. o nd Richmond Study Area le V o all Rd 15% - 16% San hm e y ic Study Area Boundary Rafael Richmond Study Area R PERCENTAGE OF DISABLED POPULATION PER CENSUS TRACT San Pablo Hilltop Dr Bay PERCENTAGE OF DISABLED POPULATIONPLACEWORKS PER CENSUS TRACT EL SOBRANTE 17% - 20% Areas Included for CBTP Strait Recommendations PLACEWORKS EAST Source: United States Census Bureau, S1810: Disability Characteristics, 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates. RICHMOND lvd NORTH ill B Richmond HEIGHTS mr RICHMOND Ru m Rd ROLLINGWOOD lo Da RICHMOND n Pab Richmond AreaS aCommunity-Based TransportationEL SOBRANTE Plan 25 SAN PABLO El Cerrito Contra Costa%&'(80 Transportation Authority del Norte

EL CERRITO

23rd St t S o San r t s FranciscoEAST KENSINGTON a Bay El Cerrito C RICHMOND Plaza HEIGHTS Richmond Barrett Ave Inner RICHMOND MacDonald Ave Harbor ALAMEDA

Richmond 22nd St El Cerrito del COUNTY BART Station 00.25 0.5 1 %&'(580 Miles Norte BART Arling Carlson Blvd to Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Es�mates, 2010n and 2017; Contra Costa County 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. Station B lv Cutting Blvd d Figure 11 RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Population in Poverty (200% of Federal Poverty Level) EL CERRITO 19 San Pablo Ave

MarinaWay S %&'(580 San kj Francisco KENSINGTON Bay

A

rl i

Richmond n g El Cerrito t Inner Harbor o P Plaza BART n arad A i v e Dr e s Station ALAMEDA 0 1,550 3,100 6,200 rin Ave Feet Ma COUNTY Source: United States Census Bureau, S1810: Disability Characteristics, 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates.

Richmond Study Area PERCENTAGE OF DISABLED POPULATION PER CENSUS TRACT

PLACEWORKS Figure 2-12 shows households with vehicle available by census tract for the study Households with No VehicleHouseholds Available with No Vehicle Available area. Areas with more households without vehicles generally correspond to areas 2% - 6% 2% - 6%

BAYVIEW BAYVIEW with lower median household incomes. One exception is the area around the El 7% - 9% 7% - 9% Cerrito del Norte BART station, which has a higher median income than most other 10% - 12% 10% - 12% census tracts in the study area. Here, proximity to a transit hub likely contributes to San Pablo San Pablo MONTALVIN MONTALVIN Bay Bay MANOR MANOR TARA TARA HERCULES HERCULES13% - 15% 13% - 15% reduced vehicle ownership. HILLS PINOLEHILLS PINOLE 16% - 19% 16% - 19% The North Richmond area shows high vehicle availability per household. This is likely Richmond Parkway Richmond Parkway because the area is not well served by public transportation, and household sizes are Transit Center Transit Center jk Richmond Ferry Terminaljk Richmond Ferry Terminal San Pablo San Pablo larger in comparison to both the study area and Contra Costa County. BART Station or Transit CenterBART Station or Transit Center Strait Strait EL SOBRANTE EL SOBRANTE Study Area Boundary Study Area Boundary 2.2.2 Journey to Work NORTH NORTH RICHMOND ROLLINGWOODRICHMOND ROLLINGWOOD Areas Included for CBTP Areas Included for CBTP Out of about 55,000 workers aged 16 years and over in the study area, approxi- EL SOBRANTE EL SOBRANTE SAN PABLO SAN PABLO Recommendations Recommendations mately 78 percent travel to work by car, truck, or van. Two-thirds of these workers drive alone (Table 2-2). Using a vehicle as the primary means of transportation to work is slightly less prevalent in the study area than countywide, the latter of which reported 80 percent of workers aged 16 and over primarily use a personal vehicle. EAST EAST RICHMOND RICHMOND Richmond HEIGHTSRichmond HEIGHTS RICHMOND RICHMOND

Households with No Vehicle Available El Cerrito El Cerrito del Norte del Norte 2% - 6%

BAYVIEW 7% - 9% EL CERRITO EL CERRITO

10% - 12% San Pablo MONTALVIN San San Francisco Francisco Bay MANOR HERCULES KENSINGTON KENSINGTON TARA 13% - 15% Bay Bay El Cerrito El Cerrito HILLS PINOLE Plaza Plaza Richmond Richmond 16% - 19% Inner Inner Harbor Harbor Richmond Parkway ALAMEDA ALAMEDA Transit Center jk Richmond Ferry Terminal 00.25 0.5 1 00.25 0.5 1 COUNTY COUNTY San Pablo BART Station or TransitMiles Center Miles Strait EL SOBRANTE Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Es�mates,Source: American 2010 and Community 2017; Contra Survey Costa 5-Year County Es�mates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2010 and 2017; 2019. Contra Costa County 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. Figure 14 Figure 14 Study Area BoundaryRICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATIONRICHMONDFigure PLAN AREA COMMUNITY2-12 Household BASED TRANSPORTATION Vehicle PLAN Availability NORTH CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYCONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Household Vehicle AvailabilityHousehold Vehicle Availability RICHMOND ROLLINGWOOD Areas Included for CBTP 23 23 SAN PABLO EL SOBRANTE Recommendations

Source: United States Census Bureau, S1810: Disability Characteristics, 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates.

26 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan EAST Contra Costa Transportation Authority RICHMOND Richmond HEIGHTS RICHMOND

El Cerrito del Norte

EL CERRITO

San

Francisco KENSINGTON Bay El Cerrito Plaza Richmond Inner Harbor ALAMEDA 00.25 0.5 1 COUNTY Miles Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Es�mates, 2010 and 2017; Contra Costa County 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. Figure 14 RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Household Vehicle Availability

23 Table 2-2 Mode of Travel to Work in the Study area and Contra Costa County

2017 ACS (% of Total) 2010 Census (% of Total) Means of Transportation to Work Study Area Contra Costa County Study Area Contra Costa County

Car, Truck or Van 78% 80% 87% 82%

»» Drove Alone 58% 68% 67% 70% »» Carpooled 21% 12% 20% 12%

Public Transportation 14% 10% 7% 9%

Bicycle <1% <1% <1% <1%

Walked 2% 2% 2% 2%

Other 1% 1% 2% 1%

Worked at Home 3% 6% 3% 6%

Total Workers 16 and Over 100% 100% 100% 100%

Note: Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Source: 2013–2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, 2010 U.S. Census.

The use of public transportation in the study area is greater than countywide use. There has been a 100-percent increase in the use of public transportation in the study area, from 7 percent in 2010 to 14 percent in 2017. Much of this increase can be attributed to a rise in BART usage, which is indicated by increases to the “subway” category in the journey to work data for 2010. There appears to be no significant increase in transit use within Contra Costa County as a whole.

The rates of walking and bicycling as primary means of transportation to work are relatively low in the CBTP study area and countywide, at 2 percent and less than 1 percent, respectively.

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 27 Contra Costa Transportation Authority Areas Included CBTP Recommendations W il lo Areas Included CBTPw Recommendations W A v Richmond Study Area Boundary il e lo w CA A -4 W v

e Richmond Study Area Boundary 2.2.3 Long Distance Commute San Pablo Bay Percentage of Disabled Population CA S -4 W ycamo BAY re Ave As evident in Figure 2-13, residents of northwestern Richmond generally experience San Pablo Bay Mean Travel Time to Work Per Census Tract S ycamo VIEW BAY re Ave the longest commutes—over 34 minutes—in the study area. This is probably be- Per Census Tract VIEW 5% - 10% cause neighborhoods such as Montalvin Manor and Bayview are furthest from the MOUNTALVIN MANOR 26 mins. - 30 mins. HERCULES three BART stations located in the study area. MOUNTALVIN TARA 11% - 12% MANOR HILLS PINOLE TARA HERCULES 31 mins. - 33 mins. HILLS PINOLE 13% - 14%

P 34i mins. - 36 mins. w y no 2.3 Transportation Network nd Pk le o Val 15% - 16% San m P le y Rd ch i y Ri n Rafael d Pkw ol on e Va H 37 mins.- 39 mins. San San Pablo m lle y Rd illtop Dr The following sections describe existing transit service and infrastructure in the study Bay ich 17% - 20% Percent Population with Income Below Rafael Strait R EL SOBRANTE San Pablo Hilltop Dr area200 and Percent summarize of Federal gaps Poverty in the Level transportationBay network in relevant countywide and Strait EL SOBRANTE lvd NORTH ill B local plans. mr BAYVIEW RICHMOND Ru m Rd (Census Tract Level) d ROLLINGWOOD lo Da NORTH Blv n Pab rill Sa EL SOBRANTE um Rd 28% - 34% RICHMOND R ROLLINGWOOD Dam SAN PABLO Pablo San Pablo MONTALVIN 2.3.1 Transit Network San EL SOBRANTE %&'(80 Bay MANOR HERCULES 35% - 39% SAN PABLO TARA 80 HILLS PINOLE %&'( Existing 40%transit - 45% facilities in the study area are shown on Figure 2-14.

Areas Included CBTP Recommendations 23rd St t 46% - 50%W S o r Richmond Parkway i 23rd St t ll s EAST Transit Center o t a w S C 51% - 56% o RICHMOND r A t San Pablo s EAST v a HEIGHTS

e Richmond Study Area Boundary Strait EL SOBRANTE 57% - 62% C RICHMOND Barrett Ave CA- RICHMONDHEIGHTS MacDonald Ave 4 W Richmond 22nd St Barrett Ave El Cerrito del San Pablo Bay NORTH RICHMOND MacDonald Ave BART Station

RICHMOND jk Richmond Ferry Terminal Mean Travel Time to Work Richmond 22nd St ROLLINGWOOD %&'(580 Norte BART Arling S El Cerrito del Carlson Blvd to EL SOBRANTE ycamo e BART Station n re Av Station B SAN PABLO BAY BART Station or Transit Center Norte Cutting Blvd lv Per Census Tract %&'(580 d VIEW Carlson Blvd BART Station Study Area Boundary Cutting Blvd EL CERRITO San Pablo Ave Areas Included for CBTP 26 mins. - 30 mins. EL CERRITOMarinaWay S MOUNTALVIN Recommendations San Pablo Ave %&'(580 San MarinaWay S EAST San kj MANORRICHMOND Francisco 580 KENSINGTON HEIGHTS TARA HERCULES %&'( Richmond 31Bay mins. - 33 mins. Francisco kj Bay

RICHMOND HILLS PINOLE KENSINGTON A

rl i

Richmond n g

A El Cerrito t

o

El Cerrito rInnerl Harbor i n

P n Plaza BART ara Richmond A del Norte 34 mins. - 36 mins. d g i El Cerrito v e Dr t e s Inner Harbor o Station P Plaza BART n A ALAMEDA arad P i 0 1,550 3,100 6,200 v in se Dr Station e y o rin Ave d Pkw EL CERRITO l Feet ALAMEDA Ma COUNTY on e Va 0 1,500 3,000 376,000 mins.- 39 mins. m ll Rd San h e y Source: United States Census Bureau, S1810: Disability Characteristics, 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates. rin Ave ic Feet Ma COUNTY San R Rafael Source: United States Census Bureau, S0801: Commuting CharacteristicsFigure by Sex, 2013-2017 2-13 ACSLong 5-Year DistanceEstimates. Commute Francisco H D Richmond Study Area San Pablo illtop rEl Cerrito KENSINGTON Bay Bay Plaza EL SOBRANTE Richmond Study Area PERCENTAGE OF DISABLED POPULATION PER CENSUS TRACT Strait Richmond Inner LONG DISTANCE COMMUTE PLACEWORKS Harbor d ALAMEDA NORTH Blv PLACEWORKS rill COUNTY Source: United States Census Bureau, S0801: Commuting Characteristics by Sex, 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates. 00.25 0.5 1 um Rd RICHMOND R ROLLINGWOOD Dam Miles Pablo Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Es�mates, 2010 and 2017; Contra Costa County 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. San EL SOBRANTEFigure 11 RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN SAN PABLO 28 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Population in Poverty (200% of Federal Poverty Level) %&'(80 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 19

23rd St t S o r t s EAST a C RICHMOND HEIGHTS Barrett Ave RICHMOND MacDonald Ave

Richmond 22nd St BART Station El Cerrito del %&'(580 Norte

Carlson Blvd BART Station Cutting Blvd

EL CERRITO San Pablo Ave

San MarinaWay S Francisco %&'(580 Bay kj KENSINGTON

A

rl i

Richmond n g El Cerrito t Inner Harbor o P Plaza BART n arad A i v e Dr e s Station ALAMEDA 0 1,500 3,000 6,000 rin Ave Feet Ma COUNTY Source: United States Census Bureau, S0801: Commuting Characteristics by Sex, 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates.

Richmond Study Area LONG DISTANCE COMMUTE

PLACEWORKS 2.3.1.1 Rail " College Households with No Vehicle Available ·|}þ4 Rail services in the study area"  are providedGrocery byStore the Rich- 2% - 6% BAYVIEW BAYVIEW mond-Millbrae and Richmond-Berryessa BART lines. Three "k High School 7% - 9% BART stations (Richmond, El Cerrito del Norte, and El Cerrito no 10% - 12% San Pablo MONTALVIN TARA HILLS MONTALVIN Plaza) are located in the central and southeasternHospital portion of San Pablo Bay ATLAS MANOR MANOR BayGIANT N HERCULES HERCULES TARA W TARA A " the study area. 13% - 15% HILLS S H PINOLEHILLS PINOLE jk Richmond Ferry Terminal 16% - 19% " Amtrak service (Capitol Corridor and CaliforniaBART Stations Zephyr lines) CH VI P HILLTOP is available at the Richmond Transportation Center, adjacent MAR KO RAM Richmond Parkway Richmond Parkway Study Area Boundary Transit Center Transit Center to the Richmond BART station. These trains providejk direct Richmond Ferry Terminal San Pablo San Pablo D BROADWAY ON connections to Berkeley, Oakland, San AreasJose, Sacramento, Included for and CBTP Strait Strait ICHM BART Station or Transit Center R RIVERS EL SOBRANTE EL SOBRANTE points beyond. Recommendations PARR k Study Area Boundary EL PO" " NORTH C R NORTH A Golden Gate Transit OOK OU T C BR SI NTY AL RICHMOND DE " RICHMOND N H ROLLINGWOOD A ROLLINGWOOD

W R Areas Included for CBTP L Y 20

L R "

I A College R EL SOBRANTE EL SOBRANTE

B AC Transit

3RD " M SAN PABLO SAN PABLO Recommendations MARKET"U ·|}þ4 R %&'(80 " Grocery Store

1ST WestCat AMADOR BAYVIEW23RD no CHESLEY "k "k VALE High School SANFORD"k " Park MARICOPA no MONTALVIN TARA HILLS HUMBOLDT Hospital

29TH

13TH MCBRYDE San Pablo Bay ATLAS MANOR GIANT Y ESMONDN HERCULES City of Richmond E TARA W A " N HILLSGARVINS H Richmond Ferry Terminal H PINOLE jk AR EAST EAST E T K SOLANOWILSON 34 RICHMOND RICHMOND 30TH Other Jurisdictions BARRETT "ROOSEVELT RichmondHEIGHTS HEIGHTS BART Stations CH no 14TH VI "P HILLTOP RICHMONDRichmond O RAM MACD 2 Richmond Parkway Contra Costa County RICHMOND MAR K " ONALD 2 Study Area Boundary N Transit Center 37TH D 2ND OHIO San Pablo CENTER GARRARD BROADWAY D MARINA %&'(580MON "k El Cerrito El Cerrito Areas Included for CBTP Strait ICH WALL R RIVERS EL SOBRANTE del Norte del Norte Recommendations CUTTING k 39TH

HARBOUR 31ST " PARR k EL PO" " CARLSON NORTH C R A POTRERO " Golden Gate Transit OOK OU T C BR SI NTY AL RICHMOND DE " N

H ROLLINGWOOD A W R

L Y 20 L R

I EASTSHORE A EL CERRITO EL CERRITO R EL SOBRANTE

B AC Transit

3RD " M SAN PABLO MARKET"U BAYVIEW MANILA R %&'(80

1ST WestCat AMADOR 55TH CHESLEY 23RD no %&'(580 San San "k VALEjk FranciscoSANFORD"k " Park Francisco MARICOPA " El Cerrito"k KENSINGTON El Cerrito KENSINGTON Bay Bay HUMBOLDT

29TH 13TH MCBRYDE Plaza Plaza Y ESMOND City of Richmond E N GARVIN Richmond Richmond AR H EAST JACUZZI E T K SOLANOWILSON CENTRAL Inner 34 RICHMONDInner 30TH " " Other Jurisdictions BARRETT ROOSEVELT HEIGHTSHarbor Harbor no 14TH Richmond " MACD

2 Contra Costa County RICHMOND " ONALD ALAMEDA ALAMEDA 2 N 37TH D 00.25 0.5 1 00.25 0.52ND 1 OHIO GARRARD CENTER COUNTY COUNTY %&'(580 "k MARINA El Cerrito WALL Miles Miles del Norte Source: Contra Costa County, 2018; FehrSource: & Peers, American 2019; CommunityPlaceWorks, Survey 2019. 5-YearCUTTING Es�mates, 2010k and 2017; Contra Costa County 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. 39TH

HARBOUR 31ST " Source: Contra Costa FigureCounty, 2018; 15 Fehr & Peers, 2019;Figure PlaceWorks, 14 2019. Figure 2-14 Existing Transit FacilitiesCARLSON POTRERO " RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY EASTSHORE EL CERRITO Existing TransitHousehold Facilities Vehicle Availability CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Richmond Area Community-Based TransportationBAYVIEW MANILA Plan 29

%&'(580 55TH 27 23 San Contra Costa Transportationjk Authority Francisco " El Cerrito"k KENSINGTON Bay Plaza Richmond JACUZZI Inner CENTRAL " " Harbor ALAMEDA 00.25 0.5 1 COUNTY Miles Source: Contra Costa County, 2018; Fehr & Peers, 2019; PlaceWorks, 2019. Figure 15 RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN Existing Transit Facilities CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 27 2.3.1.2 Bus Table 2-3 Transit Routes Serving the Study area Local and intercity bus transit is provided primarily by Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit), West Contra Costa Transportation Transit Route Route Description Authority (WestCat), and Golden Gate Transit. AC Transit serves the entire study area through 10 bus routes, 3 transbay routes, and one AC Transit 24-hour route (Table 2-3). 7 El Cerrito del Norte BART to UC Berkeley WestCat operates in western Contra Costa County and provides the 70 Richmond BART to Richmond Parkway Transit Center study area with six local and two regional bus routes from Hercules, via 71 Richmond Parkway Transit Center to El Cerrito Plaza BART the Richmond Parkway Transit Center to the El Cerrito del Norte BART 72 Contra Costa College to 12th Street Oakland BART station. 72M Point Richmond to 12th Street Oakland BART Golden Transit operates one bus line (with occasional express service 72R Contra Costa College to Oakland Jack London Square Ferry Terminal along the same route) in the study area, which runs from the El Cerrito 74 Contra Costa College to Richmond Ferry Terminal del Norte BART station through Point Richmond to the San Rafael Tran- sit Center. 76 Hilltop Mall to El Cerrito del Norte BART 80 El Cerrito Plaza BART to Ashby Avenue In addition, Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) operates a SolanoExpress 376 Cutting Boulevard/San Pablo Avenue to Pinole route connecting the El Cerrito del Norte BART station, Fairfield Trans- portation Center, and Suisun City Train Depot (Amtrak). Solano County H Barrett & San Pablo Avenue to SF Transbay Terminal Transit (SolTrans) operates a SolanoExpress route that runs from the L Princeton Plaza Shopping Center via San Pablo Avenue to SF Transbay Terminal Vallejo Transit Center to the El Cerrito del Norte BART station. LA Richmond Parkway Transit Center to SF Transbay Terminal 2.3.1.3 Ferry 800 Richmond BART to San Francisco (All-Night Service) The San Francisco Bay Ferry service departs the Richmond terminal six WestCAT times a day Monday through Friday. AC Transit operates bus service 16 Pinole to Richmond Parkway Transit Center to the Richmond Ferry Terminal via Route 74, which provides direct 17 Bayview to Richmond Parkway Transit Center connections from the ferry terminal to the Richmond Transportation 18 Tara Hills to Hilltop Mall Center (BART and Amtrak Station) and Contra Costa College. Service from the San Francisco Ferry Terminal to the Richmond Ferry Terminal 19 Hercules Transit Center to Hilltop Mall also occurs six times a day on weekdays. JR/JL Hercules (via Richmond Parkway Transit Center) to El Cerrito del Norte BART

JX/JPX Hercules (via Richmond Parkway Transit Center) to El Cerrito del Norte BART (Limited Stops)

Golden Gate 40/40X El Cerrito del Norte BART

Source: 2013–2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates.

30 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2.3.1.4 Paratransit Paratransit services include door-to-door individual trips, group trips, or shuttle ser- vices. These services are operated by the City of Richmond, R-Transit, that provides low-cost transportation services to people 55 or older or persons with a disability 18 years or older. Patrons must be Richmond residents or live in an adjacent community.

AC Transit also operates East Bay Paratransit, which transports eligible riders in accessible vans equipped with a wheelchair lift. Service is provided during the hours of AC Transit’s bus and BART’s rail operations. Service is limited to areas within ¾ mile of an operating bus route or BART station, and extends generally from Pinole to Fremont.

2.3.2 Bicycle Network The existing and proposed bicycle network for the study area is shown on Figure 2-15. The existing network includes a mix of bicycle facility types and provides some connectivity with transit. The proposed bicycle projects in this figure are drawn from a review of the 2018 Contra Costa County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 31 Contra Costa Transportation Authority " College Households with No Vehicle Available ·|}þ4 " Grocery Store 2% - 6% BAYVIEW BAYVIEW "k High School 7% - 9% no 10% - 12% San Pablo MONTALVIN TARA HILLS MONTALVIN Hospital San Pablo Bay ATLAS MANOR MANOR BayGIANT N HERCULES HERCULES TARA W TARA A " 13% - 15% HILLS S H PINOLEHILLS PINOLE jk Richmond Ferry Terminal 16% - 19% " BART Stations CH VI P HILLTOP MAR KO RAM Richmond Parkway Richmond Parkway Transit Center Transit Center Study Area Boundaryjk Richmond Ferry Terminal San Pablo San Pablo D BROADWAY ON Areas Included for CBTP Strait Strait ICHM BART Station or Transit Center R RIVERS EL SOBRANTE EL SOBRANTE Recommendations PARR k Class I Bikeways Study Area Boundary EL PO" " NORTH C R NORTH A OOK OU T C BR SI NTY AL RICHMOND DE " RICHMOND N H ROLLINGWOOD A ROLLINGWOOD

W R Areas Included for CBTP

L Y 20 L R I Class II Bikeways

A " R EL SOBRANTE EL SOBRANTE

B College

3RD " M SAN PABLO SAN PABLO Recommendations MARKET"U R 80 ·|}þ4 %&'( " Grocery Store Class III Bikeways 1ST AMADOR CHESLEY 23RD no BAYVIEW "k VALE "k Proposed Bikeways SANFORD"k " High School MARICOPA

HUMBOLDT no

29TH Hospital MONTALVIN13TH MCBRYDE TARA HILLS Park San Pablo Bay ATLAS YMANOR ESMOND GIANT E N HERCULES TARAGARVIN W N A " AR S H H EAST EAST Richmond Ferry Terminal HILLS T jk E PINOLE K SOLANOWILSON City of Richmond 34 RICHMOND RICHMOND 30TH RICHMOND BARRETT ROOSEVELT RichmondHEIGHTS HEIGHTS BART Stations no 14TH " Other Jurisdictions CH" RICHMONDRichmond I HILLTOP MACD V P 2 ONA MAR KO RAM " RichmondLD Parkway 2 N 37TH Study Area Boundary DTransit Center 2ND OHIO Contra Costa County GARRARD CENTER

San Pablo MARINA %&'(580 D BROADWAY "k El Cerrito El Cerrito ON WALL Areas Included for CBTP Strait ICHM R RIVERS EL SOBRANTE del Norte del Norte CUTTING k Recommendations 39TH

HARBOUR 31ST " PARR k CARLSON " Class I Bikeways EL PO" " POTRERO  NORTH C R A OOK OU T C BR SI NTY AL RICHMOND DE " N

H ROLLINGWOOD A W R

L Y 20 EASTSHORE EL CERRITO EL CERRITO L R I Class II Bikeways

R A EL SOBRANTE B

3RD " M SAN PABLO BAYVIEW MANILA MARKET"U R %&'(80 Class III Bikeways 580 55TH 1ST %&'( AMADOR 23RD no San CHESLEYSan jk Francisco "k VALE Proposed Bikeways Francisco SANFORD"k " KENSINGTON KENSINGTON MARICOPA " El Cerrito El Cerrito Bay Bay "k HUMBOLDT

29TH Plaza Plaza 13TH MCBRYDE Park Y ESMOND Richmond E Richmond N GARVIN JACUZZI AR H EAST CENTRAL E T Inner Inner K SOLANOWILSON " " City of Richmond 34 RICHMOND 30TH Harbor Harbor RICHMOND BARRETT ROOSEVELT HEIGHTS no 14TH Richmond Other Jurisdictions " MACD ALAMEDA ALAMEDA " 2 ONALD 2 N 37TH 00.25 0.5 1 00.25 0.5 1 D 2ND OHIO COUNTY COUNTYContra Costa County GARRARD CENTER Miles %&'(580 Miles "k MARINA El Cerrito WALL Source: Contra Costa County, 2018; FehrSource: & Peers, American 2019; CommunityPlaceWorks, Survey 2019. 5-Year Es�mates, 2010 and 2017;del Contra Norte Costa County 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. CUTTING k 39TH Figure 2-15 BicycleHARBOUR Facilities31ST " Source: Contra Costa FigureCounty, 2018; 16 Fehr & Peers, 2019;Figure PlaceWorks, 14 2019. RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLANCARLSON POTRERO " RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Existing and Proposed BicycleHousehold Facilities Vehicle Availability CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY EASTSHORE EL CERRITO 32 BAYVIEW MANILA Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 31 23 %&'(580 55TH Contra Costa Transportation Authority San jk Francisco " El Cerrito"k KENSINGTON Bay Plaza Richmond JACUZZI Inner CENTRAL " " Harbor ALAMEDA 00.25 0.5 1 COUNTY Miles Source: Contra Costa County, 2018; Fehr & Peers, 2019; PlaceWorks, 2019. Figure 16 RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 31 3. Previous Studies and Mobility Gaps

Agencies with jurisdiction in the CBTP study area have adopted studies that expose mobility gaps in the study area and establish projects, plans, and policies to fill those gaps. This section provides a review of these previous studies and the transportation gaps they highlight.

The results of these studies are valuable to understanding and assessing the commu- nity input and recommendations outlined in Chapter 4 of this plan.

3.1 Local Studies

El Cerrito 1999 General Plan Circulation Element This General Plan element describes services and facilities that ensure safe vehicle, pedestrian, transit, bicycle, and emergency movement. It also outlines strategies for promoting and encouraging the use of alternative transportation modes and existing barriers to those modes.

Mobility Gaps Identified ■■ AC Transit weekend and evening off-peak service on many routes is insufficient. ■■ As of this plan, El Cerrito had no bike lanes or routes. ■■ Segment of San Pablo Avenue between Cutting Boulevard and Hill Street lacks crosswalks. ■■ San Pablo Avenue through the City is becoming an alternative to congested Interstate (I-) 80, impacting bike and pedestrian safety.

West County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance This plan Identifies performance objectives for designated Routes of Regional Signif- icance along segments crucial to closing transportation gaps within the study area and I-80 from the Alameda County line to the Solano County line.

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 33 Contra Costa Transportation Authority Mobility Gaps Identified ■■ Multiple routes in the study area that connect subareas, cross county boundar- ies, or access a regional highway or transit facility, need multi-modal improve- ments to mitigate impacts of increasing traffic by 2040. ■■ Segments of Carlson Boulevard, Appian Way, Central Avenue, San Pablo Dam Road, 23rd Street and Richmond Parkway will require expansion of effective local transit service, improved high-capacity transit in West County, more active transportation facilities, and new complete streets enhancements.

2011 City of Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans These Master Plans identify gaps in the regional connections, pavement quality, bicycle parking, signage and wayfinding, and multi-modal connections throughout the City’s bicycle and pedestrian networks. The plans propose bike and pedestrian facilities in focus areas throughout the City.

Mobility Gaps Identified ■■ Bicycle and pedestrian gaps on several routes in central Richmond, including Macdonald Avenue, Ohio Avenue, Nevin Avenue, Barnett Avenue, 2nd Street, Mobility Gaps Identified 6th Street, and others Intersections that impede pedestrian and bicycle activity, including: ■■ Hoffman Boulevard and Harbour Way 2015 Yellow Brick Road Iron Triangle Walkable Neighborhood Plan ■■ Marina Bay Parkway and Regatta Boulevard This City of Richmond plan identifies barriers to complete streets in the Iron Triangle Neighborhood and proposed signage and surface treatment strategies to connect ■■ Bayview Avenue and Carlson Boulevard community assets on key routes. ■■ Central Avenue and San Pablo Avenue Mobility Gaps Identified ■■ Lack of network connectivity and services for residents in South Richmond ■■ Bicycle and pedestrian accessibility barriers on Richmond Greenway, Richmond ■■ Need for more flexible transportation services and supportive facilities, includ- BART Station area, Harbour Way, Marina Way, Ohio Avenue, and Macdonald ing taxi service, paratransit service, carsharing, ridesharing, and private for-hire Avenue transportation services

2015 South Richmond Connectivity Plan The plan provides a foundation for multimodal infrastructure in the area as bounded by the I-580 north to Maine Street, west to Harbor Channel and S. 6th Street, and east to San Pablo Avenue. The area includes the Ferry Terminal, Richmond Bay Cam- pus, El Cerrito del Norte BART Station, and El Cerrito Plaza BART Station.

34 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2015 Rumrill Boulevard/13th Street Complete Streets Study 2017 City of Richmond First/Last Mile Transportation Strategic Plan The Cities of Richmond and San Pablo Rumrill Boulevard and 13th Street Complete This plan identifies gaps in bicycle, pedestrian, and transit networks leading to the Streets Study is a blueprint for a walkable, transit-friendly, and bikeable Rumrill Richmond Ferry Terminal and Richmond BART station. The plan evaluated the quality Boulevard in Richmond and San Pablo. The study presents a “community-preferred of first mile/last mile access to various amenities, some in the CBTP study area. vision” for the corridor that reduces vehicular lane space to promote pedestrian Mobility Gaps Identified safety, transit utilization, and the adoption of bikeways. The entire length ofthe Rumrill Boulevard corridor is within the CBTP project boundary. ■■ Pedestrian and bicycle access to the El Cerrito del Norte BART Station deemed poor to moderate Mobility Gaps Identified ■■ Pedestrian and bicycle access to the Richmond Parkway Transit Center deemed ■■ A sidewalk gap on the north side of the 13th Street bridge poor Sidewalks north of Market Avenue are unbuffered and immediately adjacent to ■■ ■■ Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access to Hilltop Mall deemed poor to moderate travel lanes ■■ Bicycle and transit access to bus stops along 13th Street/Rumrill Avenue corridor ■■ All crosswalks between Brookside Drive and Broadway Avenue are unsignalized deemed poor to moderate Wide vehicle lanes and high documented speeds impede bicycle comfort and ■■ ■■ Transit access to stops bus along 23rd Street corridor deemed poor safety ■■ Bike and transit access to bus stops along San Pablo Avenue corridor deemed ■■ Most bus stops on the corridor lack shade, seating, and infrastructure poor

2017 West Contra Costa County High-Capacity Transit Study ■■ Lack of paratransit facilities. For example, there are eight bus bays at the Richmond BART station, and only one of the eight is an island designated for This study evaluates near-term and long-term multimodal high-capacity transit paratransit vehicles. options for Western Contra Costa County. It assesses a series of rapid transit route alternatives to enhance transit connectivity and provide equitable access to transit. These alternatives include a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line; a BART extension from Richmond Station to Hercules via Richmond Parkway, with potential stops within the study area; and a San Pablo/Macdonald BRT, with improvements along the way to Hercules Intermodal Transit Center.

Mobility Gaps Identified ■■ Barrier of congested I-80 corridor ■■ Lack of high-speed/capacity alternatives to BART and buses

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 35 Contra Costa Transportation Authority Mobility Gaps Identified ■■ Richmond has a higher rate of pedestrian and bicycle injuries than cities of comparable size. ■■ A disproportionate number of collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians have occurred at the intersection of Harbour Way and Pennsylvania Avenue. ■■ Only 14 percent of residents commute via transit; less than 3 percent via bike or foot. ■■ Intersections and corridors that would benefit from improvement include 22nd and 23rd Streets, Barrett Avenue, San Pablo Avenue/23rd Street, San Pablo Avenue/Richmond Parkway, Central Avenue, and San Pablo Dam Road. ■■ Multiple rail crossings throughout the City present danger to pedestrians and cyclists. ■■ Equitable access to transit and equitable mobility options are prioritized, but not entirely fulfilled.

San Pablo General Plan 2030 Circulation Element The San Pablo General Plan 2030 Circulation Element is a policy framework for a “Complete Streets”-oriented circulation plan. It is intended to serve the needs of ■■ Inflexible and limited paratransit service: R-Transit, Richmond’s paratransit ser- cyclists, pedestrians, transit users, and motor vehicles. vice, operates only on weekdays from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., excluding holidays. Mobility Gaps Identified Reservations must be made at least one day in advance, with no guarantee of availability. ■■ Sidewalk and curb conditions on 23rd Street from Dover Avenue to southern City limits are poor. ■■ Lack of coordination between agencies and outdated, non-integrated opera- tional systems ■■ There is a pedestrian/bicycle gap on El Portal Gateway between Church Lane and I-80. Richmond General Plan 2030 Circulation Element ■■ The I-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange is unsafe and a barrier to local ele- The Richmond General Plan Circulation Element establishes policies to address mentary school students. the physical circulation network and various transportation options in the City. The ■■ There are sidewalk gaps on San Pablo Avenue between Rivers Street and Lan- 1 element “seeks to ensure efficient mobility and access for all residents.” caster Street. ■■ The lack of context-sensitive bus stop designs in San Pablo can hinder traffic flow 1 City of Richmond, General Plan 2030, Circulation Element, page 4.3. and decrease rider safety. ■■ There is a gap in Wildcat Creek Trail from 23rd Street to eastern city limit.

36 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2017 City of San Pablo Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan The San Pablo Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan presents goals, policies, and strategies for a multimodal transportation system in the City. It was developed to help the City of San Pablo implement its General Plan with detailed analyses and thorough community input about bicycle and pedestrian opportunities. The plan establishes “Priority Pedestrian Zones” and seeks to address barriers such as lack of pedestrian-scale lighting, refuge islands, high-visibility crosswalks, speed bumps, and appropriate landscaping.

Mobility Gaps Identified ■■ Lack of Class IV bikeways in all of San Pablo ■■ Bicycle gap on San Pablo Avenue between the planned bike lanes starting at Rumrill Boulevard and the existing lanes starting at Road 20 ■■ Lack of bike facilities on Broadway Avenue from 11th Street to San Pablo Avenue ■■ Lack of bike facilities on El Portal Drive ■■ Lack of bicycle facility on the City’s western border

3.2 Countywide Studies

To better understand gaps in the transportation network, the following policy docu- ments were evaluated to identify proposed transportation projects and plans in the study area.

2013 Contra Costa County Mobility Management Plan The Contra Costa County Mobility Management Plan was implemented in 2013 as part of Measure J, which allocates transportation funding for seniors and people with disabilities. To this end, the plan identifies funding priorities specifically for improving transportation services for seniors and people with disabilities inthe County. The plan focuses in large part on improving paratransit service and integrat- ing paratransit services among various transportation service providers throughout the County.

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 37 Contra Costa Transportation Authority Mobility Gaps Identified municipalities to identify potential projects aimed to mitigate existing transportation gaps. The CTP includes potential projects in the CBTP study area. ■■ The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) eligibility process is standardized with- in Contra Costa County, but not among transit operators in neighboring counties, Mobility Gaps Identified which can be a barrier for someone in need of cross-county paratransit services. ■■ Challenges of one-way streets, including 22nd and 23rd Streets in Richmond. ■■ There is a need for a coordinated paratransit vehicle maintenance program ■■ Lack of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and safety at I-80/San Pablo Dam for paratransit operators across the entire region. Pooling financial and capital Road interchange. resources into one facility that specializes in the service and maintenance specif- ically of paratransit vehicles would reduce costs for all operators. ■■ Railroad crossing barrier at the Richmond Waterfront on Marina Bay Parkway. ■■ Unsafe pedestrian conditions at Cutting Boulevard and Carlson Boulevard. Contra Costa Safe Routes to School, Understanding Needs Moving ■■ Costs associated with school bus passes in west Contra Costa County. Ahead 2016 ■■ Lack of transit enhancements along San Pablo Dam Road, Macdonald Avenue, The Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Needs Assessment is a comprehensive assessment Cutting Boulevard, and 23rd Street. of existing SR2S projects and programs occurring throughout Contra Costa County. The purpose was to understand SR2S activities throughout Contra Costa County, ■■ Lack of stable funding source for improving or expanding paratransit service estimate funding needed to support future SR2S capital improvements and pro- grams, provide resources to local communities as they plan, design, and implement 2018 Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan improvements, and offer technical assistance to school sites. CCTA also prepared the 2018 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP) with the goal of increasing walking and cycling, improving bike and pedestrian safety, and The assessment estimated the unmet countywide need for future SR2S capital im- developing a functional bike and pedestrian network throughout the County. The provements at $243 million, and the unmet countywide cost of all SR2S programs at CBPP establishes projects to fill gaps in the pedestrian network within a series of $58 million annually. Pedestrian Priority Areas. These include accessible walkways, functional curb ramps, Mobility Gaps Identified safe crossings, traffic calming, direct connections, and streetscape improvements. Similarly, the CBPP includes a network of existing and proposed low-stress bikeways ■■ Roadway conditions surrounding many county schools are unsafe for student in the County that would benefit from bicycle infrastructure improvements. cyclists and pedestrians. ■■ Funding for required SR2S improvements and programs are largely unmet. Mobility Gaps Identified Bikeways targeted for improvements include: 2017 Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan ■■ Central Avenue The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) regularly updates the compre- ■■ San Pablo Avenue hensive Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP), a long-range policy document that ■■ Carlson Boulevard identifies transportation goals and projects at all levels of geography, from regional ■■ Bayview Avenue coordination to local assistance. The CTP was most recently updated in 2017. It ■■ Cutting Boulevard includes a 10-year Project List consisting of cost-adjusted projects identified in MTC ■■ 7th Street/Fred Jackson Way / ABAG’s regional planning blueprint, the 2013 Plan Bay Area. The CTP allows local ■■ Pennsylvania Avenue/13th Street /Rumrill Boulevard

38 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority ■■ 23rd Street ■■ Marina Way South ■■ Harbour Way South ■■ Richmond Parkway ■■ Richmond Greenway ■■ Hilltop Drive ■■ Blume Drive

3.3 Current Studies

Ferry to Bridge to Greenway Complete Streets Plan The Richmond Ferry to Bridge to Greenway Complete Streets Plan (in progress) will provide multimodal strategies on routes leading to the new Richmond Ferry Terminal, the planned multi-use path on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, and the Richmond Greenway. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities included in the plan will connect San Francisco, Contra Costa, and Marin Counties for the first time. The plan also identifies near-term multimodal improvements and long-range conceptual rec- ommendations along Cutting Boulevard, Marina Way, Harbour Way, and 23rd Street. The improvements were developed to connect to the Richmond Ferry Terminal, Greenway, and Wellness Trail to alleviate connectivity barriers for communities.

BART Walk and Bicycle Gap Study The BART Walk and Bicycle Gap Study identifies ways to make walking and bicycling to and from BART stations safe, comfortable, and convenient. The draft study provides specific recommendations to within a quarter-mile radius around the Richmond BART Station area, including:

■■ Connections to key east–west bikeways on Barrett Avenue and Macdonald Ave- nue and north–south bikeways along 19th Street.

■■ Bicycle facilities providing direct connections to the Richmond Wellness Trail.

■■ Specific pedestrian crossing and sidewalk improvements, such as directional curb ramps, high-visibility crosswalks, lighting, and wayfinding.

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 39 Contra Costa Transportation Authority San Pablo Avenue Corridor Study 1. The most frequently mentioned challenge was the entire San Pablo Avenue Cor- ridor. Nearly every study identifies challenges, plans, and programs associated The San Pablo Avenue Multimodal Corridor Study is a joint effort between CCTA, the with mobility on San Pablo Avenue. Issues include the corridor as a barrier, gaps West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) and the Alameda in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along the corridor, unsafe intersections, County Transportation Authority (ACTC) to develop a long-term vision and determine inadequate crossings, poor lighting, and inadequate transit infrastructure. While near-term improvements for a 12-mile-long segment of San Pablo Avenue through many of the gaps identified over the past 20 years are addressed by the current Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, and Oakland. The proj- San Pablo Avenue Corridor project, new input was collected during the current ect will integrate existing plans into a cohesive “Complete Streets” approach with CBTP outreach process. transit priority treatments, pedestrian safety improvements, and improved bicycle infrastructure. Improvements along San Pablo Avenue could include dedicated bus 2. Pedestrian and bicycle improvements on major corridors. A series of arterials lanes, queue jump lanes, and signals to bypass congested segments and improve re- were identified frequently across the spectrum of studies as containing active liability, transit signal priority, signal modernization and coordination, and enhanced transportation gaps. The need for sidewalk widening, curb improvements, im- bus stops or stations. proved crosswalks, and bikeways on the following corridors is cited repeatedly: a. 22nd and 23rd Streets West County Express Bus Implementation Plan b. Central Avenue (between I-80 and San Pablo Avenue) The WCCTAC West County Express Bus Implementation Plan will identify opportuni- Macdonald Avenue ties to implement express bus service from Hercules, Pinole, San Pablo, Richmond, c. and unincorporated areas in west Contra Costa County to destinations in Berkeley, d. San Pablo Dam Road, particularly at the I-80/San Pablo Dam Road inter- Emeryville, and Oakland. The plan will also address existing service to San Francisco change that is at or near capacity. e. Marina Bay Parkway (at Regatta Boulevard) f. Cutting Boulevard (particularly at Carlson Boulevard) 3.4 Thematic Mobility Challenges g. Hilltop Drive and the area around the Shoppes at Hilltop

A series of thematic mobility challenges emerges from the evaluation of the previous 3. A lack of safe, non-auto access to schools throughout the study area, in part due 19 studies, which span two decades and cover all jurisdictions in the CBTP study area. to many railway and highway crossings. Many of these challenges are reflected in the community input collected during the 4. Limited, unreliable, and inflexible paratransit service. preparation of this plan and were identified by the current Project Working Groups and Steering Committee. 5. Bus stops without amenities and that are difficult to walk to due to poor sidewalk conditions, particularly on: a. 23rd Street b. Hilltop Drive c. 13th Street/Rumrill Avenue corridor

40 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 41 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 42 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority 4. Outreach and Engagement Summary

All CBTP recommendations are based on a diverse community outreach campaign consistent with Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Guidelines. The Richmond Area CBTP study area encompasses Communities of Concern (COCs) in the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, and El Cerrito, as well as unincorporated North Richmond, Rolling- wood, Montalvin Manor, Tara Hills, and Bayview. The study area is defined by multiple distinct neighborhoods and has a population of over 120,000. The project and plans recommended in this CBTP are the result of an outreach and engagement effort intended to reach challenged communities in geographic and demographic cross-sections of the study area.

Outreach and engagement included the following: 4.1.2 Project Working Group

1. Oversight by two advisory groups A Project Working Group (PWG) composed of local jurisdiction and transit agency 2. Development of a Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCTA)-approved staff convened numerous times throughout the outreach process to review the Outreach Strategy Outreach Strategy, help identify stakeholders in various COCs, and provide practical 3. Creation and distribution of awareness materials guidance on coordinating outreach events and stakeholders. Members of the PWG 4. Feedback at County planning events for the Richmond-area CBTP included: 5. Interactive CBTP “Pop-Ups” at various events in the study area ■■ Martin Engelmann, Deputy Executive Director, Planning, CCTA ■■ Matt Kelly, Senior Transportation Planner, CCTA 4.1 CBTP Advisor Groups ■■ James Hinkamp, Associate Transportation Planner, CCTA ■■ Aileen Hernandez, Principal Grants Officer, BART 4.1.1 Steering committee ■■ Celestine Do, Senior Planner BART As noted in Chapter 1, a CBTP Steering Committee (SC) was convened to, among ■■ Rachal Factor, Principal Planner, BART other guidance roles, ensure an inclusive outreach process, provide direction on ■■ Nathan Landau, AC Transit reaching specific groups in the community, and prioritize outreach opportunities. ■■ Ryan Lau, AC Transit Members of the SC for the Richmond-area CBTP included: ■■ Denee Evans, Transportation Demand and Sustainability Manager, City of Richmond ■■ Tawfic Halaby, Senior Civil Engineer, City of Richmond ■■ Ben Choi, Richmond City Council ■■ Misha Kaur, Paratransit Coordinator, City of Richmond ■■ Elizabeth Pabon-Alvarado, San Pablo City Council ■■ Patrick Phelan, Infrastructure Administrator, City of Richmond ■■ Janet Abelson, El Cerrito City Council ■■ Lori Reese Brown, Transportation Project Manager, City of Richmond ■■ Robert Rogers, Office of Supervisor Gioia ■■ Lina Velasco, Community Development Director, City of Richmond ■■ Jan Mignone, President, Richmond Neighborhood Coordinating Council ■■ Dane Rodgers, Senior Civil Engineer, City of Richmond ■■ Myrtle Braxton-Ellington, Chair, Richmond Commission on Aging ■■ Ana Bernardes, Engineering Manager/Senior Engineer, City of El Cerrito ■■ Trina Jackson, Staff Liaison, Richmond Youth Council ■■ Clayton Johnson, Senior Health Education Specialist, Contra Costa Health Services ■■ Cecilia Perez-Mejia, Community Liaison, First Five Contra Costa ■■ Alexander Zandian, Engineer, Contra Costa County ■■ Nikki Beasley, Executive Director, Richmond Neighborhood Housing Service ■■ Mary Halle, Senior Civil Engineer, Contra Costa County Public Works

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 43 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 4.2 Outreach Strategy 4.3 Outreach Awareness

Per a CCTA- and Steering Committee-approved Outreach Strategy, public outreach 4.3.1 Flier Noticing was organized into three phases corresponding with key milestones in the CBTP process. These are summarized as follows. Prior to engagement events, the CBTP team developed a graphics-rich Outreach Awareness Notice in English (see Figure 4-1) and Spanish (see Figure 4-2) to notice Phase 1: Establish Area Overview and Preliminary Community Needs the public of outreach events in various COCs. The flier was adapted to each event Phase 1 was designed to identify transportation-related challenges faced by those and posted digitally on websites of agencies and stakeholders involved in the project. who live, work, and/or access services within various study area COCs. Outreach The notice was continually updated throughout the outreach process to reflect the during this phase consisted of establishing lists of community stakeholders and status of the project. events for outreach opportunities and developing a flexible Outreach Awareness The Awareness Notice was also adapted for use as a hard-copy flier for posting at Notice template (see Section 4.3). The CBTP team met with the PWG three times to major transit locations and other organizations. Hard-copy fliers were posted on review the study area and existing demographics, discuss early outreach strategies Tri-Delta buses and bus stops, senior centers, community shuttles, and BART stations. and SC formation, and review the draft Outreach Strategy. The CBTP team also met with the SC to introduce and review the draft Outreach Strategy. 4.3.2 Outreach Events Phase 2: Solicit Community Recommendations 4.3.2.1 Martin Luther King Day of Service and Celebration In Phase 2, the CBTP team approached stakeholders and potential community event The CBTP team attended the January 21, 2019, Martin Luther King Day of Service hosts identified in Phase 1. “On-the-ground” outreach was performed in this phase. and Celebration event at Unity Park on the Richmond Greenway to raise awareness Members of COCs in the study area were solicited for proposed projects, plans, of the CBTP. The event included a bike ride organized by Rich City Rides. The CBTP and ideas to improve mobility. CBTP team members attended community events team distributed information about the CBTP outreach process to community mem- focused on challenged communities and organized “pop-up workshops” and “meet- bers. The event was attended by over 150 Richmond residents, many of whom spoke and-greets.” Interactive exercises and one-on-one interviews were used to gather to the CBTP about the outreach process and signed the project contact list. Thirty detailed input from a diverse range of participants. Community feedback collected in participants received a project flier and others signed up for the project contact list. Phase 2 is the source of CBTP recommendations presented in Chapter 5 of this plan. 4.3.2.2 Bike-to-Work Day at the Richmond Ferry Phase 3: Analyze Potential Programs and Projects The Richmond Ferry opened in early 2019. On May 9, 2019, CBTP project staff helped During Phase 3, the CBTP team organized the community-identified mobility chal- facilitate the “Energizer Station” on Bike-to-Work day at the Ferry Station and distrib- lenges and recommendations and worked with stakeholders, CCTA, and the PWG to ute information about the CBTP study area and outreach process. Approximately 40 develop criteria for evaluating and prioritizing the feedback. The CBTP team worked ferry users provided input during this event, all of whom were on their way to board with PWG members to coordinate potential CBTP recommendations with existing ferries travelling from Richmond to San Francisco. Individuals expressed support for planned mobility projects, “ground-truth” recommendations, and assess funding bike and pedestrian improvements connecting the ferry terminal and other transit and implementation options for each. A draft CBTP was reviewed by both the PWG hubs to Richmond neighborhoods. and SC, followed by PWG and SC meetings to discuss revisions. The Final CBTP was developed based on these revisions and discussions.

44 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Figure 4-1 Richmond Outreach Flyer Figure 4-2 Richmond Outreach Flyer (Spanish Verison)

HELP IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS ¡AYUDENOS A MEJORAR LAS OPCIONES DE IN THE RICHMOND AREA! TRANSPORTE EN EL ÁREA DE RICHMOND!

PARTICIPE EN EL PLAN DE RICHMOND DE PARTICIPATE IN THE RICHMOND AREA Cómo Participar COMMUNITY-BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN How To Participate TRANSPORTE BASADO EN LA COMUNIDAD El plan de Richmond de transporte basada en la comunidad, The Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Text-based mobile survey: o CBTP, es una oportunidad para mejorar las opciones de Encuesta móvil basada en texto: Plan (CBTP) is an opportunity to improve transportation transporte y la calidad de vida de los vecindarios en la Ciudad Please take a few moments to answer Por favor, dedique un momento para options and quality of life for neighborhoods in Richmond, de Richmond, North Richmond y San Pablo, incluyendo responder a nuestra breve encuesta our short mobile phone survey North Richmond, San Pablo, and portions of El Cerrito. porciones de El Cerrito. acerca de sus hábitos y desafíos de about your transportation habits El plan reunirá residentes, organizaciones comunitarias transporte por teléfono móvil. Acceda The Plan will bring residents, community organizations and and challenges. To get started, text transportation agencies together to identify transportation y agencias de transporte para identificar los desafíos y a la encuesta enviando un texto a “CBTP” to (510) 621-6121 desarrollar estrategias para superar los. challenges and develop solutions. (510) 621-6121 Project webpage: El CBTP va a: The CBTP will: Página web del proyecto: A project webpage is currently under • Evaluar las brechas y barreras de transporte identificadas • Evaluate transportation gaps and barriers identified by La página web del proyecto está en development. Go to www.ccta.net to por la comunidad the community construcción. ¡Visite www.ccta.net learn more about the project, project • Desarrollar soluciones y proyectos para resolver estos • Develop solutions & projects to address these challenges desafíos para aprender más del proyecto, socios partners and community events! 4 Richmond Ferry Terminal 4 Richmond Ferry Terminal • Identify possible funding sources to pay for these del proyecto y eventos comunitarios! Sycam • Identificar las posibles fuentes de financiamiento para Sycam ore Ave ore Ave solutions & projects BAYBAY BART Station or Park & Ride Lot BAYBAY BART Station or Park & Ride Lot VIEW pagar las soluciones y proyectos VIEW Richmond Ferry Terminal 4 Richmond Ferry Terminal 4 Communities of Concern Communities of Concern S San Pablo Bay Sy San Pablo Bay ycamor e MOUNMOUNTALVINTALVIN camore ve HERCULES MOUNMOUNTALVINTALVIN e Av HERCULES BAYBAY A Área de Estudio del Plan BAYBAY BART Station or Transit Center Plan Study Area MANOR BART Station or Transit Center MANORVIEW VIEW TTARAARA City of Richmond TTARAARA City of Richmond HILLS HILLS PINOLE PINOLE Communities of Concern Communities of Concern San Pablo Bay San Pablo Bay HERCULES MOUNMOUNTALVINTALVIN HERCULES MOUNMOUNTALVINTALVIN Other Jurisdictions Other Jurisdictions MANOR MANOR TTARAARA TTARAARA City of Richmond City of Richmond HILLS d Pkwy HILLS PINOLE Pin d Pkwy PINOLE Pin on ole on ole m ValleyRd Contra Costa County m ValleyRd Contra Costa County ch ch Ri Ri San Pablo Strait Richmond Parkway Other JurisdictionsSan Pablo Strait Richmond Parkway Other Jurisdictions H lltop D Hilltop Park and Ride H lltop D Hilltop Park and Ride i rTransit Center i rTransit Center Study Area Boundary y P Study Area Boundary y P nd Pkw in nd Pkw ino o ole o le m ValleyRd Contra Costa County m EL SOBRANTE ValleyRd Contra Costa County ch EL SOBRANTE ch Ri Ri San Pablo Strait San Pablo Strait d d Blv RICHMOND Areas Included for Blv Hilltop Dr RICHMOND Areas Included for NORTHNORTH rill Hilltop Dr NORTHNORTH rill um Rd um Rd Study Area Boundary RICHMOND R Dam Study Area BoundaryCBTP Recommendations RICHMOND R Dam CBTP Recommendations ROLLINGWOODROLLINGWOOD ablo ROLLINGWOODROLLINGWOOD ablo SanELP SOBRANTE SanELP SOBRANTE SAN PABLOPABLO EL SOBRANTE SAN PABLOPABLO EL SOBRANTE d lvd RICHMOND Areas Included for CBTP Recommendations Blv RICHMOND Areas Included for CBTP Recommendations NORTHNORTH ill B NORTHNORTH rill t mr t S u S Rd um Rd RICHMOND R Dam RICHMOND R d am d ROLLINGWOODROLLINGWOOD lo r D r b

ROLLINGWOODROLLINGWOOD ablo an Pa 3 3 San P S 2 2 EL SOBRANTE SAN PPABLOABLO EL SOBRANTE SAN PPABLOABLO

t t S S

d

r

d

r

t t 3 3 S CONTRACONTRA COSTATA S 2 CONTRACONTRA COSTATA o 2 RICHMOND o RICHMOND r r t t s s a COUNNTYTY a COUNNTYTY C EASTEAST C EASTEAST RICHMOND RICHMOND t t S CCONTRONTRA COSTTAA S RICHMOND HEIGHTSHEIGHTS CCONTRONTRA COSTTAA RICHMONDo HEIGHTSHEIGHTS RICHMOND o RICHMOND r r t t Barrett Ave s Barrett Ave s a COUNNTYTY

a 22nd St COUNNTYTY C 22nd St EASTEAST 4 Richmond Ferry Terminal C MacDonald Ave EASTEAST Richmond Ferry Terminal MacDonald Ave Richmond RICHMOND 4 Richmond RICHMOND S ycamore e Sycam RICHMOND HEIGHTSHEIGHTS Av RICHMOND BART Station HEIGHTSHEIGHTS ore Ave BART Station BAYBAY BART Station or Transit Center BarrettCarlson Blvd Ave BAYBAY BarrettCarlson Blvd Ave BART Station or Transit Center 22nd St

VIEW 22nd St MacDonald Ave MacDonald Ave VIEW Richmond Richmond El Cerrito del Norte El Cerrito del Norte Cutting Blvd BART Station Cutting Blvd Communities of Concern BART Station Communities of Concern Carlson Blvd San Pablo Bay HERCULES San PabloaniraM Bay yaW S Carlson Blvd BART Station aniraM yaW S BART Station MOUNMOUNTALVINTALVIN MOUNMOUNTALVINTALVIN HERCULES Arling Arling MANOR MANOR to to n El Cerrito del Norte n TTARAARA El Cerrito del NorteTTARAARA B Cutting Blvd B City of Richmond Cutting Blvd lv City of Richmond lv

HILLS d aniraM yaW S BART Station d PINOLE aniraM yaW S BART Station HILLS PINOLE S S Arling a EL ACERRICERRITOrling TO a EL CERRICERRITOto TO n to n n Other Jurisdictions n B Richmond Parkway P BRichmond Parkway Other Jurisdictions P lv San Francisco Bay a lv San Francisco Bay a d Transit Center b d b lo Transit Center lo S EL CERRICERRITOTO d Pkwy Pi y S EL CERRICERRITOA TO P a A n no d Pkw a v in n v o le n n e KENSINGTONKENSINGTON o e KENSINGTONKENSINGTON m ValleyR Contra Costa County o le P h d m P ValleyRd Contra Costa County a ic ch a San Francisco Bay b R San Francisco Bay i b San Pablo Strait R lo San Pablo Strait lo Hilltop Dr El Cerrito Plaza A El Cerrito Plaza A Hilltop Dr v v e KENSINKENSINGTONGTON Study Area Boundary e KENSINKENSINGTONGTON Richmond BART Station Study Area Boundary Richmond BART Station EL SOBRANTE EL SOBRANTE Inner Harbor El Cerrito Plaza Inner Harbor El Cerrito Plaza vd l Bl RICHMOND Areas Included for CBTP Recommendations lvd RICHMOND Areas Included for CBTP Recommendations BART Station NORTHNORTH ril NORTHNORTH ill B BART Station Richmond um Rd Richmond mr RICHMOND R ROLLINGWOODROLLINGWOOD Dam RICHMOND Ru am Rd Pablo ROLLINGWOODROLLINGWOOD ALAMEDAAbloLDAMEDA COUNTYCOUNTY Inner Harbor ALAMEDAALAMEDA COUNTYCOUNTY San Inner Harbor an Pa SAN PPABLOABLO EL SOBRANTE 00.25 0.5 1 S EL SOBRANTE 00.25 0.5 1 SAN PPABLOABLO in Ave in Ave Miles N Mar Miles N ALAMEDAALAMEDA MCOUNTYCaOUNr TY t t ALAMEDAALAMEDA COUNTYCOUNTY S S 00.25 0.5 1 d 00.25 0.5 1

d r Source: Metropolitan Transporta on Authority (MTC), 2018; Contra Costa County 2018; Placeworks, 2018. r Source: Metropolitan Transporta on Authority (MTC), 2018; Contra Costa County 2018; Placeworks, 2018.

3 Ave

3 Ave rin 2 in a 2 M Miles RichmondMar CBTP Communities of Concern Miles Richmond CBTP Communities of Concern Source: Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTC), 2018; Contra Costa County 2018; Placeworks, 2018. Source: Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTC), 2018; Contra Costa County 2018; Placeworks, 2018. RICHMOND COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN CBTP Area RICHMOND COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN CBTP Area t t S CCOONTRNTRA COSTTAA ONTRA OSTA RANSPORTATION UTHORITY S CCONTRONTRA COSTTAA ONTRA OSTA RANSPORTATION UTHORITY o RICHMOND C C T A C C T A r o RICHMOND t r s t RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN a COUNNTYTY RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN s C EASTEAST a EASTEAST COUNNTYTY C CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RICHMOND CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RICHMOND RICHMOND HEIGHTSHEIGHTS RICHMOND HEIGHTSHEIGHTS Barrett Ave Barrett Ave

22nd St MacDonald Ave 22nd St MacDonald Ave Richmond Richmond BART Station BART Station Carlson Blvd Carlson Blvd El Cerrito del Norte Cutting Blvd Cutting Blvd El Cerrito del Norte

S yaW aniraM yaW S BART Station aniraM yaW S BART Station Arlingt Arlin o gto n n B B lv lv d Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 45 d S a EL CERRICERRITOTO S EL CERRICERRITOTO n a n P a P San Francisco Bay b a San Francisco Bay b lo Contra Costa Transportation Authority lo A A v e KENSINKENSINGTONGTON v e KENSINKENSINGTONGTON

El Cerrito Plaza El Cerrito Plaza BART Station Richmond Richmond BART Station Inner Harbor Inner Harbor ALAMEDAALAMEDA COUNTYCOUNTY ALAMEDAALAMEDA COUNTYCOUNTY 00.25 0.5 1 00.25 0.5 1 Ave arin in Ave Miles M Miles Mar Source: Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTC), 2018; Contra Costa County 2018; Placeworks, 2018. CBTP Area Source: Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTC), 2018; Contra Costa County 2018; Placeworks, 2018. CBTP Area

RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN RICHMOND AREA COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Figure 4-3 Richmond Outreach Locations Map 4.4 Outreach Results

The following sections summarize the methods, participation rates, and Contra Costa County General Plan Update results of CBTP outreach events. The locations of all outreach and engage- Community Meeting Montara Bay Community Center ment events are shown on Figure 4-3.

4.4.1 County Planning Events Contra Costa County is currently updating its General Plan, a process titled Envision Contra Costa 2040. The update will establish transportation goals, policies, and implementation plans for multiple unincorporated commu- nities within the CBTP study area. The CBTP team attended the following outreach events associated with this process to gauge community mobility priorities:

■■ Contra Costa County General Plan Update Community Meeting, North Richmond. This meeting was held on May 13, 2019, at the Community Heritage Senior Apartments.

Contra Costa County General Plan Update ■■ Contra Costa County General Plan Update Community Meeting, Bay- Community Meeting Community Heritage Senior Apartments view, Montalvin Manor and Tara Hills. This meeting was held on May 14, 2019, at the Montara Bay Community Center.

Unlike CBTP pop-up events, these events were not intended to reach specific mobility-challenged groups. As such, the CBTP team did not solicit feedback

Richmond Youth Council Meeting directly from participants but coordinated with the General Plan Update Civic Center Plaza team for insight into individuals, events, and organizations to partner with,

Greater Richmond Interfaith and participated in discussions and exercises about perceived Countywide Martin Luther King Day of Service and Celebration Program Community Lunch mobility gaps. Awareness information and fliers about upcoming CBTP Unity Park on the Richmond Greenway outreach events were distributed.

4.4.1.1 Participation Thirty-four people attended the North Richmond Community Meeting and about 14 people participated in the Bayview, Montalvin Manor, and Tara Hills Community Meeting, as shown in Figure 4-4.

Bike-To-Work Day The Richmond Ferry Station

46 Approximate CBTP Study Area Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority The unincorporated areas of Bayview, Montalvin Manor, and Tara Hills are also within Figure 4-4: County Planning Event Attendance the CBTP study area. During the General Plan Update meeting, CBTP staff recorded the following mobility challenges voiced by participants during group exercises: 40 35 ■■ Lack of transit connections and transit types 30 ■■ Fear of walking and biking on major corridors such as Tara Hills Drive and Shawn Drive due to vehicle speeds 25 ■■ Sidewalk and bicycle gaps and dangerous intersections on San Pablo Avenue 20 The intersection of Richmond Parkway and San Pablo Avenue 15 ■■ 10 The CBTP team used some of these larger themes as starting points for discussion 5 and feedback during the CBTP pop-up event process described below. 0 North Richmond Bayview/Tara Hills/ 4.4.2 CBTP Pop-Up Events Meeting #1 Montalvin Manor Meeting #1 CBTP team members worked with CBOs, non-profits, and various local agencies to schedule “pop-up” outreach sessions at pre-scheduled events targeting low-income 4.4.1.2 Major Themes and other potentially transportation-challenged communities. The goals of these CBTP team members recorded participant feedback at the North Richmond Com- events were to collect detailed feedback about transportation challenges directly munity Meeting. The entire unincorporated North Richmond area is within the CBTP from COC residents and record personal narratives describing how these challenges study area. The following mobility-related themes were expressed: impact daily life. English- and Spanish-speaking CBTP project staff set up information and feedback tables at each event, with the following visual elements to prompt ■■ Evening neighborhood safety and lighting conditions in North Richmond neigh- discussion: borhoods ■■ Project Information and Awareness Flier ■■ Area-wide sidewalk conditions and gaps on major streets ■■ Poster-sized Study Area Map Boards ■■ Transit delays and poor system linkages ■■ Poster-sized Existing Transportation Network Boards ■■ Insufficient fixed-route coverage and bus frequencies ■■ Existing and Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Maps ■■ Poor BART/transit access ■■ Challenges of communitywide ingress and egress PlaceWorks staff facilitated the following exercises with attendees to achieve the goals of the pop-up events. Raw results of these exercises are provided in Appendix ■■ Gaps in local bicycle infrastructure B. ■■ Poorly design bus stops and transit curb management ■■ Map and Dot Exercises. CBTP team members used study area boards to allow participants to illustrate transportation gaps and challenges. Participants high- lighted mobility challenges and recommendations with color-coded dot stickers and used markers to illustrate travel routes, gaps, and potential solutions.

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 47 Contra Costa Transportation Authority ■■ Interview Vignettes. CBTP team members used CCTA-approved questions to Participation interview volunteers about personal information, mobility gaps they encounter PlaceWorks staff recorded eight detailed interviews and facilitated map exercises daily, and ideas for overcoming them. The goal of these interviews was to record and/or discussions with about 25 individuals, as shown in Figure 4-5. true narratives of mobility gaps faced by challenged communities in the study area. Parts of these interviews are highlighted in sidebars of this chapter. Figure 4-5: GRIP Popup Event Responses The CBTP team categorized feedback from these sessions into the following four groups of mobility challenges: 30 25 1. Pedestrian Mobility Challenges: These are challenges related to gaps in, and conditions of, pedestrian facilities and infrastructure. This category also 20 includes physical barriers to pedestrian mobility, such as dangerous railroad 15 and highway intersections. 10 2. Bicycle Mobility Challenges: These are challenges related to gaps in, and 5 conditions of, bikeways. This category also includes physical barriers to bicy- 0 cling, such as dangerous railroad and highway intersections. Board and Dot Feedback In-Depth Interviews 3. Transit Challenges: Challenges related to transit access, bus stops, and shel- Participants ters, fixed-route planning and service, paratransit service, and transit cost. Feedback 4. Safety and Other Challenges: These are challenges to safe and secure mobility, GRIP participants described multiple mobility barriers across the spectrum of bicy- disabled access, and student access and safety. cle, pedestrian, transit, and safety issues. Many individuals at this event were very 4.4.2.1 Greater Richmond Interfaith Program Community Lunch low-income and without automobiles. Most were frequent visitors to multiple City and community-based support facilities, such as GRIP. As such, they were familiar with The Greater Richmond Interfaith Program (GRIP) is a Richmond-based coalition of the challenges of routinely accessing these facilities, as well as the routes connecting congregations from varied faiths, dedicated to supporting communities in need to the facilities to one another and to bus stops and BART stations. Seniors at this event gain self-sufficiency.1 As part of its comprehensive assistance program, GRIP main- described mobility gaps associated with lack of direct access to the Richmond social tains a free lunch program for community members between 11:30 a.m. and 1:00 security office and other senior services. Participants expressed mobility challenges p.m. daily, at its central location at 165 22nd Street in Richmond. According to GRIP related to bus frequency and inconsistency, conditions for pedestrians and cyclists staff, the program serves community members from throughout the CBTP study area. accessing GRIP and other facilities and transit hubs, street and bus stop lighting, CBTP team members attended a GRIP lunch service and set up a pop-up booth in the neighborhood and corridor safety, homelessness, and crime. Given the location of parking lot on November 26, 2019. Individuals supported by the event participated the event, responses were generally focused on the central Richmond portion of the in the feedback process as they entered and exited the GRIP facility. The CBTP team CBTP study area. also interviewed GRIP staff about their mobility challenges getting to and from the GRIP location, as well as those they hear from their clients.

1 Greater Richmond Interfaith Program website, Organization and Mission webpage,https://gripcares.org/grid/grip- organization-and-mission/, accessed May 2, 2020.

48 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Summary of Results Participant Input Figure 4-6 shows that of the 54 unique responses resulting from the Board and Dot The following are patterns of mobility concerns and barriers recorded during the exercises and in-depth interviews, 11 targeted pedestrian mobility gaps, 14 targeted event. They have been clarified for readability and/or transferred from markings on bicycle mobility gaps, and 17 targeted transit mobility gaps. Twelve responses were maps. However, they include original insight and ideas, and have not been ground- specifically related to unsafe or perceived unsafe conditions. truthed against current conditions and/or ongoing plans and projects. The latter process occurred during the evaluation and prioritization of CBTP recommendations Figure 4-6: GRIP Popup Event Feedback by Type presented in Chapter 5 of this study. Bicycle Challenges 18 16 Participants identified: 14 ■■ Gaps in bicycle facilities on San Pablo Avenue and other major corridors. 12 ●● Bike lane on San Pablo Avenue starting at the intersection with Rumrill Boule- 10 vard and College Lane does not extend westward towards Richmond. 8 ●● Add protected lanes on San Pablo Avenue and Carlson Boulevard. 6 ●● Need bike improvements along Ohio Avenue east of 2nd Street, like traf- 4 fic-separated facilities. 2 ●● Need better bike lanes on Macdonald Avenue behind Nicholl Park. 0 Pedestrian Bicycle Transit Safety ■■ Bicycle Conditions Surrounding Nicholl Park area. A major theme across all categories was the impact of substandard lighting and lack ●● Cyclists avoid the Richmond Greenway adjacent to Nicholl Park because of of safety features on non-auto mobility (roughly 12 comments highlighted these safety issues and lack of lighting. issues as barriers). Note that this input about the impact of safety on a specific mode ●● There needs to be better bike lanes and lighting on Macdonald Avenue adja- of travel is categorized within that travel mode, not within the “Safety” category. cent to Nicholl Park. Thus: ■■ Comments about subjects such as inadequate lighting or substandard fencing for sidewalks are categorized under “Pedestrian.” ■■ Comments regarding lighting or sight lines on bike lanes are categorized under “Bicycle.” ■■ Comments regarding bus stop lighting, poor shelters, or driver behavior are categorized under “Transit.” ■■ Comments about neighborhood, personal, or other safety concerns not target- ing mobility are categorized under “Safety.”

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 49 Contra Costa Transportation Authority Pedestrian Challenges Transit Challenges Participants identified: Participants identified: ■■ Sidewalk conditions on BART line crossings are difficult and dangerous for pe- ■■ Poor Bus Shelter Conditions (more than 8 comments) destrians ●● Lack of seating and lighting at stops along Macdonald Avenue, specifically ●● Barrett Avenue undercrossing 21st, and 23rd, and 25th Streets; Civic Center ●● Macdonald Avenue undercrossing ■■ Lack of Transit Access to Support Services (5 comments) ●● Pennsylvania Avenue overcrossing ●● Need subsidized evening shuttle access to GRIP and other facilities ■■ Lack of pedestrian overcrossings in key locations ●● WestCat Route 19 does not provide direct access to Social Security office ●● Need a pedestrian bridge over Richmond Parkway at Goodrick Avenue, for ●● Improve transit access to the Richmond Care Center access to Point Pinole Park. ●● Dial-a-ride shuttle between the Richmond BART station and Kaiser Perma- ●● Need a pedestrian crossing over the train tracks to the west of Richmond so nente that people can access views of San Rafael and San Pablo Bay. ■■ Specific Route Challenges ●● Route 72 is inconsistent and frequently late “Children use the pedestrian “I travel from Antioch to ●● Route 76 toward El Cerrito Del Norte BART is highly used and frequently late undercrossings below the Richmond a few days a Safety Challenges BART/railroad tracks at Barrett week because there are Participants identified: Avenue and Macdonald so many good services in ■■ Area Surrounding Nicholl Park Avenue to get to and from Richmond but I have…family school, but the lighting and in Antioch. I walk to [Contra ●● Segment of Macdonald Avenue adjacent to Nicholl Park feels unsafe now waste, like broken glass and Costa County] Employment due to street litter, cars, and encampments. needles, is bad. The same is & Human Services on ●● Most of the neighborhood surrounding Nicholl Park is “sketchy.” true for other pedestrian ramps Macdonald, but I wish it was ●● Macdonald Avenue in this area is described as a “war zone” due to homeless overcrossings…over the BART/ easier to get to by transit and lack of lighting. Train tracks, especially the because Macdonald can by ●● Commercial Truck Cut-Throughs entrance ramp on 13th Street.” intimidating to a woman at ●● Large commercial trucks in the ‘flats’ of Richmond create danger for other – Orlando and Elaine, Hilltop night.” drivers and people walking or biking. Children walk in areas that are not safe residents with school-aged – Brooke, age 21, off- and for pedestrians due to commercial trucks, people speeding, and incomplete children on-homeless sidewalks. ●● There should be a timing mechanism for when commercial trucks are allowed to pass through certain areas.

50 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority ■■ Shields-Reid Area Feedback ●● Area north of Chesley Avenue is dangerous, and many kids using Shields-Reid Summary of Results Park and Community Center, as well as churches in the neighborhood. Figure 4-8 shows that of the 30 total unique comments the CBTP project team ●● Fred Jackson Way, Hensley Street, and others are full of “road-racers” who solicited from councilmembers and attendees, 20 were focused on pedestrian mo- speed down streets without enforcement. bility gaps and 10 targeted transit mobility gaps. No feedback about bicycle-related challenges or safety-specific issues was collected at this event. ●● Residents of future senior housing complex in the area will be in danger.

4.4.2.2 Richmond Youth Council Meeting Figure 4-8: Richmond youth Council Meeting Feedback by Type PlaceWorks staff reached out to Trina Jackson, Staff Liaison to the Richmond City Youth Council, and Project Steering Committee member, who organized a CBTP input 25 segment during a monthly Richmond Youth Council, on December 10, 2019. During 20 this agenda item, youth councilmembers discussed their transportation needs as well 15 as those faced by the population of Richmond youth they represent. PlaceWorks staff supplied a large map clipped to foam core, markers, and stickers so councilmembers 10 were able to locate specific areas in need of transportation improvements. This item 5 ran for approximately 45 minutes. 0 Pedestrian Bicycle Transit Safety Participation Like the feedback from the GRIP outreach event, a theme of the input from this PlaceWorks staff completed detailed interviews of all five councilmembers at the event was the impact of poor lighting conditions on mobility, particularly along San meeting, as shown in Figure 4-7. All five councilmembers, as well as 15 additional Pablo Avenue and surrounding the Shoppes at Hilltop. Another common concern meeting attendees, also provided location and segment input via dot-and-board was about unsafe pedestrian crossings at specific locations along San Pablo Avenue, exercises. Macdonald Avenue, and Cutting Boulevard.

Participant Input Figure 4-7: Richmond Youth Council Meeting Responses Bicycle Challenges 25 While there were no comments specially targeting bicycle improvements, many 20 recommendations that were made regarding pedestrian street safety would be ben- eficial to cyclists, particularly those concerning street lighting and crosswalk safety. 15 10 5 0 Board and Dot Feedback In-Depth Interviews Participants

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 51 Contra Costa Transportation Authority Pedestrian Challenges Transit Challenges Participants identified: Participants identified: ■■ Poor pedestrian conditions on San Pablo Avenue ■■ Inadequate bus stops and shelters ■■ Poor pedestrian conditions surrounding Nicholl Park ●● WestCat bus stop at Cutting Boulevard and Key Boulevard is highly used but has no shelter or seats ●● Crosswalk on Macdonald Avenue is mid-block and has no signal Many AC Transit stops along San Pablo Avenue lack seats and/or shelters ●● Signage does not alert drivers ●● Lack of safety measures for young riders on BART and buses. ■■ Poor pedestrian conditions surrounding the Shoppes at Hilltop ■■ Inconsistent service and lateness of Route 76 to El Cerrito Del Norte BART ●● Lack of sidewalk lighting ■■ Lyft/Uber are better alternatives ●● Lack of crosswalk reflectors and signalization ●● ■■ Student pedestrian safety surrounding Kennedy High School 4.4.2.3 Senior Produce Brown Bag at the Booker T. Anderson ●● Cutting Boulevard between South 49th Street and the highway has unsafe Community Center crossings, which students must use. The Booker T. Anderson Community Center, located in the Eastshore/Panhandle An- nex neighborhoods of Richmond, hosts a bi-monthly produce service for Richmond ■■ Unsafe driving conditions around Pacific East Mall seniors. CBTP team members interviewed participants about their transportation Roads and signage are confusing for motorists around Central Avenue, which ●● experiences on December 13, 2019, while they waited to receive groceries. impacts pedestrian safety. ●● Multiple stop-controlled intersections where you can’t see oncoming cross Participation traffic. PlaceWorks staff recorded two detailed interviews and facilitated map exercises and/ or discussions with 16 individuals. See Figure 4-9. “I definitely don’t feel safe walking “The AC transit bus stop down San Pablo [Avenue] at night. It at San Pablo Avenue Figure 4-9: Senior Produce Brownbag Responses is dark starting from Central Avenue and Potrero Avenue has 18 in El Cerrito and continuing all the a shelter but nowhere 16 way north through Richmond. I see to sit. I always drive 14 people crossing at night and cars past and see people 12 don’t see them and slam on their sitting on the lawn 10 breaks.” in front of Denny’s 8 6 – Ashlee, Richmond Youth because there are no 4 Councilmember and a Berkeley City seats.” 2 College student – Kashaf 0 Board and Dot Feedback In-Depth Interviews Participants

52 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Feedback ■■ Poor conditions on Potrero Avenue between Carlson Boulevard and Highway 80 Summary of Results ●● Intersection of Carlson Boulevard and Potrero Avenue is dangerous Figure 4-10 shows that of the 23 unique comments PlaceWorks staff received during ●● Lack of adequate lighting along this stretch the Booker T. Anderson Senior Brown Bag event, 6 were regarding pedestrian im- ●● Many cars use this segment to get to highway, but it is also a route to Stege provements, 13 were regarding transit improvements, and 3 responses concerned Elementary School [4949 Cypress Avenue] and Booker T. Anderson Commu- safety and other improvements. nity Center. ■■ Area needs more and better curb cuts, with gentler slopes, for people in wheel- Figure 4-10: Senior Brown Bag Feedback by Type chairs and using mobility devices

14 Transit Challenges 12 Participants identified: 10 ■■ Kaiser Permanente and Richmond Care Center are difficult to get to on transit 8 for those who can’t walk far 6 ■■ AC Transit Routes that are popular with seniors are also unreliable 4 ●● Route 72 needs more buses daily 2 0 ●● Route 71 bus is often late Pedestrian Bicycle Transit Safety ■■ Conditions of stops along well-travelled AC Transit Routes make it difficult to use public transit The majority occurrence of transit- and paratransit-related comments is not surpris- ing, given the reliance on public transit by the elderly and those with disabilities. ●● Bus stops in the area generally lack seating Similarly, participants expressed no bicycle barriers, but rather indirect impacts of ●● Routes 71 and 40, specifically, are missing seating and shelters at key stops the bicycle network on pedestrian movement. While the quantity of feedback about ●● Resulting standing can cause back and knee pain for seniors safety was relatively low, comments suggested an overall concern for well-being in ●● Stops on Route 71 are without adequate signage the study area and sense of risk. ●● There is a general lack of real-time adequate signage along bus routes Participant Input ●● Signage and timetables along routes are written in font size that is too small Pedestrian Challenges to read Participants identified: ■■ Paratransit is unreliable ■■ Difficult walking on/near bike paths in Richmond ●● Participants have experienced not being picked up at all following scheduled ●● Marked lanes for cyclists going one way or the other makes it scary for those pick-ups walking slowly, or with a cane or wheelchair

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 53 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 4.5 Outreach Summary

4.5.1 Total Participation As shown in Figure 4-11, over 120 community members provided input during the Richmond-area CBTP outreach process this figure also shows the number of par- ticipants at each outreach event. The CBTP team performed 15 in-depth interviews with volunteer interviewees, including teen councilmembers, low-income mothers, and senior citizens. Over 60 people provided feedback by participating in visual and mapping techniques, and just under 50 people attended County planning events.

Figure 4-11: Total Outreach Counts

140 120 100 80 60 Safety Challenges “I go to the Eastmont 40 Participants identified: Town Center in Oakland 20 for services and medical ■■ Sense of unsafe conditions in the Central Richmond business area (Iron Triangle) at 0 appointments. It’s really Board and Dot In-Depth County Total night hard to get there on Feedback Interviews Planning Participation transit from Richmond. ●● Area needs better lighting Participants Paratransit is totally ●● Area needs better signage unreliable. I am…happy ■■ Overall high crime rates in CBTP area make that the Lifelong Over going out in the evening frightening 60 Health Center in Berkeley picks me up from home...” – Joanna, 62 years old

54 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority 4.5.2 Feedback Summary As shown in Figure 4-12, members of COCs in the Richmond area confront transit and pedestrian mobility barriers at about the same rate, and bicycle and safety bar- riers at about half that rate. However, safety and security are integral to barrier-free active mobility, and as such, many concerns about walking, cycling, and transit relate to issues such as improper lighting, sense of isolation, and poor network conditions. Safety concerns outside the context of a specific travel mode were largely about fear of travel due to perceived risks in certain neighborhoods and overall lack of safety around community destinations such as parks or schools.

Figure 4-12: Total Responses Collected by Type

Safety 16%

Pedestrian 35%

Transit 34% Bicycle 15%

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 55 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 5. Methodology and Recommendations

This chapter identifies all recommended projects and plans. It outlines the evalu- ation criteria, evaluation methodology, and scoring approach used to identify and rank those recommendations. Potential funding sources, a key consideration in the evaluation process, are summarized.

5.1 COVID-19 and CBTP Development

As explained in Section 1.5, the COVID-19 pandemic emerged following the commu- nity outreach process of this CBTP. As a result, the community and stakeholder feed- back in this plan does not reflect the changes in mobility context, habits, priorities, and challenges due to COVID-19 and formal shelter-in-place orders.

However, the scoring process was developed following shelter-in-place regulations. These regulations prompted significant shifts in the financial feasibility and imple- mentation potential of key project types. For example, AC Transit has responded to reduced ridership by suspending operation of weekday-only local lines. Conversely, East Contra Costa County BART stations have been serving more than double the system average, as compared to normal ridership. This reaffirms that there are major transit needs in the area that require fulfillment both during and post-COVID.

The Contra Costa Transportation Authority decided to adopt this plan in the current context, rather than re-initiate the existing conditions, community outreach, and recommendations processes. The evaluation and scoring of recommendations in this plan reflect post-COVID feasibility conditions.

56 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority 5.2 Evaluation Criteria

The CBTP project team worked with the Project Working Group (PWG) on February 3, 2020, to establish four evaluation criteria deemed appropriate to rank projects by their ability to improve mobility for challenged communities. Criteria such as diverse community benefit, degree of transportation improvement, current relevance, future technological challenges, usability and access, available funding, potential for cross-jurisdictional challenges, and ability to resolve mobility barriers were dis- cussed.

Ultimately, the following four criteria were selected to score projects and plans: 1. Reflects Community Priorities 2. Increases Access 3. Is Financially Feasible 4. Ease of Implementation

5.2.1 Reflects Community priorities This criterion is the degree to which a project or plan is consistent with the priorities 5.2.2 Increases Access and needs of residents, community stakeholders, and leaders in Communities of This criterion is the potential of a project to improve access to key facilities and Concern (COC). Projects were ranked highly under this criterion if they: locations across the study area. As noted in Chapter 1, the current CBTP study area ■■ Reflect a theme in the community feedback collected during the CBTP outreach encompasses COCs in the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, and El Cerrito, as well as un- process described in Chapter 4; incorporated areas of Contra Costa County, including North Richmond, Rollingwood, Montalvin Manor, Tara Hills, and Bayview. Given the geographic scale and diversity ■■ Are consistent with community mobility challenges identified in past plans and of mobility gaps across the study area, projects with one of two benefits score highly studies and the existing conditions analysis prepared for this CBTP; under this criterion: those that would improve connectivity between systems and ■■ Support transportation goals established in current plans and studies; and those that would facilitate mobility for groups challenged by limited options. ■■ Are consistent with projects prioritized in the previous Bay Point CBTP, but not yet implemented. 5.2.3 Is financially Feasible Cost and feasibility are important considerations for evaluating projects. This criteri- on considers more than the anticipated budget of a project, as one project may be more expensive than another but it may be eligible for a range of different funding sources, while the other project may be less expensive but does not fit into readily available funding categories.

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 57 Contra Costa Transportation Authority MTC’s CBTP guidelines are developed to ensure that mobility recommendations are the result of community input. Assessing the financial feasibility of projects is a tool to identify projects that are likely to find further support and move quickly to im- plementation. Projects were ranked under this criterion by estimates of hard costs, analyzing the potential for funding based on project type, and reviewing historical financial challenges.

Many of the recommendations outlined in this plan, especially those relating to transit service, are outside the committed funding sources. These needs must be addressed in future allocations of funding, such as pursuit of outside grant funding sources.

Ranking projects under this criterion included reviewing potential funding sources for local and countywide mobility projects. These include:

■■ Senate Bill 375 - California Senate Bill (SB) 375, passed in 2008, directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to set up regional targets for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with regional Metropolitan Planning Organi- zations (MPOs). The GHG targets are implemented through the MPO’s regional Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS). Below are a list of funding and grants offered by MTC as part of their SCS in fulfillment of SB 375. ●● Lifeline Transportation Program - funds offered by MTC for projects that are identified through a collaborative, inclusive, community-driven process, and ●● Caltrans Active Transportation, Complete Streets, and Safe Routes to School that address transportation gaps and barriers identified in Community Based Programs - Active Transportation grants fund transportation improvements Transportation Plans or other local planning efforts in low-income neighbor- that foster healthy activity, namely walking and biking. Complete Streets hoods. grants improve sidewalks and curbs that connect to important destinations. Safe Routes to School grants fund projects that provide safe walking and ●● One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG) - These grants are rewarded to tran- biking routes between neighborhoods and local schools. sit-oriented development projects located in Priority Development Areas—ar- eas targeted for compact growth identified in Plan Bay Area (MTC’s SCS). Pri- ●● Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Grants - BAAQMD ority is given to cities and counties that have been proactive in creating more offers a variety of funding sources for projects that reduce air pollution in the housing and who have accepted a proportionally higher allocation of housing Bay Area, like their Carl Moyer Program, which provides grants to replace or units through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process. upgrade heavy-duty diesel vehicles.

■■ Measure J, Countywide Transportation Sales Tax - Measure J provides half-cent sales tax revenue for transportation projects through 2034. The expenditure plan that guides the Measure includes $360 million for local street and roads, as well as $123 million for transit projects supporting seniors and the disabled.

58 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority ■■ Transportation n for Livable Communities (TLC) - These funds are intended to support local efforts to achieve more compact, mixed-use development, and development that is pedestrian-friendly or linked into the overall transit system. ■■ California Air Resources Board (CARB) Sustainable Transportation Equity Proj- ect (STEP) - This is a pilot program launched in 2020 that funds transportation and planning projects that reduce GHG emissions in California. ■■ Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5310 - Enhanced Mobility of Se- niors and People with Disabilities Program - As the title suggests, this program funds projects that improve mobility for seniors and people with disabilities by identifying and removing barriers and improving transportation services like paratransit. This project is part of the FAST Act of 2015. ■■ TRANSPAC Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program (STMP) - TRANSPAC (Transportation Partnership and Cooperation) is a Regional Transportation Plan- ning Committee for Central Contra Costa County. The STMP collects mitigation fees from new developments and allocates it to the most appropriate and effec- tive regional transportation projects that increase the capacity of transportation systems to accommodate new development. ■■ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grants - These grants, adminis- tered by the Federal Highway Administration, fund projects that are meant to significantly reduce traffic fatalities on public roads. The HSIP program is a part of the 2015 FAST Act. ■■ Regional Surface Transportation Block Grant - These are grants provided by the FTA to states and localities for different transportation projects, including highway improvements, bridge or tunnel projects on public roads, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects. ■■ Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) - Created by congress in 1964, Land and Water Conservation Funds are used to purchase land for all types of parks, from national parks to community trails and neighborhood ball parks. ■■ Recreational Trails and Greenways Grant Program - Funded by Proposition 68, this program will fund projects that provide nonmotorized infrastructure development and enhancements that promote new or alternate access to parks, waterways, and outdoor recreational pursuits to encourage health‐related active transportation.

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 59 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 5.2.4 Ease of Implementation 4. Presenting the draft CBTP to the project Steering Committee for document review and evaluation of recommendations. Numerous factors influence the ease or difficulty of initiating, completing, and putting a project into action. While a recommended project or program may align 5. Revising and finalizing priority projects and plans based on comments of the with community priorities, likely benefit many and appear a candidate for funding, Steering Committee. assessing the challenges of implementation remains critical. Determining that the challenges of implementation of a single project are significant, facilitates the identi- 5.3.1 Criteria Scoring Categories fication of other, more implementable projects that achieve the same benefits. Recommendations were scored one through five for each evaluation criterion. A score of one reflects the lowest potential for fulfillment of that category; five the Factors used to assess the ease of implementation of recommendations include: highest. For all project and plans, the following score averages were calculated: ■■ Required cross-agency coordination ■■ Area Need Score: The average score of Criterion 1 (Reflects Community Priori- ■■ Cross-jurisdictional physical footprint ties) and Criterion 2 (Increases Access) ■■ Engineering complexity ■■ Project Potential Score: The average score of Criterion 3 (Financial Feasibility) ■■ Lack of technological “future proofing;” i.e., the potential that a project will and Criterion 4 (Ease of Implementation) become obsolete due to new technologies Projects and plans have been categorized into three groups based on the results of this scoring system. 5.3 Evaluation Process High Need + High Potential Recommendations As noted, the evaluation criteria outlined in Section 5.2 were developed in consulta- These recommendations received an Area Need Score of 3.5 or above and a Project tion with the PWG and then applied to candidate projects. This was part of a larger Potential Score of 3.5 or above. These projects and programs are consistent with evaluation process that included: community priorities, as reflected in mobility gaps identified in the CBTP outreach 1. Developing lists of potential projects and plans directly from community mem- process, ongoing studies, and recommendations of the previous CBTP. These proj- bers during the outreach process, for review by the PWG. The PWG weighed ects have the highest potential to reduce broad or specific access gaps that currently in as a group and individually to identify projects with high potential based on challenge community members. recommendations. In addition, these recommendations are also unlikely to face significant implemen- 2. Working with the PWG to develop the evaluation criteria outlined in Section 5.2. tation challenges, as shown in high average scores for financial feasibility and ease 3. Applying the four criteria to potential projects and plans, including: of implementation. ●● Assessing candidate projects against existing mobility plans to identify those High Need + High Potential Recommendations should be considered for near-term supportive of relevant mobility goals or redundant with implemented proj- planning and implementation. ects. ●● Assessing the feasibility of candidate projects in terms of required agency coordination, funding potential, and historic implementation challenges.

60 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 61 Contra Costa Transportation Authority High Need Recommendations High Need Recommendations received an Area Need Score of 3.5 or above and a Project Potential Score of below 3.5. These projects will fulfill community priorities and increase community access but may be difficult to complete due to funding and costs, cross-jurisdictional management, engineering, and other implementation challenges.

These projects should be considered for the future. They reflect the community’s needs and past study results. The jurisdictions, agencies, and stakeholders that would likely need to coordinate on implementation should remain open to future management structures. Creative funding sources should be researched.

5.3.2 Project Types Recommendations fall within the following three types of projects and plans:

Active Transportation. These are generally capital improvements that increase safe, healthy, active transportation choices, namely walking and biking, for every- day trips. Examples include improvements to trails and greenways, separated bike paths and cycle tracks connecting to jobs, grocery stores and transit, intersection improvements, and providing bike lockers and storage at important destinations like job centers and transit hubs. 5.4 Recommended Projects and Plans

Transit. Transit projects may include new routes, expanding operating hours of cer- The following section includes all recommended projects and plans across the three tain lines, increasing transit line frequency, or improving transit stops with lighting, categories for the Richmond CBTP study area, as identified by the scoring system shelter, and seating. described in Section 5.3.

School Safety. School safety projects provide safe, non-motorized routes between High Need + High Potential Recommendations are shown on Figure 5-1. where people live and local schools. Projects include enhancing school-adjacent crosswalks with signals and flashing beacons, providing neighborhood bike path access directly to schools, and improving lighting along these and other routes commonly traveled by students.

62 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Figure 5-1 High Need + High Potential Recommendations

Pkwy

Richmond

Rumrill Blvd

ADA Upgrade Area Verde Elementary School School Safety Project or Program

High Use Bus Routes for Potential Shelter Upgrades

22nd St Pedestrian Facility or Upgrade

Carloson Blvd John F. Kennedy High School Bicycle Facility or Nicholl Park Upgrade

City Vision Zero Plan

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 63 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 5.4.1 High Need + High Potential Recommendations 5.4.1.1 Active Transportation Projects and Programs As noted in Section 5.3, High Need + High Potential Recommendations are those projects Active Transportation Projects, including bicycle and pedestrian programs and programs most consistent with community priorities. They have the highest potential and related capital improvements, comprise the majority of the High Need to reduce access gaps that currently challenge community members. In addition, they are + High Potential Recommendations. Not only were such projects identified financially feasible and would face minimal implementation challenges. They received scores by the community, in current studies and during CBTP advisor coordina- of 3.5 or above for both Area Need and Project Potential. tion, but funding for active transportation and multi-modal safety remains available in the wake of COVID-19 mobility changes. The following tables summarize recommendations across project type. Each table includes recommendations, Area Need score, Project Potential score, and estimated cost.

Table 5-1 High Need + High Potential Active Transportation Projects and Programs

Area Need Score Project Potential Estimated Recommendation (3.5+) Score (3.5 +) Cost

Fill bicycle gaps on street networks surrounding public schools and neighborhood parks:

Fill bicycle gaps surrounding Nicholl Park/DeJean Middle School by installing a Class III Bike Boulevard Route on Harry 3.5 4.25 $105,000 Ells Place from Richmond Greenway to Nevin Avenue.

Fill bicycle gaps surrounding John F. Kennedy High School and Laurel Park by installing a Class III Bike Boulevard Route 4 3.65 $330,000 along entire Berk Avenue/49th Street loop.

Fill bicycle gaps surrounding Unity Park Community Plaza by installing a Class III Bike Boulevard Route on 16th Street 3.75 3.5 $125,000 from McDonald Avenue to Richmond Greenway.

Install a Class III Super Sharrow Route on Macdonald Avenue from Richmond Parkway to Key Boulevard. 3.75 3.75 $90,000

Increase pedestrian safety along San Pablo Avenue from Cutting Boulevard to Rumrill Boulevard, with crosswalks, $3.5 million to 5 3.5 signals and lighting improvements coordinated with future transit services planned by WCCTAC and AC Transit. $5 million

Close sidewalk gaps, improve existing sidewalk conditions and improve access to bus stops along the west side of San $750,000 to 4.5 4 Pablo Avenue between Tara Hills Drive and Murphy Drive in San Pablo. $1.25 million

Increase pedestrian safety along MacDonald Avenue from San Pablo Avenue to Richmond Parkway, with crosswalks, $5 million to 4.5 3.5 signals and lighting improvements coordinated with future transit services planned by WCCTAC and AC Transit. $10 million

Install or improve ADA-compliant curb ramps in high-use areas of Tara Hills, Montalvin Manor and Rollingwood 4.5 5 $12,000 per ramp communities.

Initiate City of San Pablo and City of El Cerrito Vision Zero Plans 3.5 4 $250,000 per plan

64 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority 5.4.1.2 Transit projects and Programs 5.4.1.3 School Safety projects and Programs Public transit projects, including improved paratransit programming, are a high pri- As of this draft CBTP, all schools and facilities within the West Contra Costa County ority for communities in the Richmond CBTP study area. This is reflected in feedback School District are closed to classroom learning for the 2020 to 2021 school year. As on AC Transit routes, improved BART access, and upgrades to bus stop amenities noted in Section 5.1, these conditions make it difficult to predict implementation along major corridors. of school safety projects. However, funding for previously identified Safe Routes to School programs increases the potential for these projects. However, declining transit revenues and loss of funding in the wake of COVID-19 have reduced the current financial feasibility of transit projects. As a result of current conditions, most transit recommendations received a lower Project Potential score and fall under the High Need Recommendations category.

Table 5-2 High Need + High Potential Transit Projects and Programs Table 5-3 High Need + High Potential Transit Projects and Programs

Project Project Area Area Potential Estimated Potential Estimated Recommendation Need Score Recommendation Need Score Score Cost Score Cost (3.5+) (3.5+) (3.5 +) (3.5 +)

Install lighting, signage and shelter 3.5 $20,000 to 4.5 Implement Safe Routes to School infra- 5 4 $400,000 to improvements consistent with 2019 $30,000 per $700,000 stop structure improvements along segment NACTO and ADA standards at up to 10 of Cutting Boulevard that connects El bus stops along Routes 71 and 40, or Cerrito Del Norte BART Station and high-use corridors. Kennedy High School (between South 45th Street and San Pablo Avenue).

Implement circulation and safety 4.5 3.5 $300,000 to improvements, including potential $600,000 secondary entrance, on the Verde Elementary School campus.

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 65 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 5.4.2 High Need Recommendations As noted in Section 5.3, High Need Recommendations are consistent with commu- nity priorities and have high potential to reduce access gaps. However, they may be more difficult to complete than High Need + High Potential Recommendations due to funding, management, engineering, and other implementation challenges. They received an Area Need Score of 3.5 or above, and a Project Potential Score below 3.5.

5.4.2.1 Active Transportation Projects and Programs

66 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority 5.4.2.2 Transit Projects and Programs Table 5-4 High Need Active Transportation Projects and Programs

Project Table 5-5 High Need Transit Projects and Programs Area Need Potential Estimated Project Recommendation Score Score Cost Area Need Potential (3.5 +) (below Estimated Recommendation Score Score 3.5) Cost (3.5 +) (below Widen sidewalks, improve lighting, and $5 million to 3.5) increase maintenance conditions of the 3.75 2 $8 million Barrett Avenue/BART undercrossing. Increase the frequency of AC transit Route 76 $1.5 million from 30 minutes to 15 minutes to increase 4 1.5 to $2.5 Widen sidewalks, improve lighting, and access to BART stations throughout the CBTP $5 million to million increase maintenance conditions of the 4 2 study area. $8 million Macdonald Avenue/BART undercrossing. Amend the Hilltop Mall loop of WestCat Route $500,000 to Widen sidewalks, improve lighting, and 19 to provide direct service to the Richmond 3.5 2.5 $5 million to $1 million increase maintenance conditions of the 3.75 1.5 Social Security Office at 3164 Garrity Way. $8 million Pennsylvania Avenue/BART overcrossing. Program a City-subsidized shuttle service Extend current terminus of recent San Pablo $1.6 million routed from BART Stations in the CBTP Avenue complete streets improvements from 3.75 2.75 to $2.4 study area to social service facilities that support mobility-challenged communities, Rivers Street to Rumrill Boulevard. million Up to including: Greater Richmond Interfaith 3.5 2 $350,000 Program, Richmond Senior Citizens Center, El Develop pedestrian, bicycle and transit user Cerrito Senior Center, San Pablo Senior Center, safety program, including infrastructure, Richmond Health Center and North Richmond signalization and striping components, on 4.5 3 $4 million Center for Health. Central Avenue from San Pablo Avenue through Interstate 80 intersection. Close gaps in R-Transit programming by 4 1.5 $500,000 expanding holiday and weekend service. Develop Barrett Avenue “road diet” program at Interstate 80 to reduce auto speeds and $2 million to Improve coordination between R-Transit increase pedestrian safety. Components 4 2.5 $4 million program and East Bay Paratransit to avoid 4 3 $50,000 include speed humps, bulb-outs, rapid duplicating services. flashing beacons and lane diet. Install new paratransit bays at Richmond Area Reduce impacts of commercial truck by-pass- BART stations to accommodate expanded 4 1 $750,000 es on local travel routes with recommenda- $20,000 service and improve vehicle access. tions from the Development Program Report for signage for the North Richmond Area of Benefit, such 3.75 3.25 program to as truck restriction signage, truck calming $3 million in measures and improved pedestrian and infrastructure bicycle infrastructure.

Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan 67 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 5.4.2.3 School Safety Projects and Programs

Table 5-6 High Need School Safety Projects and Programs

Project Area Need Potential Estimated Recommendation Score Score Cost (3.5 +) (below 3.5)

Implement a near-term safe routes to school program on streets surrounding Verde 4.5 2.5 $75,000 Elementary School.

Improve signalization and striping at I-80/ San Pablo Dam Road Interchange for safety of 4.5 2.5 $500,000 Riverside Elementary School students.

68 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority